I used Win3.1 and DOS before that for a long time - i was already comfortable programming my PC before i first used Win95. If it was a case of "As a kid", i'd c

I used Win3.1 and DOS before that for a long time - i was already comfortable programming my PC before i first used Win95. If it was a case of "As a kid", i'd consider Win3.1 as the actual good GUI but actually i consider Win95 to be the the good one despite being introduced to it after i already was comfortable with PCs and had technical knowledge about them. While some people might see Win95 as a good GUI because that is what they first learned, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. And if nothing else it also works the other way around - "kids these days" may not mind navigating around flat touch-based interfaces because they've spent the time to learn them, not because of any inherent superiority of said interfaces. This is why IMO using how easy kids can use/learn something (in computers at least), be it UIs, languages or whatever isn't very helpful - kids have a ton of time and if they like something they can spend ages on it regardless of any inherent properties of that something. I mean, consider the downright atrocious UX the overwhelming majority of games had in home computers from the 80s and PCs until early 90s - and yet kids at the time spent hours deciphering and playing them. That didn't mean the games actually had good UIs, it meant kids had enough time and motivation to work around these UIs so they can enjoy the games.