Unless and until you need to do something that isn't one of the three or four basic functions.

> Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?

A perfectly-designed window menu is going to be simpler than a perfectly-designed iPad interface. There's only so much you can really have access to in iPad/Android-land, and any functionality that can't be encompassed with tap/long-tap/tap-and-drag is going to require a drastic break from the ordinary functionality. With window-menus, since you're already using window-menus for lots of stuff, it's not as drastic a break from the routine.

Now, I was careful to say "perfectly-designed" for each, because around the edges it can absolutely be a bit of a pain (my favorite go-to example is finding a "preferences" menu, which in Windows software can be in any of File > Preferences, Edit > Preferences, Tools > Preferences, or Options > Preferences - among many other options; and sometimes there's even a separate "Settings" menu with different options buried somewhere else), but even so, more often than not, window-menus still win by virtue of flexibility.

I don't disagree.

However, a mouse will always be more versatile than a touchscreen. There's a finite theoretical ceiling for touchscreens that's well underneath that of mice. Even looking beyond the completely-obvious fact that there's no real way to distinguish between "point" and "drag" on a touchscreen (other than "did this start on a draggable element", which is far from ideal), two fingers and a thumb can readily control five separate buttons plus a scrollwheel, and I can add even more buttons to a mouse.

I can't add more fingers for touchscreens.

Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?

"simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click"

Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison?

Compare with current-gen GNOME then.

> "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click"

The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime.

Not when the menus were 15-20 entires with occasional icons and the ribbon is 50+ icons of various sizes (and hidden functionalities - the little group corner arrows). "Easier" also implies easy visual parsing.

GUI gaslighting.