6 ms·

Everything old is new again? I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because i

Everything old is new again? I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable (until roughly SP2 came out, which basically was an entirely new OS released as a service pack). Windows 7, which was Vista's equivalent to SP2 also has some fans. Heck, I'd even personally argue that Windows ME has some niceties not seen in subsequent releases, particularly when combined with Active Desktop (which I'm pretty sure did not survive the transition to XP). I wonder if/when some subset of users will prefer a more controlled window layout engine, one which always opens windows into their own "space" on the screen. To that end, I don't actually mind how iPad does its window layout, I just wish iPad had all the features and openness of macOS to install your own drivers, background apps and virtual devices/mixing. A simpler UI can actually be a good thing, but you shouldn't lose functionality when making things simpler. A simpler UI doesn't necessarily mean less complex operating system...

addicted 3y ago
> until roughly SP2 came out, which basically was an entirely new OS released as a service pack SP2 was fantastic. For me personally, Windows XP means XP SP2. Anything before that wasn’t worth using.
- marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Yes. XP == SP2 :)
- hulitu 3y ago
  > For me personally, Windows XP means XP SP2. Anything before that wasn’t worth using. That is because Microsoft had its own versioning system: - RC was alpha quality. - Releases were betas. and then starting with SP2 one can talk about a released product. NT had 6 SPs, 2000 had 4, XP had 2. Even in Windows 11 they fixed things (taskbar) after release. This really tells a not so nice story about engineering and quality at Microsoft.
  - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
    SP2 was largely about security issues. Before then XP was riddled with vulnerabilities.
  - nar001 3y ago
    XP had 3 service packs not 2!
- mildred593 3y ago
  The only thing I remember is that I would never install SP2 because of EULA. I don't remember the specifics though. Around that time I started mostly using Linux anyway.
inferiorhuman 3y ago
Ya know one of the first things I do on an XP install is to go in and disable as much of UI faffing about as I can. It takes a couple of clicks, but once you disable themes in XP you get something that looks quite a lot like Windows 2000.
- arcanemachiner 3y ago
  I did it because my computer was a POS. But then it turns out I have a minimalism kink, so I've been doing that ever since. I use XFCE btw
  - inferiorhuman 3y ago
    Yep I got into the habit of doing that because I run XP in a virtual machine for legacy junk. I actually had opportunity to run classic MacOS recently and realize that I largely prefer the 10.x UI especially once they started toning down the decorations. Classic MacOS got a lot of things right that are missing in current operating systems, but man is it ugly.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > I use XFCE btw No offense, but I cannot possibly trust your judgement when you use a DE that, by default, is the classic example of no window borders for the mouse to grab onto.
    - arcanemachiner 3y ago
      Alt + click-and-drag solves that problem. Also I use i3 so my windows are tiled most of the time.
      - happymellon 3y ago
        Having boarders that are bigger than 1px would solve that problem. Anything else is a work around poor UX. The fact that decades later it is still an issue is really disappointing.
masklinn 3y ago
> Everything old is new again? I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable That’s more of a truth universally acknowledged. XP was goofy then, it’s goofy now, and it was goofy at every instant between.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Yes but in hindsight endearingly so. And the UX itself was still really good. The start menu in particular was an actual improvement over the old one, as were the clickable login screen icons.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    The usability was very good. The appearance was goofy and Fisher-Price-like. The two things are mostly orthogonal.
    - Fluorescence 3y ago
      I wouldn't say orthogonal. Making something inviting, approachable and feel like a safe place to experiment/explore for a novice is a critical and overlooked part of usability. The childlike choices of "bright primary colours" and "no sharp edges" is one way to attempt that. It's what the general public needs that us nerds can least relate to.
      - shiroiuma 3y ago
        It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that. It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes. The best-looking Windows UI, IMO, was Vista.
        CRConrad 3y ago
        > It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that. Well, are you sure which of those groups you belong to? At least as far as Windows is concerned? Because: > It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes. It did. One click in the right place in the Control Panel and it looked like W95/NT4/W2K. (So did Windows 7, and therefore I must assume Vista, too. [Skipped that one myself.]) But, hey, brand-new users and children couldn't be expected to find that, right?
atahanacar 3y ago
>I wonder if/when some subset of users will prefer a more controlled window layout engine, one which always opens windows into their own "space" on the screen. You are describing tiling window manager users.
CRConrad 3y ago
> I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable Yeah, most people apparently never noticed the Control Panel setting in XP where you could with one click activate the W95/NT4/W2K interface in stead of the "Fisher-Price" one. Worked in Vista and Windows 7 too, but there they started to remove ever more of the detailed UI customisation settings from the Control Panel. (For a while, you could change them by editing the Registry, but towards the end of W7's lifetime, at least some of those didn't take effect any more.)

addicted 3y ago

> until roughly SP2 came out, which basically was an entirely new OS released as a service pack SP2 was fantastic. For me personally, Windows XP means XP SP2. Anything before that wasn’t worth using.

marcus_holmes 3y ago
Yes. XP == SP2 :)
hulitu 3y ago
> For me personally, Windows XP means XP SP2. Anything before that wasn’t worth using. That is because Microsoft had its own versioning system: - RC was alpha quality. - Releases were betas. and then starting with SP2 one can talk about a released product. NT had 6 SPs, 2000 had 4, XP had 2. Even in Windows 11 they fixed things (taskbar) after release. This really tells a not so nice story about engineering and quality at Microsoft.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  SP2 was largely about security issues. Before then XP was riddled with vulnerabilities.
- nar001 3y ago
  XP had 3 service packs not 2!
mildred593 3y ago
The only thing I remember is that I would never install SP2 because of EULA. I don't remember the specifics though. Around that time I started mostly using Linux anyway.

inferiorhuman 3y ago

Ya know one of the first things I do on an XP install is to go in and disable as much of UI faffing about as I can. It takes a couple of clicks, but once you disable themes in XP you get something that looks quite a lot like Windows 2000.

arcanemachiner 3y ago
I did it because my computer was a POS. But then it turns out I have a minimalism kink, so I've been doing that ever since. I use XFCE btw
- inferiorhuman 3y ago
  Yep I got into the habit of doing that because I run XP in a virtual machine for legacy junk. I actually had opportunity to run classic MacOS recently and realize that I largely prefer the 10.x UI especially once they started toning down the decorations. Classic MacOS got a lot of things right that are missing in current operating systems, but man is it ugly.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > I use XFCE btw No offense, but I cannot possibly trust your judgement when you use a DE that, by default, is the classic example of no window borders for the mouse to grab onto.
  - arcanemachiner 3y ago
    Alt + click-and-drag solves that problem. Also I use i3 so my windows are tiled most of the time.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      Having boarders that are bigger than 1px would solve that problem. Anything else is a work around poor UX. The fact that decades later it is still an issue is really disappointing.

masklinn 3y ago

> Everything old is new again? I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable That’s more of a truth universally acknowledged. XP was goofy then, it’s goofy now, and it was goofy at every instant between.

nerdponx 3y ago
Yes but in hindsight endearingly so. And the UX itself was still really good. The start menu in particular was an actual improvement over the old one, as were the clickable login screen icons.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  The usability was very good. The appearance was goofy and Fisher-Price-like. The two things are mostly orthogonal.
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    I wouldn't say orthogonal. Making something inviting, approachable and feel like a safe place to experiment/explore for a novice is a critical and overlooked part of usability. The childlike choices of "bright primary colours" and "no sharp edges" is one way to attempt that. It's what the general public needs that us nerds can least relate to.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that. It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes. The best-looking Windows UI, IMO, was Vista.
      - CRConrad 3y ago
        > It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that. Well, are you sure which of those groups you belong to? At least as far as Windows is concerned? Because: > It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes. It did. One click in the right place in the Control Panel and it looked like W95/NT4/W2K. (So did Windows 7, and therefore I must assume Vista, too. [Skipped that one myself.]) But, hey, brand-new users and children couldn't be expected to find that, right?

atahanacar 3y ago

>I wonder if/when some subset of users will prefer a more controlled window layout engine, one which always opens windows into their own "space" on the screen. You are describing tiling window manager users.

CRConrad 3y ago

> I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable Yeah, most people apparently never noticed the Control Panel setting in XP where you could with one click activate the W95/NT4/W2K interface in stead of the "Fisher-Price" one. Worked in Vista and Windows 7 too, but there they started to remove ever more of the detailed UI customisation settings from the Control Panel. (For a while, you could change them by editing the Registry, but towards the end of W7's lifetime, at least some of those didn't take effect any more.)