Windows UI evolution: Clicking an unassociated file

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Use of “evolution” as a metaphor

  • Some argue “evolution” shouldn’t imply improvement; biological evolution often simplifies or gets stuck in local optima.
  • Others emphasize that in both biology and UI, “evolution” often means adaptation to constraints, not linear progress.

Linux / GTK / GNOME vs KDE file dialogs

  • Strong criticism of GTK’s default file chooser: doesn’t remember state, can silently fail without portals (e.g., xdg-desktop-portal-gtk for browser uploads).
  • Several complain GNOME removes features and regresses UX (e.g., difficulty navigating to parent folders, focus going to search instead of filename in save dialogs, slow filtering, async race conditions).
  • Others defend GNOME: portals let apps use the native file picker of the environment; GNOME is credited with pushing immutable OSes and sandboxed apps.
  • KDE is seen as trying harder on UX but having its own bugs (e.g., file dialogs opening behind other windows).
  • Some wish open/save were just part of the file manager instead of separate widgets.

Windows file association UX and online lookup

  • Older Windows versions made file-type association simpler; later versions buried or removed UI, pushing users toward registry edits or third-party tools.
  • Modern Windows is criticized for:
    • Random or browser-default associations, especially for images and .txt.
    • Difficulty associating .txt with legacy Notepad after uninstalling the modern version.
    • Some apps hardcoding their own browser choice.
  • The XP-era “look online for a program” service is remembered as almost never useful, with vague results and success only for well-known types.
  • Similar complaints apply to “find driver online” dialogs, which also rarely helped.
  • A CLI tool for associations in modern Windows is praised as finally doing this reliably.
  • The current file-association dialog on Win 10/11 lacks a visible cancel button and closes by Esc or clicking outside, an unusual, touch-first design.

Perceived ‘peak Windows’ and performance

  • Candidates for “peak Windows” include 9x, 2000, XP, and 7, with no consensus:
    • 9x praised for clear widgets and high information density, but also remembered by others as slow and crash-prone.
    • 2000 lauded as stable, efficient, and relatively cruft-free.
    • XP seen by some as the sweet spot (NT architecture plus usability), by others as visually garish and bloated (activation, themed UI, online hooks).
  • Broad agreement that modern hardware is vastly faster, yet modern Windows and many apps feel slower due to bloat, background services, telemetry, and heavy frameworks.

Old vs modern UI design and information density

  • Older UIs are praised for clear affordances (3D buttons, visible scrollbars, dense settings panels) and lower cognitive load once learned.
  • Newer “clean” designs hide scrollbars, buttons, and options, increasing ambiguity and forcing users to guess what is interactive.
  • Some prefer the modern, visually calmer look despite reduced explicit cues; others feel it turns basic tasks into “spot the hidden control.”
  • There is concern that cultural aversion to visually complex UIs has encouraged hiding functionality rather than designing it clearly.