It’s likely that Hackaday readers have among them a greater than average number of people who can name one special thing they did on September 23rd, 2002. On that day a new web browser was released, Phoenix version 0.1, and it was a lightweight browser-only derivative of the hugely bloated Mozilla suite. Renamed a few times to become Firefox, it rose to challenge the once-mighty Microsoft Internet Explorer, only to in turn be overtaken by Google’s Chrome.

Now in 2025 it’s a minority browser with an estimated market share just over 2%, and it’s safe to say that Mozilla’s take on AI and the use of advertising data has put them at odds with many of us who’ve kept the faith since that September day 23 years ago. Over the last few months I’ve been actively chasing alternatives, and it’s with sadness that in November 2025, I can finally say I’m Firefox-free.

Just What Went Wrong?

Browser market share, 2009 to 2025. Statcounter, CC BY-SA 3.0.
It was perhaps inevitable that Firefox would lose market share when faced with a challenger from a player with the economic muscle of Google. Chrome is everywhere, it’s the default browser in Android and ChromeOS, and when stacked up against the Internet Explorer of fifteen years or so ago it’s not difficult to see why it made for an easy switch. Chrome is good, it’s fast and responsive, it’s friendly, and the majority of end users either don’t care or don’t know enough to care that it’s Google’s way in to your data. When it first appeared, they still had the “Don’t be evil” aura to them, even if perhaps behind the warm and fuzzy feeling it had already worn away in the company itself.

If Firefox were destined to become a minority player then it could still be a successful one; after all, 2% of the global browser market still represents a huge number of users whose referrals to search engines return a decent income. But the key to being a success in any business is to know your customers, and sitting in front of this particular screen it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Mozilla have lost touch with theirs. To understand this it’s necessary for all of us to look in the mirror and think for a moment about who uses Firefox.

Somewhere, A Group Of Users Are Being Ignored

Blink, and its name will change: Phoenix version 0.1. Mozilla Foundation; Microsoft, Inc., CC BY-SA 4.0.
A quick straw poll in my hackerspace revealed a majority of Firefox users, while the same straw poll among another group of my non-hackerspace friends revealed none. The former used Firefox because of open-source vibes, while the latter used Edge or Safari because it came with their computer, or Chrome on their phone and on their desktop because of Google services. Hackaday is not a global polling organisation, but we think it’s likely that the same trend would reveal itself more widely. If you’re in the technology space you might use Firefox, but if you aren’t you may not even have heard of it in 2025. It’s difficult to see that changing any time soon, to imagine some killer feature that would make those Chrome, Safari, and Edge users care enough to switch to Firefox.

To service and retain this loyal userbase then, you might imagine that Mozilla would address their needs and concerns with what made Phoenix a great first version back in 2002. A lightweight and versatile standards-compliant and open-source web browser with acceptable privacy standards, and without any other non-browser features attached to it. Just a browser, only a browser, and above all, a fast browser.

Instead, Mozilla appear to be following a course calculated to alarm rather than retain these users. Making themselves an AI-focused organisation, neglecting their once-unbeatable developer network, and trying to sneak data gathering into their products. They appear now to think of themselves as a fad-driven Valley startup rather than the custodians of a valuable open-source package, and unsurprisingly this is concerning to those of us who know something about what a browser does behind the scenes.

Why Is This Important?

If you have ever had to write code like this, you will know. Bret Taylor, CC-BY 2.5.
It is likely that I am preaching to the choir here, but it’s important that there be a plurality of browsers in the world. And by that I mean not just a plurality of front-ends, but a plurality of browser engines. One of the reasons Phoenix appeared all those years ago was to challenge the dominance of Microsoft Internet Explorer, the tool by which the Redmond software company were trying to shape the online world to their tune. If you remember the browser wars of that era, you’ll have tales of incompatibilities seemingly baked in on purpose to break the chances of an open Web, and we were all poorer for it. Writing Javascript with a range of sections to deal with the quirks of different browser families is now largely a thing of the past, and for that you have the people who stuck with Firefox in the 2000s to thank.

The fear is that here in 2025 we are in an analogous situation to the early 2000s, with Google replacing Microsoft. Such is the dominance of Google Chrome and the WebKit-derived Blink engine which powers it, that in effect, Google have immense power to shape the Web just as Microsoft did back in the day. Do you trust them to live up to their now-retired mission statement and not be evil? We can’t say we do. Thus Firefox’s Gecko browser engine is of crucial importance, representing as it does the only any-way serious challenger to Blink and WebKit’s near-monopoly. That it is now tied to a Mozilla leadership treating it in so cavalier a manner does not bode well for the future of the Web.

So I’ve set out my stand here, that after twenty-three years, I’m ready to abandon Firefox. It’s not a decision that has been easy, because it’s important for all of us that there be a plurality of browsers, but such is the direction being taken by Mozilla that I am not anxious to sit idly by and constantly keep an eye out for new hidden privacy and AI features to turn off with obscure checkboxes. In the following piece I’ll take a look at my hunt for alternatives, and you may be surprised by the one I eventually picked.

hackaday.com/2025/11/20/so-lon…

Con l'RSU FIOM-CGIL della mia azienda abbiamo organizzato un evento che esce un po' dalle tematiche "classiche" di cui si occupa una RSU.

L'incontro in questione si terrà mercoledì 26 novembre, alle 9:00 (mattina), alla Casa del Popolo di Querceto (Sesto Fiorentino, FI) e si intitola "Violenza di genere - Ragioni culturali e psicologiche, effetti sulle vittime, il supporto offerto dai servizi territoriali".

E' stato organizzato in collaborazione con il Centro Antiviolenza Artemisia di Firenze e vedrà la partecipazione di una delle loro psicologhe, la dott.ssa Eleonora Bartoli.

L’associazione Artemisia illustrerà le ragioni socio-culturali della violenza di genere, gli effetti sulle vittime, cercherà di fornire degli strumenti per riconoscere questo tipo di violenza e i servizi presenti sul territorio per il sostegno delle donne in quanto vittime e per gli uomini in quanto attori di tale violenza.

Se condividete magari riusciamo a raggiungere qualche persona in più.

#ViolenzaDiGenere
#GiornataInternazionaleControlaViolenzasulleDonne
#25novembre #25novembre2025
#FIOM
#CGIL

@Firenze

[Zack], in addition to being a snappy dresser, has a thing for strange 3D printing filament. How strange? Well, in a recent video, he looks at filaments that require 445 C. Even the build plate has to be super hot. He also looks at filament that seems like iron, one that makes you think it is rubber, and a bunch of others.

As you might expect, he’s not using a conventional 3D printer. Although you might be able to get your more conventional printer to handle some of these, especially with some hacking. There is filament with carbon fiber, glass fiber, and more exotic add-ons.

Most of the filaments need special code to get everything working. While you might think you can’t print these engineering filaments, it stands to reason that hobby-grade printers are going to get better over time (as they already have). If the day is coming when folks will be able to print any of these on their out-of-the-box printer, we might as well start researching them now.

If you fancy a drinking game, have a shot every time he changes shots and a double when the Hackaday Prize T-shirt shows up.

youtube.com/embed/J8PZWkjt65Q?…

hackaday.com/2025/11/20/rare-f…

Il Consiglio Supremo di Difesa, si è riunito recentemente al Quirinale sotto la guida del Presidente Sergio Mattarella, ha posto al centro della discussione l’evoluzione delle minacce ibride e digitali che investono l’Italia e l’Europa.

La guerra in Ucraina resta lo scenario da cui originano molte delle tensioni che ricadono anche sul dominio cyber, con Mosca che continua a utilizzare strumenti tecnologici e informativi come leve strategiche per destabilizzare i Paesi occidentali.

Una parte rilevante della riunione è stata dedicata all’impiego sempre più aggressivo dei droni da parte della Russia, non solo in Ucraina ma anche con violazioni dello spazio aereo di Paesi NATO. Sebbene si tratti di operazioni prettamente militari, il Consiglio ha sottolineato come tali tecniche riflettano un salto di qualità nell’integrazione tra mezzi fisici e digitali, confermando la necessità di potenziare le capacità europee di innovazione e difesa tecnologica, in linea con quanto previsto dal Libro Bianco per la Difesa 2030.

Il tema centrale sul fronte cyber è stato però l’aumento della minaccia ibrida. Il Consiglio ha riconosciuto che la Russia – insieme ad altri attori ostili – sta intensificando attività che spaziano dalla disinformazione alle interferenze nei processi democratici, sfruttando la velocità e l’ubiquità delle tecnologie digitali, oltre alle potenzialità dell’intelligenza artificiale per manipolare lo spazio cognitivo e costruire narrazioni polarizzanti.

Sempre più frequenti sono anche le operazioni cyber dirette contro infrastrutture critiche italiane ed europee. Ospedali, reti energetiche, sistemi finanziari e piattaforme logistiche rientrano tra gli obiettivi più vulnerabili.

L’obiettivo di questi attacchi è creare interruzioni, generare sfiducia nelle istituzioni e colpire la stabilità economica e sociale. Per questo, il Consiglio ha ribadito l’urgenza di rafforzare i meccanismi di difesa e coordinamento nazionale, in continuità con le iniziative già intraprese a livello UE e NATO.

Accanto alle minacce digitali, il Consiglio ha evidenziato come nuovi domini – lo spazio e il sottosuolo marino – stiano rapidamente diventando aree chiave di competizione strategica. La protezione dei cavi sottomarini, dei satelliti e delle infrastrutture spaziali è ormai parte integrante della sicurezza cyber nazionale, poiché un attacco in questi ambiti avrebbe ricadute dirette sulle comunicazioni digitali e sui servizi essenziali.

In chiusura, oltre ai rischi cyber e ibridi, il Consiglio ha espresso forte preoccupazione per le tensioni nei principali scenari di crisi globali – Ucraina, Medio Oriente, Libano, Sahel e Balcani – ricordando che ogni instabilità regionale si ripercuote anche sulla sicurezza informatica europea.

Il messaggio finale è stato chiaro: l’Italia deve continuare a investire nella resilienza digitale e nella cooperazione internazionale, mantenendo alta la vigilanza su tutte le dimensioni della sicurezza contemporanea.

L'articolo Il Consiglio Supremo di Difesa Italiano discute sulla minacce ibride e digitali in Italia e Europa proviene da Red Hot Cyber.

The Black Response and Impact Boston will present The Criminalization of Self-Defense, a community education event on Thursday, November 20, from 6:00 to 8:30 PM at The Community Art Center in Cambridge, MA. We are proud to be one of the sponsors of it. Please register in advance.

It is a free and public gathering that will explore how self-defense is criminalized, particularly for Black, Brown, and marginalized survivors, and how communities can reclaim safety through resistance, advocacy, and care.

Featured Speakers will be:

• Prof. Alisa Bierria – Survived and Punished / UCLA
• Meg Stone – Impact Boston
• Kishana Smith-Osei – Massachusetts Women of Color Network
• Lea Kayali – Palestinian Youth Movement Boston

The Community Art Center is at 119 Windsor Street, Cambridge. It is a nine minute walk from Central Square and the MBTA Red Line stop there.

FREE food and childcare will be provided. TBR will collect food donations for the network of free CommunityFridges. Please bring nonperishable food items to contribute. More details are available.

masspirates.org/blog/2025/11/2…

If you take a look around you, chances are pretty good that within a few seconds, your eyes will fall on some kind of electrical connector. In this day and age, it’s as likely as not to be a USB connector, given their ubiquity as the charger of choice for everything from phones to flashlights. But there are plenty of other connectors, from mains outlets in the wall to Ethernet connectors, and if you’re anything like us, you’ve got a bench full of DuPonts, banana plugs, BNCs, SMAs, and all the rest of the alphabet soup of connectors.

Given their propensity for failure and their general reputation as a necessary evil in electrical designs, it may seem controversial to say that all connectors are engineered to last. But it’s true; they’re engineered to last, but only for as long as necessary. Some are built for only a few cycles of mating, while others are built for the long haul. Either way, connectors are a great case study in engineering compromise, one that loops physics, chemistry, and materials science into the process.

A Tale of Two Connectors

While there’s a bewildering number of connectors available today, most have at least a few things in common. Generally, connectors consist of one or more electrically conductive elements held in position by an insulating body of some sort, one that can mechanically attach to another body containing more conductive elements. When the two connectors are attached, the conductive elements come into physical contact with each other, completing the circuit and providing a low-resistance path for current to flow. The bodies also have to be able to separate from each other when the connections need to be broken.
This Molex connector is only engineered for a few mating cycles over its useful life. By Barcex – Self-published work, CC BY-SA 2.5.
For as simple as that sounds, a lot of engineering goes into making connectors that are suitable for the job at hand. The intended use of a connector dictates a lot about how it’s designed, and in terms of connector durability, looking at the extremes can be instructive. On one end of the scale, we might have something like a Molex connector on a wiring harness in a dishwasher. Under ideal circumstances, a connector like that only needs to be used once, in the factory during assembly. If the future owner of the appliance is unlucky, that connector might go through one or two more mating cycles if the machine needs to be serviced at some point. Either way, the connector is only going to be subjected to low single-digit mating cycles, and should be designed accordingly
A USB-C connector, on the other hand, is designed for 10,000 mating cycles. By Tomato86 – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0.
On the other end of the mating-cycle spectrum would be something like the USB-C connector on a cell phone. Assuming the user will charge the phone once a day, the connector might have to endure many thousands of mating cycles over the useful life of the phone. Such a connector has a completely different use case from a connector like that Molex, and very different design constraints. But the basic job — bringing two conductors into close contact to complete a low-resistance circuit, and allow the circuits to be broken only under the right circumstances — is the same for both.

But what exactly do we mean by “close contact”? It might seem obvious — conductors in each half of the connector have to touch each other. But keeping those conductors in contact is the real trick, especially in challenging environments such as under the hood of a car or inside a CNC machine, where vibration, dust, and liquid intrusion can all come together to force those contacts apart and break the circuit while it’s still in use.

esseeWhy Be Normal?

To keep contacts together, engineers rely on one of the simplest mechanisms of all: springs. In most connectors, the contacts themselves are the sprung elements, although there are connectors where force is applied to the contacts with separate springs. In either case, the force generated by the spring pushes the contacts together firmly enough to ensure that they stay connected. This is the normal force, called so because the force is exerted perpendicular to the plane of contact when the connector is mated.

Traditionally, normal force in connector engineering is expressed in grams, which seems like an affront to the SI system, where force is expressed in Newtons. But fear not — “grams” does not refer to the mass of a contact, but rather is shorthand for “gram-force,” the force applied by one gram of mass in a one g gravitational field. So, an “80 gram” contact is really exerting 0.784 N of normal force. But that’s a bit clunky, especially when most connectors have normal forces that are a fraction of a Newton. So it ends up being easier to refer to the grams part of the equation and just assume the acceleration component.

The amount of normal force exerted by the contacts is a critical factor in connector design, and has to be properly scaled for the job. If the force is too low, it may increase the resistance of the circuit or even result in intermittent open circuits. If the force is too high, the connector could be difficult to mate and unmate, or the contacts could wear out from excess friction.

Since the contacts themselves are usually the springs as well as the conductors, getting the normal force right, as well as ensuring the contacts are highly conductive, is largely an exercise in materials science. While pure copper is an excellent conductor, it is not elastic enough to provide the proper normal force. So, most connectors use one of two related copper alloys for their contacts: phosphor bronze, or beryllium copper. Both are excellent electrical and thermal conductors, and both are strong and springy, but there are significant differences between the two that make them suitable for different types of connectors.

As the name implies, phosphor bronze is an alloy of phosphorus and bronze, which itself is an alloy of copper and tin. To make phosphor bronze, about 0.03% phosphorus is added to pure molten copper. Any oxygen dissolved in the copper reacts with the phosphorus, making phosphorus pentoxide (P₂O₅), which can be easily removed during refining. About 2% tin is added along with about 10% zinc and 2% iron to make the final alloy, which is easily cast into sheets or coil stock.

While far superior to pure copper or non-phosphor bronze for use in contacts, phosphor bronze is, at best, a compromise material. It’s good enough in almost all categories — strength, elasticity, conductivity, wear resistance — but not really great in any of them. It’s the “Jack of all trades, master of none” of the electrical contact world, which, coupled with its easy workability and low cost, makes it the metal of choice for the contacts in commodity connectors. If a manufacturer is making a million copies of a connector, especially ones that are cheap enough that nobody will cry too much if they have to be replaced, chances are good that they’ll choose phosphor bronze. It’s also the alloy most likely to be used for connectors intended for low mating-cycle applications, like the aforementioned dishwasher Molex.

For more mission-critical contacts, a different alloy is generally called for: beryllium copper. Also known as spring copper, beryllium copper contains up to about 3% beryllium, but for electrical uses, it’s usually around 0.7% with a little cobalt and nickel added in. Beryllium copper is everything that phosphor bronze is, and more. It’s stronger and springier, it’s a far better electrical conductor, and it also has a better ability to withstand creep under load. Also known as stress relaxation, creep under load is the tendency for a spring to lose its strength over time, which reduces its normal force. Phosphor bronze has pretty good stress relaxation resistance, but when it heats up past around 125°C, it starts to lose spring force — not ideal for high-power applications. Beryllium copper is easily able to withstand 150°C or more, making it a better choice for power connectors.

Beryllium copper also has a higher elastic modulus than phosphor bronze, which makes it easier to create small contacts that still have enough normal force to maintain good contact. Smaller is better when it comes to modern high-density connectors, so you’ll often see beryllium copper used in fine-pitch connectors. It also has better fatigue life and tends to maintain normal force over repeated mating cycles, making it desirable for connectors that specify cycle lives in the thousands. But just because it’s desirable doesn’t make it a shoo-in — beryllium copper is at least three times more expensive than phosphor bronze. That means it’s usually reserved for connectors that can justify the added expense.

Noble Is Only Skin Deep

No matter what the base metal is for connector contacts, chances are good that the finished contact will have some sort of plated finish. Plating is important because it protects the base metal from oxidation, as well as increasing the wear resistance of contacts and improving their electrical conductivity. Plating metals fall into two broad categories: noble (principally gold, with silver used sometimes for high-power connectors, as well as palladium, but only very rarely) and non-noble platings.

Noble metal finishes are quite common in high-density connectors, RF applications, and high-speed digital circuits, as well as high-reliability applications and connectors that are expected to have high mating cycles. But at the risk of stating the obvious, gold is expensive, so it’s used only on connectors that really need it. And even then, it’s very rare that the entire contact is plated. While that would be incredibly expensive — gold is currently pushing $4,000 an ounce — the real reason is that gold isn’t particularly solderable. So generally, selective plating is used to deposit gold only on the mating surfaces of contacts, with the tail of the contact plated in a non-noble metal to improve solderability.

youtube.com/embed/AtwVm_3YrwI?…

Among the non-noble finishes, tin and tin alloys are the first choice. Aside from its excellent solderability, tin alloys do a great job at protecting the base metal from corrosion. However, the tin plating itself begins to oxidize almost immediately after it’s applied. This would seem to be a problem, but it’s easily addressed by using more spring force in the contacts to break through the oxide layer to fresh tin. Tin-plated contacts typically specify normal forces of 100 grams or more, while noble metal contacts can get by with 30 grams or less. Also, tin contacts require much thicker plating than noble metal finishes. Tin is generally specified for commodity connectors and anywhere the number of mating cycles is likely to be low.

Don’t You Fret

Although corrosion is obviously something to be avoided, the real enemy when it comes to connector durability is metal-on-metal contact. The spring pressure between contacts unavoidably digs into the plating, and while that’s actually desirable in tin-plated contacts, too much of a good thing is bad. Digging past the plating into the base metal marks the end of the road for many connectors, as the base metal’s relatively lower conductivity increases the resistance of the connection, potentially leading to intermittent connections and even overheating. Again, noble metals perform better in this regard, at least in the long run, as their lower normal force reduces friction and results in a longer-lived contact.

There’s another metallurgical phenomenon that can wreak havoc on connectors: fretting. Fretting is caused by tiny movements of the contacts against each other, on the order of 10^-7 meters, generally in response to low-g vibrations but also as a result of thermal expansion and contraction. Fretting damage occurs when the force of micromotions between contacts exceeds the normal force exerted between them. This leads to one contact sliding over the other by a tiny amount, digging a trench through the plating metal. In tin-plated contacts, this exposes fresh tin, which oxidizes instantly, forming an insulating surface. Further micromotions expose more fresh tin, which leads to more oxides. Eventually the connection fails due to high resistance. Fretting is insidious because it happens even without a lot of mating cycles; all it takes is a little vibration and some time. And those are the enemies of all connectors.

hackaday.com/2025/11/20/mating…

Esattamente 40 anni fa, il 20 novembre 1985, Microsoft rilasciò Windows 1.0, la prima versione di Windows, che tentò di trasformare l’allora personal computer da una macchina con una monotona riga di comando in un sistema con finestre, icone e controllo tramite mouse.

Si tratta della messa a terra di alcune delle più grandi innovazioni del nostro tempo, ideata dal genio di Duglas Engelbart e dell’“oN-Line System”, il sistema progettato negli anni sessanta che introduceva un sistema operativo a finestre connesso ad un mouse, presentati nella storica “mother of all demos” del 9 dicembre del 1968.
Schermata di caricamento di Windows 1.0
Per il pubblico di oggi, questo sembra scontato (o sconosciuto) ma a metà degli anni ’80, l’idea stessa di un’interfaccia grafica sul PC IBM di massa era praticamente rivoluzionaria.

Tecnicamente, Windows 1.0 non era un sistema operativo completo. Era una sovrapposizione grafica su MS-DOS , una shell a 16 bit chiamata MS-DOS Executive che si sovrapponeva al sistema esistente e consentiva l’esecuzione di programmi in modalità finestra.

La prima versione fu rilasciata solo negli Stati Uniti; aggiornamenti ed edizioni internazionali seguirono in seguito, e il pacchetto costava circa 99 dollari, una cifra considerevole all’epoca.
Desktop di Windows 1.0, dove si possono vedere le finestre non modificabili nella loro dimensione
L’interfaccia appariva insolita persino per gli standard degli anni ’80. In Windows 1.0, le finestre non potevano essere sovrapposte liberamente: erano rigorosamente affiancate sullo schermo. L’utente controllava il sistema principalmente con il mouse, selezionando le voci di menu e trascinando gli elementi, sebbene i menu stessi funzionassero in modo strano e richiedessero di tenere premuto il pulsante del mouse.

Ma anche allora, Microsoft stava già definendo i principi che in seguito si sarebbero evoluti nel modello desktop che conosciamo.

Windows 1.0 includeva una suite di applicazioni sorprendentemente riconoscibili ancora oggi. Agli utenti venivano offerti Paintbrush, l’antenato dell’odierno Paint, Blocco note, l’editor di testo Write, Calcolatrice, un orologio, un terminale, il database di schede Cardfile, gli appunti e un gestore di stampa. Queste applicazioni consentivano agli utenti di prendere semplici appunti, disegnare semplici grafici, stampare documenti ed eseguire più programmi contemporaneamente, sebbene con un multitasking molto limitato.

I requisiti hardware al momento del rilascio erano considerati piuttosto elevati. Per eseguire Windows 1.0 era necessario un processore Intel 8086 o 8088, almeno 256 kilobyte di RAM, una scheda grafica e due unità floppy disk a doppia faccia o un disco rigido. Molti recensori si sono lamentati del notevole rallentamento del sistema durante l’esecuzione di più applicazioni, soprattutto se il computer disponeva di una memoria inferiore ai 512 kilobyte consigliati. In confronto, l’attuale minimo di 4 gigabyte per Windows 11 sembra quasi un balzo in avanti.

Windows 1.0 ricevette un’accoglienza tiepida dal mercato. I critici ne notarono l’interfaccia lenta, la scarsa compatibilità con i programmi DOS esistenti e il numero limitato di applicazioni scritte specificamente per Windows. Rispetto ai sistemi grafici Apple già disponibili, il prodotto Microsoft appariva rudimentale e alcuni recensori paragonarono le sue prestazioni su un PC con 512 kilobyte di RAM a “melassa versata nell’Artico”, alludendo alla sua incredibile lentezza.
Desktop di Windows 2.0
Tuttavia, Microsoft non abbandonò l’idea. Nel giro di un paio d’anni, l’azienda rilasciò diversi aggiornamenti di Windows 1.x con supporto per nuovo hardware e layout di tastiera europei, per poi introdurre Windows 2.0 e il particolarmente riuscito Windows 3.0.

Queste versioni, da sole, resero l’interfaccia grafica dei PC IBM uno standard di fatto del settore e gettarono le basi per il vasto ecosistema software a cui ci siamo abituati negli anni ’90.
Desktop di Windows 3.0
Oggi, Windows 1.0 è ormai da tempo diventato un reperto da museo: emulatori del sistema vengono lanciati per nostalgia e curiosità, e la stessa Microsoft occasionalmente ricorda la sua prima interfaccia grafica attraverso Easter egg e progetti a tema, come la divertente app per Windows 1.11 basata sulla serie TV Stranger Things.

Ma molte idee e persino alcuni programmi di quell’epoca sono sopravvissuti fino a oggi, e il 40° anniversario ci ricorda quanto rapidamente siano cambiati sia i computer che la nostra comprensione di cosa dovrebbe essere un’interfaccia intuitiva in una sola generazione .

L'articolo Tanti auguri Windows! 40 anni di storia dei sistemi operativi e non sentirli proviene da Red Hot Cyber.