3 ms·

I think that’s true. I recently installed Windows 2000, also for nostalgia, and marveled at the icons. I like the Windows 3.11 (not so much the 3.0) icons even

by anyfoo 2y ago

I think that’s true. I recently installed Windows 2000, also for nostalgia, and marveled at the icons. I like the Windows 3.11 (not so much the 3.0) icons even more. They have such a charm and special style that only works through their low pixel count, but if you would pixelate icons today it would just look gimmicky and out of place with the rest of the OS.

DCH3416 2y ago
It depends on the design of the icon. You generally can't scale Windows 3.1 graphics to higher resolutions without it looking like it's lacking details. The charm was with what you couldn't see and your mind could fill in the blanks.
- anyfoo 2y ago
  Yep, that’s what I mean. Art comes from restriction, and the designers at Microsoft did really charming stuff with what they had to work with. I still vividly remember such simple but delightful things as the Excel icon, or the icon of a stylized 386 processor for the System category in Control Panel.
  - Lammy 2y ago
    > the designers at Microsoft Susan Kare did a lot of those! I love how they're just as expressive at 16-colors as at higher color depths. https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-computer-icons https://www.stardock.com/blog/502254/the-evolution-of-comput...
    - anyfoo 2y ago
      Ah, thanks for telling me that. I had absolutely no idea she had any involvement, but now it makes perfect sense.