3 ms·
I won't argue against Windows 2000's usability. But I will say that to me, as someone who first started using computers in the XP era, any Windows earlier than
by mort96 3y ago
I won't argue against Windows 2000's usability. But I will say that to me, as someone who first started using computers in the XP era, any Windows earlier than Windows 7 looks so god damn ugly to me, and Windows 2000 even more so than XP.
Interestingly though, I don't have the same impression when looking at the old Apple OSes. To me, Mac OS 9 looks old, but not ugly.
- bluGill 3y agoPretty/ugly and usable are very different things. Sometimes they are in conflict, but mostly they are unrelated.
- MenhirMike 3y agoTo me, XP and Vista looked like a terrible attempt at replicating Mac OS X when that all wow'ed us - it's hard to imagine these days just how big of a deal the iMac and later on OS X were in terms of moving away from grey boxes everywhere (though sometimes too far, since Windows 7 really toned down and refined XP/Vista's UI). For me, I grew up on Amiga Workbench 2.0 and MS-DOS, so Windows NT/2000 felt like a good evolution from it's User Interface. Very functional, for sure. 100% agree on Classic MacOS. As outdated as the tech was, it was beautiful because it was elegant without being distracting.
- deepspace 3y agoTo the contrary, XP and Vista' soft, round buttons and edges always made me think of a Douglas-Adamsian dystopia. Win2000 was bare bones, square and functional.