3 ms·

OS/2 competed against Windows 3.1 - and I don’t recall it visually looking at all inferior.

by VincentEvans 2y ago

Narishma 2y ago
It looked worse than Windows 3.1 IMO.
- anyfoo 2y ago
  Hmm, tough call. I remember it looking "more professional", in some ways even more logical, but overall I'd say Windows 3 (and yeah, especially 3.1/WfW 3.11) was more "pleasing". That was mostly the color scheme, I think.
- sigzero 2y ago
  Nah, OS/2 was visually better.
- sedatk 2y ago
  OS/2 looked more modern than Win3.1 because, well, it was newer, but also because of the increased use of "gray 3D slab" style which meant modern at the time (see OSF/Motif). But the design language was less uniform in OS/2 despite that it was based on Presentation Manager standard like Win3.1. The generous use of colors in OS/2 made it look like a kindergarten scrapbook, rather than a serious desktop OS. Maybe, they thought people would find it friendlier that way, and it might have even looked friendlier. Yet, Win95 looked way more professional than OS/2 because the design language (fonts, conservative color use in UI elements and more incorporation of gray 3D style in the UI) was simply more elegant. That was mostly because of the influence of NeXTSTEP in the design of Win95 though, so thanks, Steve Jobs, I guess? :) Not to mention completely innovative paradigms in Win95 like "Start" menu and taskbar which made it to 2024 and became the de-facto standard of desktop UX.
  - anyfoo 2y ago
    > The generous use of colors in OS/2 made it look like a kindergarten scrapbook Are we still talking about OS/2 2.x? I somehow remember it to be more "somber", and a very quick search seems to confirm that, though it's not conclusive. https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2009-10-3-os2.2-screen.jpg https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2009-10-3-o...
    - sedatk 2y ago
      The scheme, yes. But, even on that screenshot, an active window has two separate accent colors (title bar and the frame). Even that’s too much.
      - anyfoo 2y ago
        Fair, Windows was more subtle there. Maybe in other regards and overall as well, it's hard to do just from memory.
  - giamma 2y ago
    Personally I would choose OS/2 over Win3.1 anytime. OS/2 was more "Mac like", for example, properties and preferences dialogs did not have the Apply/Cancel buttons, you had a Default button to reset to factory settings or you could simply close the dialog for your changes to be applied. This said, I believe that what made a big difference in look and feel when Windows 95 was released was the introduction of TrueType fonts that had much better rendering. OS/2 was using PostScript fonts, and introduced support for TrueType much later... If I remember correctly thanks to the open source efforts of the FreeType project.
    - Narishma 2y ago
      TrueType fonts were already part of Windows 3.1, maybe even 3.0 I don't remember.

OS/2 competed against Windows 3.1 - and I don’t recall it visually looking at all inferior.

Narishma 2y ago

It looked worse than Windows 3.1 IMO.

anyfoo 2y ago
Hmm, tough call. I remember it looking "more professional", in some ways even more logical, but overall I'd say Windows 3 (and yeah, especially 3.1/WfW 3.11) was more "pleasing". That was mostly the color scheme, I think.
sigzero 2y ago
Nah, OS/2 was visually better.
sedatk 2y ago
OS/2 looked more modern than Win3.1 because, well, it was newer, but also because of the increased use of "gray 3D slab" style which meant modern at the time (see OSF/Motif). But the design language was less uniform in OS/2 despite that it was based on Presentation Manager standard like Win3.1. The generous use of colors in OS/2 made it look like a kindergarten scrapbook, rather than a serious desktop OS. Maybe, they thought people would find it friendlier that way, and it might have even looked friendlier. Yet, Win95 looked way more professional than OS/2 because the design language (fonts, conservative color use in UI elements and more incorporation of gray 3D style in the UI) was simply more elegant. That was mostly because of the influence of NeXTSTEP in the design of Win95 though, so thanks, Steve Jobs, I guess? :) Not to mention completely innovative paradigms in Win95 like "Start" menu and taskbar which made it to 2024 and became the de-facto standard of desktop UX.
- anyfoo 2y ago
  > The generous use of colors in OS/2 made it look like a kindergarten scrapbook Are we still talking about OS/2 2.x? I somehow remember it to be more "somber", and a very quick search seems to confirm that, though it's not conclusive. https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2009-10-3-os2.2-screen.jpg https://www.classic-computers.org.nz/blog/images/2009-10-3-o...
  - sedatk 2y ago
    The scheme, yes. But, even on that screenshot, an active window has two separate accent colors (title bar and the frame). Even that’s too much.
    - anyfoo 2y ago
      Fair, Windows was more subtle there. Maybe in other regards and overall as well, it's hard to do just from memory.
- giamma 2y ago
  Personally I would choose OS/2 over Win3.1 anytime. OS/2 was more "Mac like", for example, properties and preferences dialogs did not have the Apply/Cancel buttons, you had a Default button to reset to factory settings or you could simply close the dialog for your changes to be applied. This said, I believe that what made a big difference in look and feel when Windows 95 was released was the introduction of TrueType fonts that had much better rendering. OS/2 was using PostScript fonts, and introduced support for TrueType much later... If I remember correctly thanks to the open source efforts of the FreeType project.
  - Narishma 2y ago
    TrueType fonts were already part of Windows 3.1, maybe even 3.0 I don't remember.