5 ms·

As a Macintosh user since System 7, I cannot be more in love with the old UIs and UX. I really enjoy the pixel era. Certainly, the introduction to OS X took App

As a Macintosh user since System 7, I cannot be more in love with the old UIs and UX. I really enjoy the pixel era. Certainly, the introduction to OS X took Apple to a different level, but the OS 9 UI for me will be one of the best examples of the epitome of OS. Good in interactions, colors, details, sound feedback. I will always thanks Apple for such work poured on an OS.

0815test 7y ago
Yes, when it comes to icons, pictures, non-trivial logos etc. the "pixel" style has always been the most effective way of coming up with something that will look appealing even with minimal effort. Even on modern screens, a properly-upscaled, pixel-based icon usually looks a lot better than the symbolic, vector-based look you most often see today, while taking a lot less time and effort to create. You can see this very well on other user interfaces from the 1980s and 1990s too, it's not exclusive to the Mac. (And there's a sensible reason for this, too - the "pixel art" style is unique in letting you set a uniform ceiling on high-spatial-frequency content and subtle color changes within a picture, while preserving unbounded choice within these constraints.)
- meerita 7y ago
  I've been user of Microsoft, IBM's OS/Warp too. I liked a lot Windows 3.1 and the first Windows 95. They showed good level of work, not only in the guts of the OS but also the GUI. But those styles faded once I get back into the mac, with their icon styles, you can change icons on the fly it was so easy. It was part of OS 7, 8, 9.
- amatecha 7y ago
  Right, the low fidelity of 32x32pixel icons means they are easy to "read" and make sense of. Conversely, SGI's IRIX OS had vector icons which made them extremely varied and IMO they sometimes required a lot of effort to understand. Check this screenshot[0] to get an idea of what I mean. They are not immediately obvious due to their high level of detail. That said, I found it super cool that the icons can scale, right in the file explorer (using the "scroll wheel" type thing on the left side of the window)!! :) [0] https://software.majix.org/irix/screenshots/screen.5.big.jpg https://software.majix.org/irix/screenshots/screen.5.big.jpg
  - meerita 7y ago
    I never had the chance to use SGI's IRIX OS. I was teenager and the pricess where so prohibitive for such workstations. I had the luck to start a job where the owner had 15 Macs, among them, they throw me all the older models so I learnt that way.
jxdxbx 7y ago
I have a soft spot for System 6, because it is the epitome of the classic, classic version of Mac OS--black and white, minimal, but with all the essential elements of a modern GUI, before all sorts of new complexities started to be added in in System 8 through OS 9.
sdegutis 7y ago
This is kind of how I feel about Windows 95. I remember when there was only DOS, and then Windows 3 came out, and then Windows 95 which seemed like the very perfection of UI. Since then it seems to have gone downhill. Not very many true innovations, which is partly why I started experimenting with desktop Linux and finally switched to Mac OS X 10.4, because it felt like the final evolution of the desktop. Nowadays, nothing seems quite ideal, but Win95/98 will always seem like the epitome of desktop UI, the perfect union of form and function. Probably just nostalgia and rose colored glasses though in all honesty.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  I think it’s not just nostalgia. Windows 95 was a huge step for MS and introduced most of the UI elements that we are still using now. Since then I have trouble seeing any fundamental improvements in newer Windows versions. I’d be happy to go back to the UI of 95 or XP compared to the latest Windows 10 stuff. I just don’t it really got any better. Just slower.
  - sdegutis 7y ago
    I do like that some Windows programs are now converting menus into searchable hierarchies, e.g. Visual Studio and VS Code. But those are just programs, and they're only power-user programs. Searchable grouped functions are a genuine innovation on top of hierarchical menus. The "Start Menu" improved on that front and it is generally good.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      I think the problem now is that some programs make improvements but the OS is stagnating. With Windows 95 the OS provided all the widgets like toolbars, menus and help system so most applications were pretty consistent. The first break was when Office introduced the ribbon but everybody else was forced to code their own ribbon because it wasn't integrated in the OS. Now with UWP and Win32 there is no consistency anymore. Searchable menus could easily have been integrated as standard for all apps if anybody had cared.

0815test 7y ago

Yes, when it comes to icons, pictures, non-trivial logos etc. the "pixel" style has always been the most effective way of coming up with something that will look appealing even with minimal effort. Even on modern screens, a properly-upscaled, pixel-based icon usually looks a lot better than the symbolic, vector-based look you most often see today, while taking a lot less time and effort to create. You can see this very well on other user interfaces from the 1980s and 1990s too, it's not exclusive to the Mac. (And there's a sensible reason for this, too - the "pixel art" style is unique in letting you set a uniform ceiling on high-spatial-frequency content and subtle color changes within a picture, while preserving unbounded choice within these constraints.)

meerita 7y ago
I've been user of Microsoft, IBM's OS/Warp too. I liked a lot Windows 3.1 and the first Windows 95. They showed good level of work, not only in the guts of the OS but also the GUI. But those styles faded once I get back into the mac, with their icon styles, you can change icons on the fly it was so easy. It was part of OS 7, 8, 9.
amatecha 7y ago
Right, the low fidelity of 32x32pixel icons means they are easy to "read" and make sense of. Conversely, SGI's IRIX OS had vector icons which made them extremely varied and IMO they sometimes required a lot of effort to understand. Check this screenshot[0] to get an idea of what I mean. They are not immediately obvious due to their high level of detail. That said, I found it super cool that the icons can scale, right in the file explorer (using the "scroll wheel" type thing on the left side of the window)!! :) [0] https://software.majix.org/irix/screenshots/screen.5.big.jpg https://software.majix.org/irix/screenshots/screen.5.big.jpg
- meerita 7y ago
  I never had the chance to use SGI's IRIX OS. I was teenager and the pricess where so prohibitive for such workstations. I had the luck to start a job where the owner had 15 Macs, among them, they throw me all the older models so I learnt that way.

jxdxbx 7y ago

I have a soft spot for System 6, because it is the epitome of the classic, classic version of Mac OS--black and white, minimal, but with all the essential elements of a modern GUI, before all sorts of new complexities started to be added in in System 8 through OS 9.

sdegutis 7y ago

This is kind of how I feel about Windows 95. I remember when there was only DOS, and then Windows 3 came out, and then Windows 95 which seemed like the very perfection of UI. Since then it seems to have gone downhill. Not very many true innovations, which is partly why I started experimenting with desktop Linux and finally switched to Mac OS X 10.4, because it felt like the final evolution of the desktop. Nowadays, nothing seems quite ideal, but Win95/98 will always seem like the epitome of desktop UI, the perfect union of form and function. Probably just nostalgia and rose colored glasses though in all honesty.

maxxxxx 7y ago
I think it’s not just nostalgia. Windows 95 was a huge step for MS and introduced most of the UI elements that we are still using now. Since then I have trouble seeing any fundamental improvements in newer Windows versions. I’d be happy to go back to the UI of 95 or XP compared to the latest Windows 10 stuff. I just don’t it really got any better. Just slower.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  I do like that some Windows programs are now converting menus into searchable hierarchies, e.g. Visual Studio and VS Code. But those are just programs, and they're only power-user programs. Searchable grouped functions are a genuine innovation on top of hierarchical menus. The "Start Menu" improved on that front and it is generally good.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    I think the problem now is that some programs make improvements but the OS is stagnating. With Windows 95 the OS provided all the widgets like toolbars, menus and help system so most applications were pretty consistent. The first break was when Office introduced the ribbon but everybody else was forced to code their own ribbon because it wasn't integrated in the OS. Now with UWP and Win32 there is no consistency anymore. Searchable menus could easily have been integrated as standard for all apps if anybody had cared.