That's an interesting list that shows today's understanding of the word "modern".
"Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. It can even have more bugs, but it still will be "modern", and people will be OK with that, because since it's recently changed, it has to have bugs, right?
Examples:
- "in some programs, double-clicking program icon on top-left window will close the program. it's a same actions as Win3.1 even Win1.0, where the close button is placed on top-left window until Win95." quote Rizki Fauzan (not counting this as a Windows 1.0 remnant because it was still useful in 3.1)
Why is it a problem? Why removing this feature is desirable? I often doubleclick the icon to close the window (because my Linux desktop has X in the top left corner instead of top right). Why it's desirable to not have this feature?
- pifmgr.dll and moricons.dll (ancient icon libraries) - left since Windows 3.1
Those icons are often superior to their "modern" counterparts, even though they’re not vector graphics. Why would anyone want to remove them?
- ODBC Data Sources - unchanged since Windows 3.1
I wonder if the author even knows what ODBC is?
Some of the entries are also wrong (msconfig has been updated since Win98).
This list in the center of why I am depressed by today's software design.
> "Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed.
That's what modern always means. Sometimes modern is good, sometimes it's bad; this applies to art, technology, cuisine, lifestyles, etc. Although on windows 'Modern UI' was a keyword refering specifically to the Tiles UI and everything that went with it. I think Microsoft has tried to forget that. If the term sticks, 'Modern UI' will become the same sort of term as 'Art Nouveau' that means New Art in theory, but means art in a style that was defined around 1880-1910.
> Although on windows 'Modern UI' was a keyword refering specifically to the Tiles UI and everything that went with it.
I have been stubbornly calling this "Metro" since it first came out. Sure, Microsoft may have deprecated the terminology 12 years ago, but I don't care, and neither does Wikipedia.
I've always interpreted it as "improved". That's probably the reason for my disappointment, which highlights a disparity between my expectations and the real state of the world. Yet another reason to abandon hope I guess.
Some bits of the 20th century were about improvement.
The 21st has been about spiralling growth and consumption and everything getting worse than before, although sometimes it's briefly shiny.
In software, in hardware, in human life on the planet Earth.
Once you accept this, things make more sense and it's easier to relate to people born into this world and their jaded detachment.
20th century "modern" -- better, improved, refined.
21st century "modern" -- given a coat of paint, looks shiny, but underneath it's the same old junk, just worn out and creaking and failing, but rebranded and sold as NEW.
"Modern" today means "recently changed". Not better, not less bugs, just that it's recently changed. It can even have more bugs, but it still will be "modern", and people will be OK with that, because since it's recently changed, it has to have bugs, right?
Examples:
- "in some programs, double-clicking program icon on top-left window will close the program. it's a same actions as Win3.1 even Win1.0, where the close button is placed on top-left window until Win95." quote Rizki Fauzan (not counting this as a Windows 1.0 remnant because it was still useful in 3.1)
Why is it a problem? Why removing this feature is desirable? I often doubleclick the icon to close the window (because my Linux desktop has X in the top left corner instead of top right). Why it's desirable to not have this feature?
- pifmgr.dll and moricons.dll (ancient icon libraries) - left since Windows 3.1
Those icons are often superior to their "modern" counterparts, even though they’re not vector graphics. Why would anyone want to remove them?
- ODBC Data Sources - unchanged since Windows 3.1
I wonder if the author even knows what ODBC is?
Some of the entries are also wrong (msconfig has been updated since Win98).
This list in the center of why I am depressed by today's software design.