Talk:Graphical user interface

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)