3 ms·

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 loo

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.

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.