Vista design being forced on XP?

This is a discussion on Vista design being forced on XP? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Anyway, I settled for VeryPDF . $10 cheaper, fully featured, simple clean interface. During the 2 day trial I didn't ...

  1. #91
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Anyway, I settled for VeryPDF. $10 cheaper, fully featured, simple clean interface. During the 2 day trial I didn't have to squint at my screen, browse through to find how to do something or fight against the interface in any other way. It was much nicer on my meager hardware resources too.

    As for the other two I decided to pass on my web host offer. I'm not on the PageRank freak market, I understand how to develop search bot friendly websites, and I can register the website manually on the several directories and search engines.

    But I had to confess here my annoyance at these interfaces following Vista interface guidelines, which aren't even toggable, and that seem to be populating the market, forcing XP users to accept them or find something elsewhere.

    EDIT: PS. I have nothing else to add to this thread.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 03-01-2008 at 05:38 AM.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #92
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,422
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    but seriously, there is a point where GUI becomes GEWWWWY. In the example shown before fully 2/3 of the screan is irrelevant crap. Maybe when our desktop is the size of our desks it wont be such a big deal, but honestly, they at least need to make this craptastic interface an option. Just one more reason for me to 'Skip Vista'.
    Toolbars and ribbons are good things where you can stuff shortcuts and such. Of course, you should be able to disable and hide them, much like you could with the good old toolbars. Forcing someone to see something is a no-no, I think. Yep. Evil.
    And in case someone thinks I'm sarcastic, since it might look like that, I'm not. I'm all for options.

    Quote Originally Posted by indigo0086 View Post
    They are also sneaky about hiding things within their own gui in an unintuitive way.
    100% agreed. Even if it's a security risk, they hide the options where you'll never find them and makes it difficult to use them, as well (*cough* Windows Firewall *cough*).

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    IMHO the command line is very good for certain things and can often do stuff faster than you can in a GUI. The downside is that it requires knowledge, without which you need to research and figure out what you are doing. Not something most people can be bothered to do. At the end of the day you can be thick as pigs hit and still figure out what to do in a GUI as long as you stare at the screen for long enough O_O
    This is typically where I disagree. Things like CLI should be hidden and removed as much as possible. My motto or stance is that if a CLI outdoes a GUI, then the GUI is flawed.
    You should be able to do everything you can in CLI in a GUI and just as fast. Then it's a good GUI.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Btw, isn't XP classic theme shiny enough?
    We all love "more" shininess

    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Anyway, I settled for VeryPDF. $10 cheaper, fully featured, simple clean interface. During the 2 day trial I didn't have to squint at my screen, browse through to find how to do something or fight against the interface in any other way. It was much nicer on my meager hardware resources too.
    Not fluffy or shiny, but that's pretty irrelevant if it's easier to use and easier on the hardware, though.
    But if that application you just chose would be fluffy with little hardware requirements (maintaining the easy-to-use of course), then it might have been a better application... I think?
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  3. #93
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    My motto or stance is that if a CLI outdoes a GUI, then the GUI is flawed.
    Remove the last "the" in the sentence, and you've got it right

    Seriously, though, there are some jobs where a GUI cannot outdo a CLI. Most importantly, GUIs are currently focused on the mouse, which is a ridiculously inefficient HI device, all things considered. There is nearly no muscle memory involved in using the mouse. They keyboard is all about muscle memory. Thus, it is the tool for the professional. People praised Opera for mouse gestures. I love Firefox for type-ahead-find.
    So what I'm saying is not quite true. The two-dimensional, graphical presentation of GUIs is superior to CLIs because it is more space-efficient and expressive. However, GUIs are still built for the mouse, which makes them bad for any job that isn't bound to a moving device anyway - like graphic programs.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  4. #94
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,422
    Well, CLI does have its use, of course, though I'd rather some DLL interface instead of command lines. But anyway, the general theory that CLI outdoes GUI is what I find to be lacking. And forcing people to use CLI instead of GUI is also wrong.
    The typical computer user has no idea what CLI is and will most likely get frustrated by them. And then there's GUI lovers, like me, who just hate the plain idea of CLI.

    But anyway, you're right of course...
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  5. #95
    Registered User AloneInTheDark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba View Post
    I guess he is Alone in the Dark on this one eh?
    I call myself "AloneInTheDark" because I am one of the few in the entire country with a specially high IQ.

    Go ahead, mock me all you want buddy boy. I don't give a flying hoot.

    You probably didn't know what a computer is when I wrote my first game.

  6. #96
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    A place where I always found CLI to be superior to GUI is debugging. After some training I could always be more effective, gather more information, and generally better debug my C++ code under gdb CLI than its GUI alternatives.

    One notable exception is perhaps SlickEdit. But this IDE is in another world of which C::B, Visual Studio or Eclipse (to name three common ones) can only dream of. And even so, I sometimes had to go back to the command line because after getting used to the CLI, I always found the GUI to be slower.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #97
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by AloneInTheDark View Post
    You probably didn't know what a computer is when I wrote my first game.
    No one believes in you. It's what you say and the way you say it that betrays the fact you are lying. You couldn't even answer my question and couldn't even specify which books you consider REAL books.

    So please go away. And let us keep with the discussion on this one.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  8. #98
    Super Moderator VirtualAce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    9,590
    You probably didn't know what a computer is when I wrote my first game.
    Not that it matters but I've had a computer since DOS 2.10 in 1981. It was an 8088 that ran at 4.77 MHz. Only things before that that I know of were Altair, C64, Tandy, and TRS 80's. And I probably have you beat on that as well since the first game I ever wrote was an adventure game and was on a TRS 80.

    Now back to the topic at hand. If you throw stones and live in a glass house then don't be surprised if you get hurt. Your behavior in this thread warrants these responses and more. Learn to be civilized and actually contribute to a discussion and perhaps people might change the way they treat you.
    Last edited by VirtualAce; 03-01-2008 at 03:18 PM.

  9. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    > they hide the options where you'll never find them and makes it difficult to use them, as well (*cough* Windows Firewall *cough*).

    the control panel is hidden?
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    But anyway, the general theory that CLI outdoes GUI is what I find to be lacking.
    That's probably becuase you've been using command.com and cmd. Try bash on Linux or some other Unixy computer. That is a lot better.
    Last edited by robwhit; 03-01-2008 at 09:22 PM.

  10. #100
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    The typical computer user has no idea what CLI is and will most likely get frustrated by them. And then there's GUI lovers, like me, who just hate the plain idea of CLI.
    That's why most CLI applications are not meant for dumbusers.

    And one good side of CLI applications is that they can easily be used as a part of another program. Think about how IDEs and compilers interact.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  11. #101
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,422
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    the control panel is hidden?
    No, of course not, but you to do some real digging to find options to enable it to restrict outgoing traffic. And even if you do find it, it isn't easy to use. Scrapwall.

    That's probably becuase you've been using command.com and cmd. Try bash on Linux or some other Unixy computer. That is a lot better.
    Now there's a problem. I don't have Linux, never tried it and among the mess of thousands of distributions, there's no way I can one that I like.

    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    And one good side of CLI applications is that they can easily be used as a part of another program. Think about how IDEs and compilers interact.
    That's something I disprove of. Use a DLL interface instead. Far better.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #102
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    among the mess of thousands of distributions
    A dozen, if you count some of the less popular ones.

    Ubuntu, Debian, Slack, RH, FC, SuSE, Gentoo = 7
    These are the core ones. Strike Debian and RH if you want a desktop system, and Gentoo if it's your first Linux, and you're down to 4.

    there's no way I can one that I like.
    That's unsound reasoning. Just because there are many means that you can't find one that you like? There is no logical connection between the two.

    That's something I disprove of.
    Disapprove.

    Command line apps often can be chained - DLLs can't be without writing glue.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  13. #103
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,422
    Darn, many typos today :/

    That's unsound reasoning. Just because there are many means that you can't find one that you like? There is no logical connection between the two.
    ...there's no way I can find one that I like.

    Command line apps often can be chained - DLLs can't be without writing glue.
    Not sure what you're hinting at...
    With a proper interface, using DLLs would be far easier.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  14. #104
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Writing a GUI for a DLL is easier than writing a GUI that wraps a CLI app, true. I was talking about processing apps, though. Suppose you have an application that processes data, and then another one. If they're CLI apps, you can probably just chain them. If they're GUI apps, not so much. If the processing is in DLLs, also not really.
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  15. #105
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,422
    Yes, the biggest problem typically comes when you need to use schedulers or other such things to chain commands. In a programming environment, it works just fine with DLLs, though.
    But surely one could write a simple app that accesses and calls a DLL interface. Microsoft already has one: rundll32.exe.
    Plus I'd think writing a scheduler to be able to take advantage of a DLL interface can't be difficult either, but I don't see anyone doing it, though. Shame.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Trying to Install XP over Vista with SATA HD
    By Shamino in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-13-2008, 05:56 PM
  2. Sound worked in XP; not in Vista
    By lostpuppy in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-12-2008, 12:25 AM
  3. A question about windows programming
    By Hussain Hani in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 07:38 AM
  4. Windows XP (and Vista) shiney look and feel
    By lightatdawn in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 09-18-2005, 02:56 PM
  5. Question..
    By pode in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-19-2004, 06:05 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21