4 ms·

I always preferred the look and feel of KDE1 over all other GUI environments. Glad to not be alone.

sph 3y ago
Eh, if we need to go "retro", I'd choose the Windows 98 or Windows 2000 UI. That was the apex of low-res design, and GNOME/KDE have never even got close. And I say that as a life-long Linux user that started with KDE1 (though soon moved to GNOME and Window Maker). Just look at how terrible the font rendering or icon design was compared to its Windows contemporary. At the time Microsoft spent a ton of money in usability research, that no free environment could afford.
- FdbkHb 3y ago
  > At the time Microsoft spent a ton of money in usability research, that no free environment could afford It was a combined effort with IBM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access Note that even the obsolete parts of the CUA is still supported on modern Windows! for example, CTRL+C and CTRL+V might have won as the favored keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste, but CTRL+INSERT and SHIFT+INSERT still works! The CUA design documents had a very large impact on the approach taken at Microsoft in designing GUI software and standardizing interactions. Of course, standardizing keyboard shortcuts are but a tiny part of the ambitions behind the CUA. It's still a very good read to this day for anyone interested in the design of user interfaces. Here's an excerpt of one of my favorite points made in the documents : >The user interface should be forgiving. User actions should be easily >reversed. When users are in control, they should be able to explore >without fear of causing an irreversible mistake. Because >learn-by-exploring environments involve trial and error, users should be >able to back up or undo their previous action. Actions that are >destructive (that may cause the unexpected loss of the users' information) >require a confirmation. Users should feel more comfortable with a >computer when their mistakes do not cause serious or irreversible results. >To users, the unexpected loss of their information is the most frustrating >and destructive application occurrence. When you allow users the >opportunity to change their minds about an action that would destroy >significant data, you provide a forgiving interface, even if you are >unable to allow them to undo the action after it is completed.
- redeeman 3y ago
  that is not how the font rendering really was, something is broken there.. look at the screenshots on wikipedia. This kinda puts into question the "life-long linux user started with KDE1", that, or some memory issues :)
indrora 3y ago
You may enjoy LXQT.
- lproven 3y ago
  I liked KDE 1. LXQt is vast by comparison, and it can't even do a proper vertical taskbar. :-(

sph 3y ago

Eh, if we need to go "retro", I'd choose the Windows 98 or Windows 2000 UI. That was the apex of low-res design, and GNOME/KDE have never even got close. And I say that as a life-long Linux user that started with KDE1 (though soon moved to GNOME and Window Maker). Just look at how terrible the font rendering or icon design was compared to its Windows contemporary. At the time Microsoft spent a ton of money in usability research, that no free environment could afford.

FdbkHb 3y ago
> At the time Microsoft spent a ton of money in usability research, that no free environment could afford It was a combined effort with IBM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Common_User_Access Note that even the obsolete parts of the CUA is still supported on modern Windows! for example, CTRL+C and CTRL+V might have won as the favored keyboard shortcuts for copy and paste, but CTRL+INSERT and SHIFT+INSERT still works! The CUA design documents had a very large impact on the approach taken at Microsoft in designing GUI software and standardizing interactions. Of course, standardizing keyboard shortcuts are but a tiny part of the ambitions behind the CUA. It's still a very good read to this day for anyone interested in the design of user interfaces. Here's an excerpt of one of my favorite points made in the documents : >The user interface should be forgiving. User actions should be easily >reversed. When users are in control, they should be able to explore >without fear of causing an irreversible mistake. Because >learn-by-exploring environments involve trial and error, users should be >able to back up or undo their previous action. Actions that are >destructive (that may cause the unexpected loss of the users' information) >require a confirmation. Users should feel more comfortable with a >computer when their mistakes do not cause serious or irreversible results. >To users, the unexpected loss of their information is the most frustrating >and destructive application occurrence. When you allow users the >opportunity to change their minds about an action that would destroy >significant data, you provide a forgiving interface, even if you are >unable to allow them to undo the action after it is completed.
redeeman 3y ago
that is not how the font rendering really was, something is broken there.. look at the screenshots on wikipedia. This kinda puts into question the "life-long linux user started with KDE1", that, or some memory issues :)

indrora 3y ago