6 ms·

Because we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000. Just about everything since then has been a step backwards in speed and usability. The Mac Finder is a h

Because we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000. Just about everything since then has been a step backwards in speed and usability. The Mac Finder is a hot mess and seems to get worse with every release. The 964 different desktops available for Linux are in general a hodgepodge of slow impossible-to-use disasters. A notable exception is XFCE but it's a bit of a second-class citizen and even things in XFCE don't work well. (Example: network configuration, you need to be logged in as root to use this applet.) Edit: I would like to point out that the Win2k desktop was blazing fast on a machine with 256MB of RAM. I can't get Debian to install on a machine with less than 512MB without complaining.

grishka 5y ago
IMO the last decently desktop version of Windows was 7. After that, it was utterly ruined by the existence of touchscreens and Microsoft's insistence that they're the next big thing in computers. My main issue with current macOS is the combined toolbars and titles, including in finder. There's too much padding but then everything feels unnecessarily cramped. My second issue with modern macOS is their new icon system where literally nothing is aligned to the pixel grid. But there's still a surprising amount of dense UIs — I guess it helps that Apple has a clear separation between touch (iPad) and non-touch (Mac) product lines.
- bitigchi 5y ago
  It's possible to disable toolbars and use a menu-bar/shortcut oriented workflow like in the Classic Mac OS.
LAC-Tech 5y ago
Speak for yourself, my riced out linux desktop is fast and usable AF
aluminum96 5y ago
> we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000 I could not disagree more strongly. Win2000 buttons are tiny, drag areas are tiny, basically everything is tiny and unclickable. I strongly prefer the generously-proportioned, touch-inspired interfaces of the last 4-5 years.
- cbozeman 5y ago
  People who have to actually get work done on a computer are almost always good with using a mouse and keyboard, so we understand how to move with precision and speed.
  - aluminum96 5y ago
    I am just describing a preference.
- benibela 5y ago
  They are not tiny if you run it on a 800x600 screen
- anthk 5y ago
  Please, go install Windows 2000 under Qemu at 1024x768 resolution, then press ctrl-alt-f to set the Window to a scaled fullscreen desktop. Do you feel it as tiny? That's how we saw Windows 2000 back in the day on a CRT monitor.
jp0d 5y ago
I get that it's easier to run on low RAM systems. I just don't think Windows95 was the pinnacle of UI design and was minimalistic only because resources were scarce. These days it's actually a lot harder to get low RAM machines. Unless you're working in the embedded space, and a UI like this is pointless there too. I haven't been using Linux (or Windows) much since several years now. But a stripped down version of Gnome or KDE or MATE are prefect as they were. The Windows UI in its current form or old (95, 98 or 2000) is hardly the best UI choice. The reason I can think of is nostalgic fun experiment. And there is nothing wrong with that. Not everything has to have a practical function. :)
mise_en_place 5y ago
What’s even worse is Debian running on 256 MB environment, you’ll need swap or pip will be killed by the OOM reaper. Linux used to be embedded first but nowadays most Linux distros are strangely oriented toward desktop and don’t work correctly on low memory environments without heavy customization.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  Linux was NEVER embedded first. Linux was unix for 386s PCs a very expensive machine. Not sure how desktop orientation is at all strange as any linux distro you are likely to install on your PC has been specifically prepared to install on a PC. If its anticipated to also be used as as server it also provides a minimal install which will almost certainly be less useful.
bitcharmer 5y ago
No. I love my 2022 Gnome look and looking at old Windows UI makes me nauseous. I'm over 40 so yes, I did use Windows extensively and hate everything about its UI maybe with the exception of Windows XP. I never had any issues recognising what is a button and what isn't with Gnome. Never understood HN's fetish for these old UIs.
- assttoasstmgr 5y ago
  >I never had any issues recognising what is a button and what isn't with Gnome That's easy to say when there's only a single hamburger button... All kidding aside, this scourge has made its way to Windows. One of the new anti-features in Windows 11 is the truncated (right click) context menus. Where most options are now hidden under a 'show more options' entry, requiring a separate mouse click.
michaelmrose 5y ago
> The 964 different desktops available for Linux 83% of people are using just 4. Hell 65% are using just 2 and its the same 2 as in 2003. https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de&colors=30 https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de&colors=30 > slow impossible-to-use disasters We are actually spoiled for choice if you just omit gnome 3. Mostly entirely usable > even things in XFCE don't work well. (Example: network configuration, you need to be logged in as root to use this applet.) This is like someone exclaiming loudly manual transmission cars are OK but how is everyone driving while sitting on that hard space between seats and reaching between their legs to shift. Well we aren't doing that. You don't need to log in as root to use the applet to configure your network options your system was just misconfigured probably because of something interesting you did manually. Out of the box on basically every distro that isn't entirely do it yourself you see a little networking icon you click it and you connect to a network just like on windows. > : I would like to point out that the Win2k desktop was blazing fast on a machine with 256MB of RAM. I can't get Debian to install on a machine with less than 512MB without complaining. I cannot think of a worse metric of utility than ability to run well on amounts of memory that are found only in machines older than some people reading this forum. 4GB modules now cost as little as $17. Windows 2000 crashed, it leaked memory, it developed weird problems for no reason that could only be fixed by reinstalling. I don't miss any version of windows from this era.
prmoustache 5y ago
My linux and freeBSD desktops at the time were faster/more responsive than my win2k one and I have plenty of choice for apps that would use less memory. It is silly to compare to todays requirement. Nowadays system use more memory because we have more available.
hajile 5y ago
I'd argue that we hit peak desktop with OSX Snow Leopard.

grishka 5y ago

IMO the last decently desktop version of Windows was 7. After that, it was utterly ruined by the existence of touchscreens and Microsoft's insistence that they're the next big thing in computers. My main issue with current macOS is the combined toolbars and titles, including in finder. There's too much padding but then everything feels unnecessarily cramped. My second issue with modern macOS is their new icon system where literally nothing is aligned to the pixel grid. But there's still a surprising amount of dense UIs — I guess it helps that Apple has a clear separation between touch (iPad) and non-touch (Mac) product lines.

bitigchi 5y ago
It's possible to disable toolbars and use a menu-bar/shortcut oriented workflow like in the Classic Mac OS.

LAC-Tech 5y ago

Speak for yourself, my riced out linux desktop is fast and usable AF

aluminum96 5y ago

> we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000 I could not disagree more strongly. Win2000 buttons are tiny, drag areas are tiny, basically everything is tiny and unclickable. I strongly prefer the generously-proportioned, touch-inspired interfaces of the last 4-5 years.

cbozeman 5y ago
People who have to actually get work done on a computer are almost always good with using a mouse and keyboard, so we understand how to move with precision and speed.
- aluminum96 5y ago
  I am just describing a preference.
benibela 5y ago
They are not tiny if you run it on a 800x600 screen
anthk 5y ago
Please, go install Windows 2000 under Qemu at 1024x768 resolution, then press ctrl-alt-f to set the Window to a scaled fullscreen desktop. Do you feel it as tiny? That's how we saw Windows 2000 back in the day on a CRT monitor.

jp0d 5y ago

I get that it's easier to run on low RAM systems. I just don't think Windows95 was the pinnacle of UI design and was minimalistic only because resources were scarce. These days it's actually a lot harder to get low RAM machines. Unless you're working in the embedded space, and a UI like this is pointless there too. I haven't been using Linux (or Windows) much since several years now. But a stripped down version of Gnome or KDE or MATE are prefect as they were. The Windows UI in its current form or old (95, 98 or 2000) is hardly the best UI choice. The reason I can think of is nostalgic fun experiment. And there is nothing wrong with that. Not everything has to have a practical function. :)

mise_en_place 5y ago

What’s even worse is Debian running on 256 MB environment, you’ll need swap or pip will be killed by the OOM reaper. Linux used to be embedded first but nowadays most Linux distros are strangely oriented toward desktop and don’t work correctly on low memory environments without heavy customization.

michaelmrose 5y ago
Linux was NEVER embedded first. Linux was unix for 386s PCs a very expensive machine. Not sure how desktop orientation is at all strange as any linux distro you are likely to install on your PC has been specifically prepared to install on a PC. If its anticipated to also be used as as server it also provides a minimal install which will almost certainly be less useful.

bitcharmer 5y ago

No. I love my 2022 Gnome look and looking at old Windows UI makes me nauseous. I'm over 40 so yes, I did use Windows extensively and hate everything about its UI maybe with the exception of Windows XP. I never had any issues recognising what is a button and what isn't with Gnome. Never understood HN's fetish for these old UIs.

assttoasstmgr 5y ago
>I never had any issues recognising what is a button and what isn't with Gnome That's easy to say when there's only a single hamburger button... All kidding aside, this scourge has made its way to Windows. One of the new anti-features in Windows 11 is the truncated (right click) context menus. Where most options are now hidden under a 'show more options' entry, requiring a separate mouse click.

michaelmrose 5y ago

> The 964 different desktops available for Linux 83% of people are using just 4. Hell 65% are using just 2 and its the same 2 as in 2003. https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de&colors=30 https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de&colors=30 > slow impossible-to-use disasters We are actually spoiled for choice if you just omit gnome 3. Mostly entirely usable > even things in XFCE don't work well. (Example: network configuration, you need to be logged in as root to use this applet.) This is like someone exclaiming loudly manual transmission cars are OK but how is everyone driving while sitting on that hard space between seats and reaching between their legs to shift. Well we aren't doing that. You don't need to log in as root to use the applet to configure your network options your system was just misconfigured probably because of something interesting you did manually. Out of the box on basically every distro that isn't entirely do it yourself you see a little networking icon you click it and you connect to a network just like on windows. > : I would like to point out that the Win2k desktop was blazing fast on a machine with 256MB of RAM. I can't get Debian to install on a machine with less than 512MB without complaining. I cannot think of a worse metric of utility than ability to run well on amounts of memory that are found only in machines older than some people reading this forum. 4GB modules now cost as little as $17. Windows 2000 crashed, it leaked memory, it developed weird problems for no reason that could only be fixed by reinstalling. I don't miss any version of windows from this era.

prmoustache 5y ago

My linux and freeBSD desktops at the time were faster/more responsive than my win2k one and I have plenty of choice for apps that would use less memory. It is silly to compare to todays requirement. Nowadays system use more memory because we have more available.

hajile 5y ago

I'd argue that we hit peak desktop with OSX Snow Leopard.