That is a case I only become aware of when I read blogs like this. Technically I could solve it the same way, but these days you have so many tasks on your desk, you don't think about the problem and implications at all and that awareness/discipline is drowned in the noise/unlearned over time.
If someone only gave me 2 minutes for this, because they think it is very simple (as always), I'd have done a count of files of a specific pattern in the directory and then picked a random index, very naive and quick and dirty programming, no sampling at all, just to avoid discussions why it takes so long with people who don't want to hear it.
This reminds me of when I did a lot of C#, Java, JS, Python in my life, filling maps of strings and objects until I started with zig and noticed how expensive and complicated strings and data structure allocations can be. It kind of blew my mind how much memory and computation we waste when we try to get stuff done as fast as possible because of budget/time constraints.
Man, every post from Raymond Chen regarding Windows internals is like a little Xmas. I wonder whether he has to ask someone for permission before publishing this knowledge, though.
That's a matter of taste, but for many it was the Windows they used first and/or spend the most time on and there's a lot of love for that reason alone. I never used XP all that much, but I always changed the theme to the Windows 2000 look. I really didn't like the default, it looked unprofessional and clunky in my eyes. Upon release XP was also pretty universally mocked as a Fisher Price-like UI.
To me Windows 95/NT 4 is still the gold standard in Windows UI. It's certainly not the prettiest, that would be Windows 2000, but it was easy to use, easy to navigate and efficient with space.
Took me years to like Windows XP. Hated the new start menu. I always kept installing Windows 2000 (or ME, probably because it could use Windows 98 drivers but look like Windows 2000).
I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it.
The first Windows I used was 98, and I sure didn't miss the blocky grey menus nor the pixelated icons. Maybe it was Fisher Price-ish but the new rounded buttons and borders were way more appealing to me.
The "Windows Classic" look on XP is exceptionally ugly, because those 3D-rendered icons just do not belong on a Windows 2000-style grey background for menus or buttons. (I have recently had to test both these OSes in VMs…)
That is true, it looked completely off, as if no one really bothered to tests it and make it look nice. It got rid of the horrible window decoration of the default theme, but the start menu looked terrible.
There's no way my memory of this is reliable anymore, but I also remember my administrator account being chess pieces (and my user account being an orange fish).
That is a case I only become aware of when I read blogs like this. Technically I could solve it the same way, but these days you have so many tasks on your desk, you don't think about the problem and implications at all and that awareness/discipline is drowned in the noise/unlearned over time.
If someone only gave me 2 minutes for this, because they think it is very simple (as always), I'd have done a count of files of a specific pattern in the directory and then picked a random index, very naive and quick and dirty programming, no sampling at all, just to avoid discussions why it takes so long with people who don't want to hear it.
This reminds me of when I did a lot of C#, Java, JS, Python in my life, filling maps of strings and objects until I started with zig and noticed how expensive and complicated strings and data structure allocations can be. It kind of blew my mind how much memory and computation we waste when we try to get stuff done as fast as possible because of budget/time constraints.
Man, every post from Raymond Chen regarding Windows internals is like a little Xmas. I wonder whether he has to ask someone for permission before publishing this knowledge, though.
The times when people spent an extra brain cycle to avoid billions of second passes.
A couple of screenshots would've been useful for the post-millennial generations that never got to see the "beauty" (cough) of XP.
Here's a blog post from 2003 with beautiful pictures.
https://jakeludington.com/2003/12/17/create_your_own_windows...
XP is Microsoft's prettiest OS by far.
That's a matter of taste, but for many it was the Windows they used first and/or spend the most time on and there's a lot of love for that reason alone. I never used XP all that much, but I always changed the theme to the Windows 2000 look. I really didn't like the default, it looked unprofessional and clunky in my eyes. Upon release XP was also pretty universally mocked as a Fisher Price-like UI.
To me Windows 95/NT 4 is still the gold standard in Windows UI. It's certainly not the prettiest, that would be Windows 2000, but it was easy to use, easy to navigate and efficient with space.
Took me years to like Windows XP. Hated the new start menu. I always kept installing Windows 2000 (or ME, probably because it could use Windows 98 drivers but look like Windows 2000).
I eventually got used to it and ended up liking it.
The first Windows I used was 98, and I sure didn't miss the blocky grey menus nor the pixelated icons. Maybe it was Fisher Price-ish but the new rounded buttons and borders were way more appealing to me.
The "Windows Classic" look on XP is exceptionally ugly, because those 3D-rendered icons just do not belong on a Windows 2000-style grey background for menus or buttons. (I have recently had to test both these OSes in VMs…)
That is true, it looked completely off, as if no one really bothered to tests it and make it look nice. It got rid of the horrible window decoration of the default theme, but the start menu looked terrible.
I found each of 2000, XP, and 7 to be excellent in its own unique way. I'd be happy with any of them. But it also felt exciting to upgrade.
It's all been downhill from there as far as UX goes.
You mean 7 ;)
Windows 7 was certainly pretty, but I still think that W2000 was peak Windows UI (and I've been around since Windows 2.0)
Windows 7 fixed Vista a bit, but the Aero windows were never pretty and the non-Aero decorations were painfully obvious a placeholder.
I thought it looked great :-/
I don't see how that's relevant? Article is about the RNG implementation, it doesn't matter what the profile pictures are.
100 seems like a very unnecessarily low limit, even for the time
It's well above the number of images that were in the applicable folder by default, so seems pretty appropriate to me.
Does it also check existing users so you don't match one?
Some say the Admin account defaulted to a chessboard.
I think it's true, but not sure if I'm just falling victim to false memories... help?
The account named "Administrator" that Windows created for you always had the chess piece.
There's no way my memory of this is reliable anymore, but I also remember my administrator account being chess pieces (and my user account being an orange fish).
It might be that the randomization code was bypassed in some cases - like creating an account in safe boot mode or similar.
It makes sense. The chess piece is the first profile picture in the list.
I remember it like that too. Or is it Mandela effect?
The Magnus effect? :)