Talk:Graphical user interface/Archive 1

Link to The Skins Factory
I feel this link is inappropriate for this page, as another user felt when TheSkinsFactory added it on Windows Media Player. It is not directly relevant to the abstract topic of graphical user interfaces. To date, links to their website are their only contributions.

I do feel that it may be appropriate to have a link at skin (computing). I will be adding other links there shortly to ensure that no undue bias towards one skin provider is present.

I wouldn't normally bother noting my reasons for this edit here, but I am an employee of Stardock, and so feel I should explain myself more fully. :-) GreenReaper 06:05, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Outlook
What is with this section? "Research has brought back evidence that users who use application software for scripting and editing find it easier and more effective to make good use of GUIs (Graphical User Interfaces) rather than Command Lines." Um... No? I've actually found articles that state its easier to teach CLIs to people new to computers then it is GUIs. Also, since when is it more effective to use a GUI for scripting? "The "direct manipulation interface" term is usually not presented as an acronym." Then why mention it? Seriously, this section either needs major editing or deleting. --James 06:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Mac OS X image
Why is the Mac OS X image set for deletion? Quote: The image above is proposed for deletion. LIllIi 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Look and Feel
Anyone agree that they should be merged? --Brazucs 23:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Look And Feel seems pointless without GUI, and it makes no sense without it. The article should be streamlined into a subsection --JTAN 11:32, 29 March 2006 (BST)

No, I think LNF should remain separate because it can explain computer language preferences and CLI as well. Pascal has a different look and feel to C++, as do the similar 'more' and 'less' CLI programs. LNF can be given more depth as a separate entry without increasing the GUI. --- anonymous

Yes and no, at its current state, the LNF article is quite pointless without the GUI article, but if it was expanded on quite a bit, then it would be much more useful on its own. - Exelsiar

I second Excel. VJ Emsi 19:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

UI Chrome
The article UI Chrome was "merged" with this one - but this page makes no mention of the term. The redirect from UI Chrome is now not particularly helpful. DunxD


 * I took a stab at describing chrome. But I agree that a big overhaul is called for, and perhaps splitting chrome out.  Is the previous contents of the UI Chrome article available?  --NealMcB 22:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the link, since it redirected back to this page. I'm not a GUI designer, but in 10 years in the business I have not heard this term used. It is, however, very descriptive. Reminds me of the cars of the '50s. Wake 00:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Microsoft Built On"
This implies that they improves elements. They did not. The first version of Windows had less features than the Macintosh. --TrevorLSciAct 19:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

XGL in "3D user interfaces"
What about XGL in "3D user interfaces"? (please sign with ~ )

What about the fact that 3D is a marketing ploy. I've never seen anything except a 2D screen. 3D graphics are projected in two dimensions onto a 2D screen. Wake 00:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the fact that it is more convenient to say "3D"? I can see you worked 32 years to understand basic math, but for some people the above is, in fact, obvious.80.128.48.156 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

PUI?
What is a PUI? --holizz 19:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Portable User Interface

Evolution of graphic user interfaces
Added some information to this section to reflect that the IBM Common User Access spec is the progenitor of the GUIs found in MS Windows, OS/2 and Unix. 64.171.162.77 11:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

PUI section is to small
I have never herd of PUI, the PUI section on Article is to little, and there should be a lot of more information on PUI, I have never herd of PUI before...Gumbos 20:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Windows screen shot
This article has a Linux and Mac OSX screenshot. Why is there no Windows screen shot? I have a Mac, so I can't make one. I suspect someone has a windows computer out there... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nathan Dobson (talk • contribs) 03:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Windows Screenshot Added.--Zeeboid 22:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Windows screenshot added again, as it was removed earlier.--Zeeboid 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

OS with GUI
I have a slight beef with saying OS's like BSD and Linux (Unix) are "OS's with a gui". They use X Windows, which is an application that runs on the OS. The GUI is not part of the OS. AFAIK, Windows GUI has some hooks into the kernel, so it could be considered to be one with the GUI. Maybe the same for Mac. Wake 01:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

GUIs generally run on top of the OS, doing otherwise would be quite dumb. (mac: http://oreilly.com/pub/h/348, windows: boot menu). "hooks into the kernel"? blather on. 80.128.48.156 (talk) 05:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) that is to say, an OS with a GUI = OS for wich a GUI is availible - even though it may run on top of it.

thats true but every thing is false
salam man masoud moghaddam hastam va vaghean az in motenaferam ke shoma ya har kasi ke dar morede 3dguios chizi nemidoone va hei suggest mide age mikhahi in operation system ro benevisi be hich vajh nemitooni kontorolesh koni chon khodesh dar zaman va makan harekat mikone va hame chio nabood mikone code for writing operation 3d system is:

if no or on yes

masoud moghaddam - 04:21:34 ,January 31, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antopeloni (talk • contribs) 04:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What the...!
I am a computer novice trying to simply understand a definition for this term. I am so confused now. This needs to be rewritten in plain language so that people can understand it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.184.138.7 (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the tip, I'll try to look through the article to do my best to make it more fathomable. :) --BiT (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

KDE and Gnome screenshots?
Why are there shots of both KDE and Gnome? Both represent Linux (or "unix-like") systems. I suggest picking one which is most representative. Otherwise, the artcle is laden with too many images. Thoughts? David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 19:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because KDE and Gnome are both used for many linux based OSs doesn't mean they're otherwise related. Personally I use a GUI that has very little in common with either, which happens to run on top of X which happens to run on top of Linux and GNU software. It would be like saying Windows 3.1 and Vista are representative of "Windows-like" systems. Ciotog 06:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can concede that. Because there are five of them in a tight area, I would recommend an image gallery rather than 5 thumbnails in the right column. Just a suggeston to keep the article layout uncluttered. David Spalding ( ☎ ✉ ✍  ) 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

3D GUIs
The section on 3D GUIs has a screenshot of Compiz, and the claim that


 * Interfaces for the X Window System have also implemented advanced three-dimensional user interfaces through compositing window managers such as Beryl and Compiz using the AIGLX or XGL architectures...

Is this true? This section in the article implies that 3D GUIs are more than a rotating cube used to switch between virtual desktops, but I don't know what Beryl and Compiz are capable of... Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Old GUI
Check out DATAR. I believe that used a GUI and it may be one of the earliest.

Matt (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing about games?
It would be nice if some knowledgable person could ad something about GUIs in in computer and video games. Especially how they have influenced "modern" GUIs. They predate the WIMP GUI with a couple of decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.9.36 (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

missing buzzwords

 * Drag-and-drop --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That one is linked from the Computer_mouse article. Diego (talk) 09:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GUI the korean food
Shouldn't this page come up automotically when we type in "gui" in the Wikipedia search text box? Isn't it much more likely that one is looking for "graphical user interface" rather than the korean word for grill, when searching for "gui"? I don't know the code of ethics behind changing this nor how to change it, but maybe someone else can provide input? J y p (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If you type GUI with all caps you're redirected to this article, and both articles link to the disambiguation page. That should be enough. Diego (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK that makes sense. This noob (me) just didn't know that the search box is case-sensitive, thanks. Should I delete this discussion section? J y p (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If Graphical user interface would be the only thing abbreviated as GUI or gui I should think it would probably be redirected? --BiT (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Tabbed document interface
I am opposed to the merge of Tabbed document interface into this article. While it would make sense for this article to discuss, tabs don't have to be strictly GUI. Vim, for example, can do GUI tabs but will do them as text only when not running the GUI. The tabbed document interface article is also a bit longer than you'd want as a section in this article. -- Heptite (T)   (C)   (@)  05:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Single document interface, Multiple document interface, Tabbed document interface and Comparison of document interface are all being proposed to merge here. That's way too much for a single article.  Has anyone given rationale for the merge? --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who proposed this merge. My primary motivation is that Comparison of document interface seems like it should really be a section of a more general article. But it's not clear whether it belongs in Multiple document interface, Single document interface, or Tabbed document interface since it really applies to all three. If there were a Document interface design article to address all of these topics I would suggest merging it there. But there isn't, and honestly I haven't ever heard the term and wouldn't propose creating the article just for that purpose. I'm open to alternate ideas -- I just don't think that Comparison of document interface makes sense as a standalone article. Tim Pierce (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would merge something different! let gui and tui their own articles. but please merge Tab (GUI), Tabbed browsing, and Tabbed Document Interface together in own useful article! mabdul 0=* 01:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with merging Tabbed browsing and Tabbed document interface, but not necessarily Graphical user interface. —  Jch  thys  02:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul Needed
This page is currently in a very poor state. Rampant assumptions, no references, poor discussion of non-WIMP GUIs (there are dozens, if not hundreds), no critical analysis by experts, etc. This article needs to be completely revamped. I should also note that much of the terminology used is used vaguely or in a manner that is completely wrong. Important issues are ignored entirely. Sections are rambling and confusing. This is my first time writing something like this on a talk page here, but this is one of the poorest "major" articles I've seen on Wikipedia. -- John Nowak June 4th, 2006
 * I support the article overhaul. IMHO this should be coordinated with the main User interface article, both to avoid overlapping of the concepts described there and to provide an extension of them. Diego 08:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

An article skeleton has been proposed for a similar overhaul of the Spanish revision. I copy here the index, for coordinating the revision in both languages. Diego 09:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Index
 * Introduction
 * GUI History
 * Precursors
 * Xerox Alto and Xerox 8010
 * Lisa and Apple
 * Microsoft Windows
 * X Window System
 * CDE, Genome and KDE


 * Elements of graphical user interfaces
 * Point devices
 * Menus
 * Windows
 * Icons-Pictograms
 * Widgets
 * Buttons
 * Radio buttons
 * Checkboxes
 * Forms & data entry
 * Sliders
 * Scrollbars
 * Tabs
 * Hyperlinks
 * Navigation through visual space
 * Space management in 2D graphical user interfaces
 * Window managers & Desktops
 * Virtual desktops ****
 * Frame managers
 * 3D GUIs
 * Zooming User Interfaces
 * Hypertexts
 * The World Wide Web
 * Transversal concerns in graphical user interfaces
 * Usability of GUIs
 * Modes
 * Information Visualization
 * Graphs
 * Tables

- We should not confuse 'Graphical user interface' with 'WIMP interface', which is more specifically targeted towards mouse operated interaction. Graphical user interface is clearly scoped wider, and should discuss the visualization of front end interfaces. Jeroen van der Putten
 * Would you mind suggesting some improvements to the above article outline, to address the concerns that are specific to the Graphical component of a interface? (i.e. not regarding to pointing devices, hardware...) Diego 12:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments
A question: I'm working on my SOC (type of seminary work). Are in this article informations, which I can use? Or is it completely wrong? --Drakonee 13 October 2006

designer out there who would like to explain his job in this article?

Nice screenshots, but why is the Mac screenshot the only one not showing any windows open? It's really not about the background image.

Anyone got some illustrative screenshots? -- AdamH 16:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's a lot in the History_of_the_GUI section --Phaze 16:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anybody but the most curmudgeonly of CLI geeks uses "WIMP" as a synonym for GUI any more - That was the province of Microsoft fans before Windows become viable, after which they decided that GUIs were no longer wimpy. Pete 08:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still use WIMP for GUI... however, I don't use it as a play on an acronym. ;)... then again I may be a `CLI geek'. Is it necessary to have `or GUI, pronounced "gooey".' Personally I've never heard it said that way, and would have no clue what anyone was talking about if pronounced that way... I'm not sure if the author meant it as G-U-I, or really as "gooey"(like `glue is sticky and gooey')? Anyone know of any evidence or support either way?

Also, anyone know enough about Sun's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Looking_Glass enough to through something in. I'm not sure if it's a window manager or a full desktop GUI? Maybe someone with more knowledge can decide that. --Capi crimm 02:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I've always heard it pronounced "gooey", but I suspect that the sort of mind that prefers a CLI also prefers spelling out acronyms!


 * As one who prefers a CLI, I've always spelled out GUI. Funny obrservation. --24.51.94.14 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard GUI spelled out, always said as gooey. Never even occured to me to be anything else.  I worked with computers in the '80 and saw the more from DOS & CPM to Windows.  This is in the pass tense, since for some years I've not know anyone who would know what you're on about either way.  Dannman (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the "Looking Glass" stuff - looks fascinating, but I haven't used it. Sounds like it's still in development? I also clicked on the Solaris link because I saw a copy of Solaris on a magazine cover disc the other day and had to look twice twice to see if it was fair dinkum! Pete 03:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "3D user interfaces" section mentions both; "Sun's Project Looking Glass" and "Project Looking Glass by Java", not very helpful at all. Who is running project looking glass? Sun directly or is it part of Java??? -- Anonymous

GUI vs CLI
what this section means??? this seems a war between GUI and CLI so... maybe this section needs an introduction with the history of Gui that replace CLI and then introduce the advantages and applications for each one (in order to see what GUI supported to the computers that were previously CLI and see the limits of GUI (where cli performs better))

-- Anonymous

from http://getpot.sourceforge.net/GUI-ism.txt Perspective worth mentioning ? The Threat of Graphical User Interfaces Explaining GUI-ism, its evil goals and its blind supporters, requires first of all a clarification of the term GUI. Second, it is discussed how certain people (so-called  "GUI-ists") use  GUIs to  achieve their vicious goals. Once, this is clear we discuss how the modern society has to defend itself against the danger of GUI-ism. and so on...
 * No. Perspectives from anonymous authors that provide no backing for their statements is of course completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Ronz 16:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggest criticism be added to this section about the lack of flexibility inherent in most implementations, such as "point-and-grunt", the replacing of language (eg. CLI) with the ability to merely point at objects and grunt activation requests. (eg. http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/pr01.html) 60.240.13.216 12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at least we have a source to cite. It's not much of a source though, since Raymond doesnt have any recognized expertise in usability that I'm aware of.  I'd argue that he's not a reliable source on the topic of usability based upon the contents of his online book linked above - he's promoting heuristic-based testing (an approach that has been shown to be extremely ineffective), and he's promoting his own made-up heuristics that have never been shown to have any effectiveness at all.  In comparison, I think that http://www.usability.gov/ offers detailed discussions of best practices in usability. (I am biased though, having worked on the first edition of their guidelines).--Ronz 04:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some studies have been done which suggest new users can be more comfortable with TUIs rather than GUIs. I don't think the statement about GUIs having a lower learning curve is supported by citations. Krum Stanoev (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Whole Article
This article is very messy and could use a rewrite, as the information found here on Wikipedia is usually reliable and this degrades the reputation

--Anonymous

Done! I've replaced the very long table of differences with a short paragraph explaining the most important difference: uncoverability versus efficiency. I've also added a link to my source ("Linux is not Windows") at the bottom of the page for those who want to know more, although the article also speaks of non-UI concerns and is definitely biased toward the CLI.

I'm afraid we have lost some very funny comparisons in the process, such as (paraphrased) "in GUI undo is possible, but in CLI redo is possible via scripts" and "as opposed to CLIs, modern GUIs utilize all the power of your powerful new hardware"... -- Gelisam 65.95.255.207 16:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I have some issues with this line:

The GUI is usually WIMP-based, although occasionally other metaphors surface, such as Microsoft Bob, 3dwm or (partially) FSV.

-- Art
 * MS Bob, 3dwm and FSV are implementations using other gui metaphors
 * explaining the other metaphors would be nice.
 * I'm not sure if 3dwm and FSV need to be spelled out fully - on the one hand they're proper names of products/projects, on the other, they are acronyms.

No.

Post-WIMP
What do people mean by post-WIMP? What examples are there of GUIs that do not follow the WIMP paradigm? Theshibboleth 01:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Pre-web-application) web browsers, for instance. The browser application itself may reside in a windows (in some systems), but the browsing session is not based in windows and menus. Diego 07:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GUIs are not post-WIMP but are actually pre-WIMP and an example of a non-WIMP GUI would be most mobile phone interfaces since they may well have Icons and Menus but I know of few that can run applications within Windows and even fewer that have a Pointer. Your BIOS is also a prime example of a GUI and not a WIMP; whilst it is also evidence of the pre-WIMP nature of the GUI since this menu system (very popular approach during the early PC-DOS and MS-DOS days and pre-dating Windows) predates the introduction of the WIMP system to most computer interfaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary.newport (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The composition frightens me
Hi, I'm KennyRogerz and I am your new Wikifriend :D Just got done creating my first two complete articles and revised this article (including this discussion page, I know it's just talk but the quality of the words makes me question the quality of the people..) so I kind of liked doing what everyone else has been doing here. Wikipedia is a great source of information we just have to make sure it's all credible and intelligent. Wikipedia is the future if you ask me! I might spend a couple hours just randomly learning stuff here so I'll go on fixing whatever I find to the best of my knowledge.

KennyRogerz - February 7, 2007

Note: Wikifriend is my term ^_^

Need addional software breakdown
Sorry to add more problems to the discussion but there is alot more that needs to be clarified and opened up here. Software is not just on PCs and MACs anymore there are types of software for example (shareware, freeware, etc.) that are downloadable from the internet.

So you also need to explain alot more that what this page is talking about, and I did not even get into the TCP/IP stack related layers of software that is only on routers and bridges etc. If your going to be an Encyclopedic reference, you have got to go through all the pain involved in explaining it all.

Akc9000akc9000 Al Costanzo

Pronunciation
Should a comment on the prounciation of Gui as 'gooey' rather than G-U-I be added? 194.72.35.70 11:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Methink so! I'm non-native speaker and i didn't know if you can say "gooey" in english. that's also why i searched between comments in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.51.114.189 (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone changed it to G-U-I, which the source directly contradicts. I'm changing it back StoryOfXentix (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

gui hardware acceleration
is there a way to accelerate user interface with existing video cards??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.133.226.18 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Screenshots of non-free software
I've removed the screenshots of Windows and OS X. This is VERY IMPORTANT for all editors to understand:  Per Wikipedia's policy on Fair use, we -cannot- use screenshots of non-free software when a free replacement is available. This is very clearly stated, and is not up for discussion. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia that is as free as possible, and that means using free text and free images. Screenshots of KDE, Gnome, and other free operating systems are acceptable, of course, because of the copyleft status of the contents of the images. -/- Warren 11:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, the GPL says nothing about screenshots of software under the GPL. A screenshot of an OS X desktop is fair use, and always has been. (If Wikipedia policy says otherwise, it's wrong.) Secondly, KDE and Gnome are not operating systems. Please refrain from making such strong statements with limited knowledge, especially the "of course" assumption that screenshots of Gnome are permissible because its open source software. - John Nowak 12:25 AM, March 23rd 2007 (EST)


 * The GPL clearly does not cover program output (i.e. screenshots). A screenshot would either be "fair use" or would be copyrighted by the person who created it. 64.171.162.76 19:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * XP usage is around 75% (according to the stats here), so a photo or screenshot acting as a representation of the most common GUI is certainly desirable to have in the article. Gnome, KDE, whatever are not free replacements for the XP GUI, and there is commentary on the Windows GUI in the article, so under the fair-use policy the image is applicable. Ciotog 16:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

13:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)FinFihlman — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinFihlman (talk • contribs)
 * I agree. Now, someone should really put there pictures of Windows from XP to 7 and Mac OS X. It's not against the fair use.

Ribbons
It's an absolutely moronic trend even worse than Bob (talk about the dumbing-down of computing!), but some mention in the post-WIMP section should include the new "intuitive" Ribbons that Microsoft is using to augment or replace traditional menus and tool bars (universal menus and structure being the root of the WIMP system). It will certainly spell the end of not only intelligent computing but general computer education and the ability to 'troubleshoot' your way into learning any new piece of software on-the-fly, but it's a current fact that needs to be listed for as long as we're stuck with it under the current Windows monopoly... and it is most certainly a monopoly when no one outside of the USA uses OSX. -Reticuli 64.93.132.79 (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinions. I'm a heavy Office user and find the Ribbon a much better approach to its use case (hundreds of options) than the old 2003 toolbars ever was. It really isn't post-WIMP at all. Au contraire, it's a pure Icons+Pointer evolution of the classic toolbar, with a (really small) mix of menus in it. It could be included as a one-liner in the Windows section of the History of the graphical user interface, 'cause that's its place in the grand scheme of things. Diego Moya (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification
The following sentence was removed from the article and temporarily moved to the talk page because the information at the cited source contradicted with it.
 * The visible graphical interface features of an application are sometimes referred to as "chrome".'

Sparkie82 (t •c )  02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

User interface chrome
"User interface chrome" redirects here, but the "chrome" concept is not explained or mentioned in the text at all. I'd like to know exactly WHAT the chrome of a user interface is. --Guillep2k (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Add pictures of Windows GUI and Mac GUI
Someone should put there good informative photos of Windows from XP to 7 and Mac OS X. It's essential to have a comparison between the main GUIs. It's not against the fair use policy. 13:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)FinFihlman

I second this opinion. Windows and Mac interfaces are by far the most ubiquitous computer interfaces. Not including them is clear bias and misinformation. --Frozenport (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article should describe what a GUI is and provide some mock up of how a GUI could look like (historic background is fine) -- having an extensive list of pictures to show how a small selection of GUIs look like is not in the scope of this article. Having a few pictures is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.145.44 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually was looking for some example images from GEOS, AmigaOS, GSOS, 68K Macs, OSX, Windows 3.x (almost same as 1.x/2.x), 98(same roughly as 95/ME), WinXP, Win7/Vista, Win8, and cell phones. But that should probably be a specific article on GUI appearance comparisons.  Too bad it would probably be flame-bait!  :(  71.196.246.113 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed paragraph in "post-WIMP"
I have removed the following from the post-WIMP section since it's just plain wrong.


 * '' Post-WIMP includes 3D compositing window managers such as Compiz, Desktop Window Manager, and LG3D.[citation needed] Some post-WIMP interfaces may be better suited for applications which model immersive 3D environments, such as Google Earth.

Compositing, which is what is being refered to does not change the principles of the user inteface (it's still windows, icons, menus and pointers) hence they cannot (with sanity in mind) be claimed to be "post-WIMP" interfaces -- they are simple WIMP interfaces. 80.167.145.44 (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

CLIs...
How are CLIs more efficient and productive than GUIs? The article states that they are but doesn't bother backing up that claim. - 190.231.251.111 (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Old myth. It depends heavily on what you're doing.  Both are inferior to scripting which is what 'BATch' files and keyboard/mouse macro programs do on terminal(text) and graphical interfaces, respectably.  An example of a script format supported by many versions of Microsoft's Windows and Office is VBA (VisualBASIC).  Once you get proficient in both interfaces, the real limitation is latency.  There are some things that having only about a dozen keys to worry about and getting instant visual feedback (doesn't matter if text or graphics) is a godsend.  Caveat:  Old mechanical mice running over a DB9 connector were REALLY imprecise and thus made it slower to interact than optical mice.  This combined with slower 2D fill rates on older cards that sometimes had less than 1MB of RAM (more than half of which was just for the frame buffer!) didn't exactly make GUI's efficient for most things.  Be aware that some people confuse text-based interfaces with scripting, which is clearly more efficient than manually entering commands through an interface, period.  71.196.246.113 (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)