Review: Norton's Desktop
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2024
- In which I review a shell replacement for Windows 3.x that I had always been curious about but never tried. I think it's pretty good. Enjoy!
Support my channel:
/ cathoderaydude
ko-fi.com/cathoderaydude
00:00 History
01:56 Intro to Norton Desktop
03:14 Windows UI overview
08:15 Norton Desktop UI overview
10:35 Features
20:19 Dialog enhancements
22:55 Bundled software
25:53 Scriptmaker
27:32 Scope creep & issues
32:14 Conclusion
33:49 Outro - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![1000ft of ANALOG HD video over a single cable?! [AHD/CVI/TVI]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YYAVrLBKavM/mqdefault.jpg)
Excuse me lad, let’s not skip over that WONDERFUL disk doctor animation
you're right, I had wanted to highlight
The Mac version was especially good IMO
I grew up with a Mac version of Norton Utilities. Did the PC version also have ''Fast Find'' with the little marathon guy running as it searched for files? I always liked watching that. :)
I saw that using Utilities for 95 once. *chefs kiss*
The Mac version had the exact same animation, sometimes I used to run NDD just to watch it :)
About the "unanchored" feeling of Windows 3.1: As a child user of 3.1 I never felt this, because we always had Program Manager maximized, since the background was completely useless. Program Manager IS Windows 3.1 as far as I'm concerned. "The desktop" is the collection of top-level folders. The only use for the colour/image background is the few seconds before Program Manager loads when you start Windows.
I did the same. Maximize!
Exactly this. We came from the past, not the future when we used it, it was shiny and futuristic from our direction. Going back to it now? Of course we'll all see those flaws and limitations now, but it was liberating and each upgrade was almost magical when coming from years of dos prompt or vt100 terminals.
As for the branding, no excuse for the large blue text, but I see the benefit of reminding people that "this is the bit you paid extra for".
My first PC at home ran Windows 3.0. My point of comparison was the also-new MS-DOS prompt, the Commodore 64 (which powered up to a BASIC interpreter, and also ran the somewhat anemic GEOS if you waited long enough..), and a TRS-80 Model III which tersely prompted you for things like "CASS?" to load something from an audio tape.
So, no, Windows 3.x didn't seem sparse or barren or untethered. It seemed new, and full of possibilities.
I didn't run ProgMan maximized, because I ran my foreground application maximized. I liked that I could minimize it (where the icon would appear on the desktop) and see both my program groups and the other running applications' icons, and switch between them easily. ALT+TAB, of course, worked as well, but only for stuff already open.
Back then, you had maybe three things running. It wasn't like today, where I have 50 tabs of I-don't-even-remember-what open, and haven't rebooted my computer since the last season, and don't want to because it would take forever to get everything back to where it was.
Same here, i always had the program mananger maximized, and yes the desktop background image was basicly useless eye candy. For task switching i used the alt-tab combo.
We rarely used Windows, unless we wanted to play with an application which required it. We used Norton Commander on top of plain DOS cause that's where our gaming and work was. Windows was sluggish and unstable on 4MB machines.
I'd imagine part of the reason for "oops we made a visual basic" is that they developed something close to it for their own development and prototyping purposes, so then they figured that packaging it up as a consumer application would be a pretty huge value add for the product, for relatively little effort.
Much like task manager. Dave Plumber wrote it while WinNT was in development so that he could see what was going on resource and process wise - check for memory leaks and the like. Turns out, the entire NT dev team liked it so much, he donated the code to the WinNT and 95 projects.
I would be surprised if a significant portion of the whole norton desktop software package werent written in the language
554⁴⁴⁴⁴ the 4⁴44
@@chrstfer2452 very unlikely. it wasn't a better environment over using bare C, and would be a lot slower. At least visual basic was very easy to pick up.
I like when companies make their dev tools publicly available. My favorite example is the track editor in F-Zero X Expansion Kit.
I wish I knew this had existed as a kid in 1993. This turns Windows 3.1 from "that thing you launch Solitaire and Microsoft Office with" to an actual user interface you could use, rather than having to dip down to DOS for anything even remotely power-user-ish.
For real. I had Norton utilities for down, but didn't know it existed for win 3.1
Can confirm. I was 12 in 1993 and my Dad had Norton Desktop on his PC and it was incredible.
Me at the beginning: How is this video 34 minutes long?
Me at the end: Wow, those 34 minutes flew by!
A absolutely love that you made the background look like an old install wizard background with that dithered blue gradient and chunky italic text in the corner
That look is most strongly associated with the Wise installer (and Win9x) for me.
Mr. Norton looks like he is the complete opposite of Mr. Mcafee
Find the parody video that the real mr mcafee done on uninstalling his system
RIP
@@georgemaragos2378oh God, that video was funny. I didn't care much for John McAfee as a person but I'd be lying if I said he wasn't funny from time to time.
"Dipping mustards" as idiom. I like it.
I think this is the most enraptured ive ever been by a "green screen lecture" video. The script is tight and entertaining, your delivery is top-notch, your graphics are eye-catching and relate perfectly to what you're talking about. Amazing work.
He’s good. Also check Computer Clan with Ken.
Yeah i like how he makes uninteressting stuff very interesting
Thanks for setting me on the course to remove that useless compress and email option in 7zip's context menu!
I didn´t even know I could do that. Never started the file manager as a program and looked at the options.
Yesss
Is it strange that I actually found a use for the compress and email option at work the other day? It is nice to be able to attach a folder to an email without needing to open a new email, compress the folder to a zip, then drag the zip to the Outlook window to attach it.
The use case for this feature was in work environments with tight limitations on email size. When your Exchange email server will only accept attachments of 2MB, you zip up *everything* you need to send to other people. Got an invoice Word document you need to mail to a customer? Zip it and mail it. It became second nature to do this if your work environment needed it.
@@verficationaccount So how did you make the file associations? Notably, this isn't done during installation of 7zip, unlike most other applications of this type. One has to open up the program, go into options, and set the file associations there.
common dialog is one of the few parts of windows that i really like. when programs don't do it it's always awful, see blender and audacity
It seems to be mostly open source cross platform applications that don't use it. Which makes sense. They're often in a cross platform windowing system like GTK+ or Qt. They just have the same file dialog on Windows, Mac, and Linux as a result.
I use MS Office 2000 under Windows 10, and those programs don't seem to use the common dialogue, their boxes look exactly the same as when I ran Office 2k on Windows 98.
Or gosh darn office now... Why does it make me click twice to save. Bruh
Office has a looooong tradition of thoroughly breaking Windows UI design rules. Microsoft would go to lengths to create style guidelines and inform developers of how to use common controls, and then release Office and... I mean, sure, why _not_ have a big glowing round icon in the top left of the window chrome, that, when clicked, revealed a menu?
Sometimes Office would serve as a preview of UI elements to come. Like a public test-bed for ideas. But not all of them. Thankfully.
Exhibit A is Word 6.0, which, IIRC, introduced the world to comctl3d.dll. You would load this library, pass it your window handle, and it would redraw the plain 2D solid color borders with a gray 3D bevel, kind of similar to Win95. Completely new look, completely ignored Windows' appearance settings, and got picked up by developers and completely took over. Like "blue LEDs" level of crazy.
When Office 95 came out, it released alongside Win95 and was maybe the first and only time the Office suite and OS design languages really seemed to come from the same place. Then Office 97 showed up and sort of informed some of the Win98 style (more dynamic elements that responded to mouse-over events), but was still not quite aligned with either the current 95 or later 98 styles.
Office 2000 was actually pretty close, aside from different dialogs. As was Office XP. That lasted about one whole year. And then...
Office 2003 turned everything a weird sickly blue, and looked totally unlike anything else on your computer at the time, until it also spawned a blue wave of application makeovers. 2007 just touched the hue up a little, and absolutely nothing else. ..... Just kidding. '07 also crapped out the Ribbon -- the pathologically disorganized screen-eating junk drawer that is summoned from the bowels of UI hell when a menu bar and a tool bar get drunk and irresponsible.
2010 was sort of a weak attempt at doing Aero. 2013 was an experiment in snowblindness. 2016 finally course-corrected the color scheme, so basically Office 2010 Service Pack 2. For extra fun, try Office 2016 on the Mac! All the expense, none of the features, and of course you would prefer this one app use Windows key bindings instead of literally everything else running on a Macintosh, right?
None of these (since 5/6/95, and to an extent, 2K/XP) really behaved the way Microsoft told developers that Windows applications should behave. I have to assume Windows developers and Office developers have never met in person.
@@moconnell663 They redid the dialog boxes in Vista, and because of how fundamentally different they are, they're called from a different API function.
This brought back a lot of memories of going over to friend's houses to use the computer and getting totally lost. I had only really used the Apple IIgs (with it's Mac-like OS) and Macs at home. Windows 3 totally confused me and your explanation of why really brought it all back. The mosh pits that formed at Computer City to buy Win 95 when it came out were almost justified because Windows 3 was so bad.
Yeah! Once you see windows 3, and then once you realize how popular it was, you realize that people were STARVING for something better.
@@CathodeRayDude But then why did consumers overlook superior IBM-compatible alternatives like GeoWorks GUI operating system? :)
@@TassieLorenzo Because you needed the SDK and a Sun-SparcStation at that time to develop software for GeoWorks. And this was just too expensive.
On the other side, Microsoft sold "QuickC for Windows" for about 70 US Dollar. That's all you needed to develop Software for Windows 3.x.
Of course, there was also Microsoft C for about 600 US Dollar for the professional developers if you needed more, but QuickC was for the most users enough.
I'd hazard the wild guess that most home users were only ever running their pirated copy of Windows 3.1 to use their pirated copy of Word for Windows.
Dude, top notch quality. Everything, Research, Structure, Editing, Jokes, Eastereggs. And wow that old Installer background was just calming and beatifull in this size and Resolution :D
that bayer matrix though
21:25 - For the methodology, they most-likely did subclassing (hWnd hooks) into to override the dialog. This is a similar approach to how we overrode the UserName, Password text boxes & Login button with our own user controls for AOL 2.0 - 2.5 back in the day. Of course 3.0, make things a bit more ticky against this.
If I remember the Windows 16 API correctly, there were some hooks to customize especially Save and Open dialogs.
Yeah, subclassing dialog is still relevant - even you can see in current version of notepad's encoding selector!
This is fantastic, one of my main interests is when people add features from more recent games to old Pokémon games and that’s exactly what this feels like: a romhack of windows 3.0. I’m absolutely stunned this was contemporary with the OS, it’s like someone showed up with a time machine and an emulator and said “hey I got some ideas”
Esperanto flag :D
I loved this program. Many of the noted negative aspects are lessons learned for the first time by their trailblazing. not all the innovation this software brought ended up being the direct hindsight shows successful, but they certainly were interesting experiments and new ground. thanks for bring me back to those days.
I love this kind of UI review. Even with all the nostalgia videos and websites out there, it's not that common to demonstrate what it was like to interact with those interfaces and the limitations/peculiarities they had (and how you could overcome them).
Really like how you get creative with the green screen! Keep up the great work, really enjoyed the video and I learnt about norton desktop which I never knew existed!
I've never heard of Norton Desktop before this video. Funny how I don't have any specific memory of considering using Windows 3.1 hard or troublesome in any way. I was 10 yo in 1993 and went from MS DOS 6.22 to Windows 3.1 and all I can recall is "I love it". That's a great video. Congratulations!
I wonder if Dave's Garage knew about the ZIP integration in Norton Desktop at the time (He's responsible for Windows ZIP Folders)
oh wow yeah I'd be very curious to hear a contemporary view!
If he read PC Magazine back in the day, he definitely knew.
Given the complexity of the system integration, I'm sure the Windows team had copies just to check what would break. Because back then Microsoft cared about quality and 3rd party developers (except Novell/Borland/Netscape/Stacker/DR).
@@johndododoe1411 they also cared a lot about breaking Windows on alternative DOSes, and presumably vice versa, but that's a whole different video!
The positive thing you can say about every new windows 3.0 / 3.1 / 3.11 release is each version added more built in / free programs that you sued to pay for.
Starts as simple as Solitare and goes to networking, free internal email postoffice box WFWG, file compression, automated backups, program scheduler , modem program , networking, tcpip stack
Many people forget that win 3 was basically the first real Dos > Windows jump, plus to increase the user base it was prudent to trim features so that it is not a totally new experience and also has to run on existing dos based machinery
One reason say the NEXT system did not take of, yes it was a totally new software and state of the art but you also needed to run on the most modern and high specd expensive machine - you could not buy the OS ( which was itself expensive ) and try and install on a 2meg 286
This is why dos remained usable for such a long time, PC/AT computers were prices were very expensive and
1977 Apple II Price tag: $1,298 Inflation adjusted price: $5,389
1978 IBM 5110 Price tag: $9,875 Inflation adjusted price: $38,105
1982 Commodore 64 Price tag: $595 Inflation adjusted price: $1,551
1978 Camaro $10,800 Adjusted inflation guess $40,000
So with all these computers companies had just bought you could not really afford to scrap them and spend much more on new items, they were to expensive and you had to get some use out of them
Today lets have a look at a new system today - depending on spec but a daily use pc for work could be say $500, even $800 or $1,000 , compare that to the Apple2, or the entry IBM PC 38k
Todays cheap prices makes them throwaway item like a toaster
This reminds me of Calmira, which was a shell replacement with the aim to look and behave like Windows 95 itself. Used it a lot back then.
Theres calmira xp also, makes windows 3.1 look like xp it works surprisingly well
Calmira was great!
Wow. Completely forgot that I used to use Norton Desktop. It worked very well.
Also really liked GeoWorks. It not only brought a window GUI to machines that didn't have specs necessary for Windows 3.1, but also had several apps that were superior the time. The desktop publisher and word processor completely outshone Office, and they were built in packages, not a separate paid suite.
hey i used GEOS on my Commodore 64 back in the mid 80's... Man i'm getting old.
It's important to remember that many people didn't use Windows 3.X as a full-time "desktop environment". People would start Windows from the DOS command line, run a specific GUI application (e.g. Microsoft Word), and then exit Windows when they were done with that app. People would do this repeatedly over the course of a day. Also remember that there were relatively few Windows applications worth using, and most people still used DOS programs for a lot of their work.
NDW was awesome -- I was a beta tester for it, and used every version. It made using Windows 3.X a lot less painful, but I still frequently exited back to DOS.
P.S. I'm pretty sure that Norton licensed the scripting tools (the "VB clone") from another company. I don't think they were created in-house.
P.P.S. "SmartCan" (AKA "Erase Protect") was a mess. It took memory away from applications, slowed down the system, and wasn't entirely reliable. It also created security problems on networks because it couldn't move the permissions when it moved a "deleted" file to it's hidden directory. This meant anybody could recover any deleted file, even if they wouldn't have had permissions to access the original.
I remember the improvements Norton also brought to DOS. The file descriptions mentioned in the video were also available in DOS and they provided their own version of “dir” showing them. A bit like Windows 95 long file names before their time. They also brought tons of utilities for batch files, like colours, dialogue boxes, etc. It was pretty neat for its day.
File descriptions started as a feature of 4DOS, which was a replacement for COMMAND.COM. Norton licensed 4DOS and bundled it with Norton Utilities, calling it NDOS. NDW picked it up from there.
P.S. For people wondering why you would want/need file descriptions, remember that filenames were limited to 8 upper case characters in DOS.
It's amazing how they managed to integrate so much into Windows in a seamless way. What is even more amazing is they put in things we take for granted now long before Windows did this themself. Very impressive piece of software that I had never heard of.
I remember spending a lot of time playing around with the icon editor as a teen. My sister, too. There was something just fun about drawing in such a small space. Don't think the icon sets we made survived, though. Can't even remember what the file extension was.
This is stirring up some long buried UI memories. Maybe I saw this as a very young child at some relative's house. Maybe I'm confusing it with OS/2, which I know for sure we had. Either way, it's giving me a weird sense of deja vu.
This is a fantastic walkthrough on something I didn't even know existed. Kudos for the increasingly impressive production values
This was great. I remember my dad got this when I was 13, and it blew my fucking mind.
I would like to upvote twice. One for the great content, and one for the barb on Norton Antivirus ^^
Great Video. I think the technique used to extend the "open common dialog" is called "Subclassing".
Your videos are so incredibly well done and incredibly interesting. The Nintendo RF modulator hooked me in, and everything else has been just as compelling. I am so looking forward to an opportunity to watch more content like this. Keep it up!
So much care has gone into this video, it's really great: a real joy to watch. Thanks for making videos!
DUDE!!! I've been messing around with Win 3.11 on an old Compaq deskpro and you are right, the Norton Desktop is pretty damn cool.
Wow this video is 2 years old already, TH-cam just recommended it to me. Must say your Videos are always long, so I have to have the time to sit through them, but you present such good facts about the product that I also don't see you skimming over anything easily. Well presented, I loved to see your review of old tech and software that I most of the cases just heard of back when I was young and did not really understand the purpose of. Hats off to you!
Man the editing and and illustrations going in the background makes this video very fun to watch.
I stumbled across your channel and I thoroughly love all your content. I’m an amateur radio operator and everything you say is so precise and well said. You haven’t said one thing incorrectly and keep up the good work!!
16:37 The image preview in Windows 95's Explorer was introduced with the optional Desktop Update that installed with Internet Explorer 4.0 as a download or on the free CD that was given away at every computer stores (the same way Windows XP SP2 update CD was distributed). It was sort of a free upgrade to Windows 95 (that got them in trouble with the Department of Justice), a preview of what would become standard in Windows 98.
Kinda weird, it was pretty much a free update. Or, in other words, the proof that Win98 was not really a new Windows version, just Win95 with extra stuff attached to it.
That's because the new Windows Explorer updated the file browser and web browser. They were mostly the same application. Also, why win98 supported gif animations and the desktop supported websites or html files as a background, the whole file UI and desktop was built around Explorer and web tech. Windows NT, 2000, XP and later split the explorer application into "Internet Explorer" and "File Explorer".
This brings back memories! My dad bought our first family computer (an Apple IIe if memory serves) in the early 80's. My university had a UNIX system with shared terminals in most of the buildings. I got my first 386 Windows PC from a friend in 1991 or 92. It ran Windows 3.11 and was of course very similar to what you showed. I'd forgot so much of what working with that was like! Thanks for an excellent video!
Fantastic video! I'm not usually a fan of heavy green screen use, but the way you integrated it here is so clean and really adds a layer of polish.
Thank you! I feel the same way, I didn't do a green screen video until I'd figured out how to make it fit my tastes.
Oops we did a visual basic. Yeah man, youtube doesn’t deserve how good you are. Great video!
I went the os/2 route precisely for this reason at the time (93). OS/2 2.x offered many of these things but Norton were held in high regard.
This is just a great video. I was already prepared to have a good time but I can’t believe I was fully riveted the entire 30+ min; it really sparked joy and interest and i love that. Thank you
My man, you are getting better and better at a lightning pace! Love the vids, keep em coming!
I was thinking about this earlier this month, thanks for doing a deep dive
Awesome job on the editing. Great flow, which isn’t easy to do with something so information dense!
thank you! it is a tremendous amount of effort
Love the vid, one of the brightest channels on TH-cam at the moment as far as I'm concerned. Glad to be able to help support your project!
Just recently discovered your channel. Great delivery and enjoyable content friend!
Excellent video. When we had Windows 3.1 in our household, I remember we always had Program Manager full screen and never referred to the empty desktop behind it. I also remember only running Windows for school work and running XTREE Gold in DOS for file management and generally living in the DOS environment for games.
Oh. So that's why my Windows 3 experience was so different than everyone else's.
Dude this is so beautifully produced! Big ups to you!!
I started watching your camcorder videos and each video since then seems to get better and better! RAD MAN! Keep it up with what you love to do. It shows in your videos! I'm glad I found your channel.
Such editing. Much skills. Old memes and a greenscreen 👏🏼
The way you described Win95 is prefect.
Thanks for the flashback. I stayed with my uncle over the summer of 1995. He ran his dental practice on a desktop that ran Norton Desktop. The Scripmaker did his stuff and he was proud of the Norton backup.
This is a really great video, very dense with information and also quite fast paced.
You sir just earned my Subscription with this video, great job! I love the mashup of Technology Connections, LRG, 8-bit Guy and Anthony from LTT :D
I’m like 90% sure they made a version for Windows 95 as part of a deluxe version of Norton Utilities because I remember much of this but on 95. I might even have a CD of it still.
I'm pretty sure I had it as well. I had Norton Utilities 5 or 6 for DOS and when I got Windows 95 I got Norton Desktop so that I'd have the graphical utilities. By the time I got to 98, I think I had stopped using it as my shell.
Yes I had it for both 3.1 and 95. The 95 version allowed for multiple desktops (or workspaces) which was an innovative feature at the time
I remember that you could run it on Windows 95, kinda. Not everything worked properly and pretty much there was no need for it. Except some of the utilities might still have been useful.
Every video you make is better and better and I am so stoked for every one
I love Norton Commander. I also loved that NORTON had the DELTREE command that Microsoft didn't think would be a good idea,
Great video. It reminded me of how odd Program Manager felt to me back then. Your thoughts about that were spot on. I also never knew about Norton Desktop for Windows. Seeing it here for the first time, it's mind blowing how much better it was than Microsoft's official OS- the features, the layout, everything. I would've loved using it instead back then.
As a power user back in the 80s and 90s, I agree with your interpretation of Norton Desktop, much of which became adopted into Windows eventually. PCTools, by Central Point Software, had many of the features, including the desktop, that Norton had, which I felt somewhat easier to use than Norton. Norton's extended memory manager was ultimately incorporated into Windows, however, I used QEMM instead, setting it up in autoexec. In those days, Windows had a hard time optimizing the extended memory environment. I am working of some retro projects presently, and will be using some of the old software.
I used Norton Desktop and then PCTools back in the day. PCTools also had virtual desktops with a preview panel and (iirc) the ability to select different wallpaper for each. I eventually got out of the habit of using virtual desktops (esp once I got set up with dual monitors), but they were a big deal for a good many years.
I'm just here to say that I was here before this channel hit 5k subs. Probably gonna be 100k+ by the end of this year. Keep it up CR dude!
This brings back memories. I had Norton desk on an IBM w/win3.1 my wife had ordered from an Avon book. 3.1 native sucked. I kept it until 98 upgrade. We have come a long way since then. Win 7 is still my all time.
"Whoops, we accidentally made VisualBasic"
Holy shit
Norton desktop had some interesting features I remember, most of which were much like those adopted by "Chicago" Windows (95). I think we disabled most of them when using the computer for more RAM, most often Windows entirely to run games.
Edit: The version I had included an option for a start menu equivalent and long file names.
I think that was a separate program, you probably used it alongside and in your memory it blended together.
Holy shit, what a truly amazing video. Beautiful work once again, man. You're killing it!
Dont stop the music! :D
Very amazing to see. This makes you understand and appreciate the progression of optimizing GUI in Windows. Thanks for the video. Very interesting.
I believe that the common dialog in Windows 3.x was provided by a DLL file, so maybe this software is either hijacking the DLL calls or replacing the DLL file outright. Common dialogs were used for opening/saving files, printing (choosing a printer, number of copies, etc.), and also picking colors. DLL files were also used for other shared resources, such as CARDS.DLL, which was used to generate the cards for Solitaire, Hearts, Freecell, and the various card games (Cruel, Dr Blackjack, Tut's Tomb, TriPeaks, etc.) that came with the MS Entertainment Packs. This is what lead to "DLL Hell", where different applications would install different versions of common DLL files, resulting in conflicts between them.
yeah I was thinking maybe it replaces them outright but that seems... barbarian? I should check.
@@CathodeRayDude I'm 99% sure that NDW just replaced COMDLG.DLL. Such hackery was relatively common back then.
yes it did replace it! It backed up the OS DLL and restored it on uninstall! Imagine trying to do that on a modern OS. Those were the days when power users and hobbyists had much more influence than now.
How long did it take to make it look like the old Mac OS? That was great.
3-5 minutes!
How long did it take Apple to make the Mac look like Xerox PARC's os? ;)
@@WhatALoadOfTosca A couple years. But remember that Xerox had tried to market what they made, and utterly failed, so they sold what they had to Apple. Some believe it was somehow stolen or ripped off, but history doesn't support that. Newsweek has an article on it that I can't link here (Google is your friend with the terms "apple bought xerox".) "But the idea of being the subject of Jobs's gaze didn't delight everyone at PARC. "We gave Jobs access in exchange for pre-IPO investment, " says Dr. Steve Hoover, the current CEO of PARC, which became an independent subsidiary of Xerox in 2002. "Apparently, not everyone knew that in the context of the visit, and that created some tension." PARC researchers had compiled several groundbreaking innovations into their Alto machine, such as a graphic user interface, bitmapping and "what you see is what you get" editing. When Jobs and a select group of Apple employees witnessed what PARC had wrought in a demo of the Alto at PARC labs in December 1979, Jobs was inspired."
"How long did it take to make it look like the old Mac OS?"... looks like countless other GUIs at the time.. IBMs OS2 Warp, GEM, RISC OS, Amiga workbench, X Window system just to name a few.. Mac OS only gets picked by those not realizing there were more choices back then than there are now..
Wow! That zip integration did blow my mind! Enjoyed the video, thanks!
I am blown away that I had never heard of this. Good stuff.
25:45 the mac desktop still feels like this, adding small paid utilities to bring it up to parity with Ubuntu anno 2014 for power users.
As a user of both Windows and MacOS, I agree, and the additional utilities never quite integrate exactly how you'd want them to, and they're always made by small developers that abandon updates after a couple of years.
Things that MacOS does have in it's favour for power users though, though, is the streamlined feel - whereas sometimes using the Windows 10 File Explorer feels like wading through feature-treacle. Also the spotlight search in Mac OS is by far the best (and fastest) quick launch system on the market, in my opinion.
@@GeorgeBratley i hate the mouse feel on Mac OS, touchpad is better though.
I loved Norton Utilities. There was also a neat feature in DOS 5.0 where you could look for duplicate files and delete them or rename them.
Omg I bought a copy of that a few years ago and could never find a video! Great content!
I don't really know how to describeThis so I'm sorry if it sounds confusing but I absolutely love the way that you describe not just the functionality of a program but also the way that it interacts with the people themselves and the way it makes them feel, and not only is it cool that you go into detail on that experience, but you also are very adept at actually verbally describing them. Again I really don't know how to specifically describe this or if there is a word for it but you're very good at it.
As a kid I enjoyed going to Best Buy and seeing the insane shell replacements PC companies used with Win3.1.
Looks like a huge improvement over 3.1, strange how I've never seen it in action before. I can't help but wonder how well this would have run on period hardware though, I noticed you were running at 937 MHz, nearly twice as fast as my '98 machine.
937mhz, we had a 486DX33 with a whopping 4MB of RAM.
People might say the good ole days of computing, for me I don't miss editing autoexec.bat and config.sys to free up enough memory under 640K to run programs.
Ah, DOS's memory limitations
You could run DOS on a modern computer with its GBs of RAM and faster than a 90s supercomputer CPU, and lots of DOS programs/drivers would still treat it like a fast IBM XT as far as they cared.
And that didn't really go away until Windows 95 - when most programmers started treating computers like fast 386s instead of fast 8088s.
I don't remember it being too bad. Everything ran pretty slowly anyway.
Can confirm that on slower machines this was less fun. Yes, everything was slow anyway, but with NDW it was a lot worse.
So happy your channel came up in my recommended list , Hi from Kingston Ontario Canada :)
Your point about the design ethos of desktop enhancement utilities was very insightful and eloquent and made me realize I’ve always felt the same way. Got a laugh out of that Rainmeter/clocks segment.
Using Windows 3.1 in its day didn’t feel nearly as “floaty” and detached for me since desktop resolutions were so low, the Program Manager window occupied nearly all of the screen.
Great video and an excellent look at a very extensive program I’d never heard of before! Cheers!
Used Norton Desktop back in the day, mostly because it was a good compromise between Program Manager and strict file manager desktops like Gem. Also, it was generally faster than Windows itself, somehow. My favorite thing, tho, was that you could see the background image though the program manager. I would put a custom image, but overlay a screenshot of where I usually kept standard program groups, so if you moved that group, instead of the background image, you'd see the window, but with a message written on it admonishing you to put the window back.
Funny, you turned that one office prank into a useful feature.
I think the reason trashcan undelete looks like that is because it also tries to recover files that were deleted while the deletion functions were not hooked, with
i really like how you analyse legacy programs. it's the first video from you channel i am watching. hope to find more of them. thanks. :)
Great chroma keying dude!
Love your videos. It’s like technology connections but less home appliances:)
"Oh hey, doesn't Gravis usually wear blue?"
0:50
"Oh, that's why!"
Ultrasound Red
After about 20 minutes I looked away and got a very interesting green persistence of vision version of Gravis in my vision.
about the UnDelete function, do you think maybe they were just trying to avoid getting into legal trouble with Apple?
and the "toolbars at the bottom" well I think it's either a throwback to the good old `nc`, or, you know, a DOS developer got assigned to that project and had OPINIONS on how UIs should look like
ps. I am very glad to find someone else appreciates that old school "blue gradient and drop shadow" installer a e s t h e t i c
fantastic video, keep it up
all super valid points I hadn't considered!
"Toolbars at the bottom" have a long history, going back to mainframe and minicomputer terminals. "Toolbars at the top" are ubiquitous now, but weren't in the Windows 3.1 era.
good job on providing context, my first os that I remember using consciously was 98, so I don't have experience with the really early ui and ux stuff, and I didn't even know what a mac was until I used an emac in school. The examples explaining how a bunch of features were just new from previous ui was really interesting
I do love your floating in the void Windows 3.1 analogy. Had to use a clip from this. Thanks for that!
this feels like that aliens game that used dual thumbsticks in like 1999 and everyone was like "what the hell, this control scheme is bad," like it was trying very hard to be a modern OS well ahead of its time and probably just scared people lmao.
like this was back when you had to give people a VHS tape that told them how to use the "mouse" when they bought windows. I feel like zip integration in your file manager is just a *few* steps too many for the boomers buying computers in 1993 lmfao.
also another absolute gem of a video, absolutely my new favorite channel ❤️💚❤️
ALSO also, you could have pried zip integration in the file manager out of MY hands in 1993 too, but I was 8, almost 9, and I would have put up QUITE the fucking fight. I would have loved norton desktop.
zip integration in the file manager is still too much for many people today, as evident by how often people are utterly confused by it. (Maybe not even offering the convenience of seemingly seemlessly running/opening stuff from out of a zip archive directly, or at least hiding it away to be enabled first, would have actually been a good thing for many an inexperienced user. Put in an error message instructing the person that they have to extract it first...)
One of the things I absolutely love about Linux is you get all of the extreme customisation and control of power users, but by default none of it is generally enabled. Ubuntu for example aims for the 80% of normal users who just want to use it like a modern GUI system like Windows. But if you want you can absolutely control and change it in anyway you possibly want to, from changing every single setting for almost anything in the GUI, to recompiling your own changes.
And even with stuff designed primarily for power users, it's still rare to put complex things in as the default. Instead for things that aim at the power users they're either configured minimally to normal users, or aren't configured at all (extreme example of Arch Linux).
This was a good video. I grew up with this in my teenage years - and to be honest I think I knew most of this from magazine articles - but it is everything that made this software important and great bit of historical context. The fact you were 5 at the time makes me very proud 🥰🥰 I guess you got really unlucky to find no magazines about it. We KNEW it was the supreme thing in the 8.3 era.
Keep it up man, you have a future in tech talk..
Love your vids
Back when Windows 95 came out I was weirdly resistant to having a real desktop; I liked the idea of having a basic shell, and the screen just being a container for programs. It took me switching to macOS 10 before I started actually using the desktop as a desktop, and even then I preferred how all of the prior core functions had moved to the dock.
6:26 My mother.
Awesome video!! Please do more reviews like this one..
Norton desktop was fantastic. When I was in high school I got my first Tandy which came with Windows 3.1 and through a local computing group I found and installed Norton desktop. In fact when the original windows 95 came out I ended up going back to windows 3.1 and installed Norton desktop because it just ran better.
I remember watching Peter North in the '80's doing a lot on desktops... What? Who? Oh, Peter Norton... sorry don't know that guy... I'll see myself out. 🤭
And beds, sofas and bathtubs - or so I'm told 👀
You look like Alec from Technology Connections 💡
If they collaborated it would be glorious
Fascinating, thanks for the great content!
Fantastic stuff. I really liked the bit about Win 3.x intangibility, very well put.