There was the Z80, 6805, and various other more crappy CPUs 
The bizzare thing is that say a Collins Proline (standard bizjet stuff) is far more opaque than anything in GA, yet the pilots love it, for its UI speed and functional richness.
So what is it in GA that makes people say the G1000 is horrible?
It has to be some mixture of
These systems are hard. They are not for everybody. Lots of people will never learn them – same as I would never get a degree in pure maths even if you gave me a TBM900 at the end. To learn them, you need a mind well adapted to not just aviation concepts (waypoints, VNAV, etc) but also a mind conditioned by years of exposure to consumer IT. Everybody reading EuroGA will have that, but not everybody who has at some stage got a PPL.
So what is it in GA that makes people say the G1000 is horrible?
lack of training
inability to absorb training (a deeply non technical mind – hardly uncommon!)
unwillingness to learn it
a decision that learning it is not necessary (one can fly with DCTs everywhere)
Peter, I entirely disagree with that argument.
None of those four “reasons” have anything to do with the G1000. They’re all about the users. But I don’t think it’s valid to respond to a user saying “this product has a horrible interface” by saying “well, you’re just not putting enough effort into it”.
Look, I WAS willing to learn how to operate the G1000 (to an extend that allows save VFR travel, that is). I don’t think I suffer from an inability to absorb training and I don’t think that learning is not necessary. Hell, I even enjoy fiddling with the G1000 and figuring things out (as much as I “enjoy” fiddling with SAP systems to make them do what I want them to do.. somehow). If those two products were designed like an Apple product with the user in mind, it would be half as fun for me (being reasonably tech-savvy).
But I wholeheartedly assert both the G1000 and SAP to have horrible, horrible user interfaces (and we’ve discussed somewhere else a few weeks ago why that may be so in the case of the G1000 – UI design being a relatively young discipline).
This whole “do I have to turn the large knob or the small knob now to enter.. to proceed… do I proceed with the tiny Enter button? Or press the knob?” is outrageous. If I flew everyday, I wouldn’t notice anymore (much as I know where to click in the SAP GUI, which somehow seems to be stuck in an early 1990s design time loop) – but I fly occasionally and it takes a bit of trial and error each time I enter a flight plan!
Now, take the volume knob for pilot and passenger volume:
Turn the small, inner one for pilot volume and the large, outer knob for passenger volume. I mean, honestly? Wouldn’t the most obvious thing have been a left knob (pilot) and a right knob (passenger)? That doesn’t require a degree in UI design. Some common sense would have done the job. It seems to me that would even have been easier/cheaper to design/build. It would be crystal clear which knob does what. Now, if in doubt, I’ll have to look at the little symbol. I know it’s a trivial example but I still find it inexcusable. * rant over *
OK – I agree these user interfaces are stupidly designed, but they can be learnt.
The reasons I listed are just my attempted explanations for people not learning them.
After all, for a given aircraft, you don’t get a choice. You can’t download a different app from the app shop…
You can’t download a different app from the app shop…
Not yet.
I think the biggest difference between corporate pilots flying Pro Line and a private G1000 pilot is currency. If it is your job and you do it all the time you learn it. Most GA pilots don’t use it enough to get on top of it. That of course would argue for GA systems to be built with that in mind but there is a limit to how simple you can make something when it has to accomplish a complex task. GA (and bizjet) systems are getting a lot better however.
With respect – what computer were you using in 1976 ??
If I recall correctly, I started out on a Alpha/LSI we had in high school.(With a Teletype 33!!!) In the next few years, various other types including the DEC PDP-10 and PDP-11.
On the other hand, there wasn’t a personal computer concept at that time, so in some sense, you were using a terminal and did not necessarily know what kind of computer you were connected to.
OK – I agree these user interfaces are stupidly designed, but they can be learnt.
Of course, they can be learnt, but you can still think that they are horrible.
Some UIs are difficult for inexperienced users, but very good for people who know how the stuff works. Lots of computer systems fall into that category. (Collins ProLine may be one of the.) Other UIs are “easy” in a way that makes them good for casual users but not for experienced ones. Still other systems are difficult whether you know them well or not, if nothing else because they get in the way of your workflow all the time. IMHO G1000 belongs to the latter category. Rhino pointed out some of the major problems. I can add how various functions are accessed in completely different ways. Softkey? Dedicated key? Via a menu? Via a field on a dedicated page?
Just for the record: We have to make a distinction between G1000 and Cirrus’ version of it called “Perspective”.
For a 100-150 h/year pilot the less capable but much more ergonomical Avidyne glass cockpit is the better alternative, and i hope Avidyne and its intelligent concepts are not killed by the Garmin monster.
Actually the Entegra/430 combination is really just as easy to learn as 430 with gauges, but it’s much better too! And “R9”, while exotic, is even nicer.
From a different field:
https://medium.com/@designuxui/how-bad-ux-killed-jenny-ef915419879e
What does that website do? Short of clicking on everything possible and seeing where it leads, I can’t see anything
Maybe that is the very point?
Maybe it is the new IOS? 
