9 ms·
When I read your comment I thought is going to look clean and nice... Looks like win 98... Not at all tasteful to me
by ttty 8y ago
When I read your comment I thought is going to look clean and nice... Looks like win 98... Not at all tasteful to me
- TomMarius 8y agoIt's sort of retro, but it's very clean, at least IMO. What's your idea of a clean and nice UI?
- wycy 8y agoWindows 10 with transparency turned off is very clean and usable. I know I'm going to get a lot of reflexive disagreement on this point for unrelated "because Windows" reasons, but I think this is objectively true. The entire UI is just basic shapes and line drawings.
- giancarlostoro 8y agoBasically what Windows Server comes with iirc. I wish the "Pro" version of Windows 10 was just Windows Server, aka I don't care for a lot of the bloat that Microsoft has to offer to all consumer versions of Windows. If I'm a Pro user let me decide what I want to install.
- omaranto 8y agoI agree, and it's not just the appearance, the UX is generally sensible (and little things like keyboard shortcuts for snapping a window to half the screen are very useful). I just wish it weren't so damn buggy. I just had to reinstall because Windows Update got stuck on an install/uninstall update loop. Sigh
- TomMarius 8y agoI'm missing depth in their UI. I liked the Windows 7 UX the most.
- meddlepal 8y agoXFCE4.12 with the Default Window Manager styling.
- jcelerier 8y agowin2k UI is best UI
- etatoby 8y agoAmen. The entire OS was so polished and stable. I don't think it has been surpassed yet. Maybe by OS X 10.6
- agumonkey 8y agomy favorite MS anecdote: PC Magazine gave a beta 2k install on a CD. I tried it, and it was such an improvement over 98 that I never installed anything else until XP was a ~requirement (mostly a convenience because it embedded more and more recent drivers)
- ashleyn 8y agoTo be frank, that's because the Win 9x line was intentionally designed around the older, less-stable MS-DOS architecture. NT, which is what 2000 was based on, was around for seven years by that point and was remarkably stable. The big problem is that it was compatible with virtually nothing, and it wasn't until Win XP that the business world aligned itself with NT.
- menacingly 8y agoIt wasn't until XP that the _consumer_ world aligned itself with NT. NT 4 & 2000 were unavoidable in business networks with windows domains
- agumonkey 8y agoNT was more compatible with my hardware than 98 :)
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoUnless you wanted USB support.
- whywhywhywhy 8y agoMaybe Win 98 looks like Nextstep rather than the other way around.
- masklinn 8y agoWho's the guilty party does not really matter, it's crummy either way
- mschaef 8y agoWhat's your definition of crummy?
- JulianMorrison 8y agoWin 95 literally stole some of the NeXT look. They stole the grey raised borders and the close [X]. They turned the iconize button into a maximize button for some reason.
- monocasa 8y agoGrey raised borders definitely existed in Windows 3.1 GUI elements.
- kstenerud 8y ago... which Microsoft copied from Motif https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_(software) Both Windows 3.1 and Amiga OS (Workbench) 2.0 copied the look in 1990.
- monocasa 8y agoTotally, everyone not relegated to the dustbins of history stole.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoOnly on buttons until ctl3d.dll became commonplace.
- HHest 8y agoCompare the nextspace screenshot to the nextstep screenshot, and one can see they are appreciably different. nextspace: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trunkmaster/nextspace/master/Documentation/NEXTSPACE_Screenshot.png https://raw.githubusercontent.com/trunkmaster/nextspace/mast... nextstep: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/NeXTSTEP_desktop.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/NeXTSTEP_desk...
- SSLy 8y agoI don't see anything really standing out between these two.
- HHest 8y agoSorry for the late response. The biggest difference to my eyes is the color choices. Although this was many years ago, I recall that the nextstep color scheme was very muted, tending to scale of grays rather than contrasting colors. The wikipedia screenshot seems to confirm my memory. The nextspace screenshot shows apps and icons with very bright colors. Nowadays icons and apps tend to be colorful, and since they follow different color schemes, a collection of them has a high probability of clashing (e.g. the gray Gimp next to the orange Firefox.) Nextstep could maintain a consistent aesthetic, I think, because: 1) there were not many apps available on it as there are now on nextspace, and 2) a single company, which had a notoriously style conscious CEO, produced these apps. Nowadays, apps are produced by different groups, with different tastes (let alone skills) in designs. Nextspace faces the problem of maintaining the muted and clean style of nextstep, in a more diversified world. That's what I was reacting to.
- optimuspaul 8y agoappreciably different?!? Not sure I follow. Both are hideous to behold and look very similar. Is there a joke here I am missing?
- darreld 8y agoI'm not sure I'm seeing much difference. Could you explain more fully?