5 ms·

Peak usability in my opinion. Space efficient and simple. Not my favorite design and color scheme, but certainly better than what modern Windows looks like. T

Peak usability in my opinion. Space efficient and simple. Not my favorite design and color scheme, but certainly better than what modern Windows looks like. That has no direction and doesn't even look modern. And the line of text with "Windows Update is committed to helping reduce carbon emissions" is as superfluous as many other controls as well. I mean nice for MS, but it really doesn't belong there.

gjvc 2y ago
somewhere, "simplicity is a feature" got lost in the everyday computer experience
- no_wizard 2y ago
  It seems sometimes the past is better than the future that came after. In my opinion, peak usability for platforms I use: - iOS 6 - Windows 7 - Snow Leopard - Windows Phone 10 (may actually have been the best mobile OS user experience I ever had)
  - Zambyte 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you enjoyed about the Windows Phone? I've heard people say they liked it, but I've never really dug into why before.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      In my opinion it’s this: The interface was incredibly fast and intuitive. It was slick and easy to understand but felt modern at the same time. The font felt timeless, it had the best camera app for the time, which was a time where amazing mobile phone cameras were just starting to become a thing (Nokia famously made a 42 megapixel camera for their flagship windows phone and the pics were gorgeous) The first party software was really fast and stable. They were also some of the first phones I ever used with proper OLED screens If you ever get a chance to use one it’s worth it even if it’s only for a day. Really changes one’s perspective on what’s possible with mobile devices. IMO nothing has captured that magic again
      - skydhash 2y ago
        And it really felt like a professional device. Very minimalist but on point. A tablet version of it (not Win8 mismatch) would have been great!
      - mrweasel 2y ago
        > proper OLED screens I had the Nokia Lumia 920, which wasn't an OLED screen, but an IPS, if I recall correctly. Even that screen looked beautiful. I think part of it was the font rendering and the UI design just being perfectly suited to the platform. In any case it just looked amazing.
    - doubled112 2y ago
      Windows Phone was really snappy even on the low end devices. Android at the time had significant lag issues. The UI was fairly consistent. There was no guessing what was a button, what an accidental drag would do, etc. The live squares on the homepage, in my opinion, are still better than anything iOS has come up with.
    - sunaookami 2y ago
      Not OP but I also had a Windows Phone (8). It had a consistent design in every app and it just "felt" good to use. The inboxed apps were great (surprisingly!) and the phones themselves were quite cheap. Windows Phone was optimized for low RAM phones so it ran smooth there. I also miss the keyboard, I rarely mistyped which happens constantly with GBoard. Haven't found a replacement that doesn't suck yet... It's hard to put into words because you have had to use it to understand! I despise Windows 10 Mobile though - it killed the whole platform and made the OS unbearably slow. It was full of bugs and it was clear that it was the beginning of the end for Microsoft's mobile amibitions. I use Android now but it's a mess. Google can't decide on a consistent UI + UX and everything is all over the place.
    - nguyenkien 2y ago
      Everything feel smooth, on par with iOS. Unfortunate there no quality apps for it. If you want a detox phone (like light phone) just get an old WP, it's cheaper.
    - mrweasel 2y ago
      The UI was very good. The tiles didn't work on the desktop (Windows 8) but it make a lot of sense on the phone. Every touchable element was large enough that you'd never miss. The UI itself ensured a very consistent experience. I assume that you could do more custom apps, but most apps I used conformed to the general look an feel of the operating system. One thing I don't think enough people mentions is the messaging app. It integrated with Facebook, before Facebook Messenger. This might not be a big thing today, with people leaving Facebook, but it was absolutely brilliant back then. Basically like iMessage, but with Facebook as the non-SMS protocol. I think it may also have integrated with LinkedIn, I don't recall, but it was suppose to just merge all your contacts into one messaging app. As much as I dislike Windows on the desktop, Windows Phone made perfect sense. The UI was completely tailored to the touchscreen and was so easy it use and navigate. It's a real shame it didn't take of. In some sense Microsoft should have treated it more like Windows on the desktop and aggressively offered it to OEMs.
  - cosmic_cheese 2y ago
    Snow Leopard is pretty good, but personally I’ve found that Mavericks (10.9) edges it out for the little bits of polish it has that SL doesn’t, as well as its brighter more cheery color scheme. The only big downside of Mavericks for me is that it’s missing Snow Leopard’s 2D grid of virtual desktops and instead only has the linear arrangement found in modern versions. I really miss the 2D grid.
    - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
      Mavericks is also the last HiDPI release of Mac OS X that used the Leopard-era icon pack. After that, it went to these garish looking flat icons that I couldn't stand to look at.
      - detectd 2y ago
        I was never a fan of the skeuomorphic icons (and design in general), personally. I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons, etc. It is interactive elements that should be the ones to stand out, not everything. If the homogeny of flat design makes the main interactive elements less salient, then everything designed to look 3D with glossy surfaces and brushed metal outlines does the same, just with noise. I think there should be a combination of both, which I think is why many find the older interfaces from the 90s and early 2000s much more usable. That's a long way of saying that I prefer the flat application icons and dock on current macOS. The dock stays in the peripheral and the icons identify the application all while not drawing my attention until I purposefully go to it.
        zozbot234 2y ago
        > I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons Funnily enough, these are precisely the elements that are flat in the Windows 9x look. (Windows 9x does not have a "dock" but it does have a quick launch bar and a system tray, and these show flat icons.)
        2y ago
  - bee_rider 2y ago
    Are those the systems you learned as a teenager/young adult? I felt the same way about XP, despite it being generally regarded as a UI abomination. I think it was just familiar. Anyway, I eventually shook lose of that nostalgia, and for me the best usability has been more recent. The wmii/i3/sway family of window managers are have been just great: simple, to the point, and automatic. I dunno. There are pretty clearly some bad trends in computing generally and mainstream UX specifically, but improvements are still bouncing around in the margins.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      I learned Win3.1 as a kid, but I still consider Win7 the best UX that Windows had to date.
  - lurk2 2y ago
    The thing that gets me about iOS is that they tanked responsiveness in exchange for such a small number of features that don’t even work well.
  - NoSalt 2y ago
    It's funny that you mentioned "Snow Leopard", as Apple moving on from that OS version was my reason for going Linux 100% of the time, and I haven't regretted the switch at all.
    - dijit 2y ago
      why? Snow Leopard was widely regarded as an excellent release. Mavericks to Yosemite I would understand, but Snow Leopard felt like a strict improvement to me. What did it do wrong?
      - arcanemachiner 2y ago
        Pretty sure they're agreeing with you. Apple moved on from Snow Leopard, so they moved on to Linux.
        dijit 2y ago
        Ah, sorry, I must have read it wrong.
- dartharva 2y ago
  Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?
  - gjvc 2y ago
    Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces? "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison?
    - dartharva 2y ago
      > Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison? Compare with current-gen GNOME then. > "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime.
      - trinix912 2y ago
        > The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. Not when the menus were 15-20 entires with occasional icons and the ribbon is 50+ icons of various sizes (and hidden functionalities - the little group corner arrows). "Easier" also implies easy visual parsing.
      - gjvc 2y ago
        The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. GUI gaslighting.
klabb3 2y ago
> Peak usability in my opinion. Space efficient and simple. Disagree. Aside from nostalgia, there are numerous visual clutter issues that affect the ability to overview. Not to mention the aliased text rendering. Then you have double click to open files/dirs which might feel normal, but both younger and older people struggle with (like long press on iOS) + knowing what can be double clicked. My mom always asks me if she’s supposed to double or single click. But she can use a smartphone UI without my help. That said, the one thing I like compared to modern designs is the very clear layering (with awful fake bevel 3d but nevertheless it does the job). This makes it very clear what toggle state a button has, and also which things are on top of other things.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  Single-click was implemented possibly by 2k but definitely by XP. Think it had to do with IE—yes, details below.
  - zozbot234 2y ago
    You could single-click to open files in Windows 98 already. You could also hover your mouse pointer on a file icon and it would become selected.
    - trinix912 2y ago
      It was the Internet Explorer shell integration that brought us this feature. The idea was to blend the desktop and web user interfaces. If you installed IE4 on Windows 95, you'd get that option there too.
      - kapitar 2y ago
        Yes, it was called Active Desktop if memory serves.
- dijit 2y ago
  double click vs single click is interesting, seems nobody knows how to handle an object needing to be interacted with more than a single way. Maybe the right idea is to just pick one arbitrarily and stick to it consistently. I’m only mildly joking, UX guidelines are basically just this. There is no way to make people implicitly know how to do things (skeuomorphism was a solid attempt). In society it’s only things like hammers that have a universal/innate understood use.
dartharva 2y ago
Horrible accessibility. I couldn't make out jack without my glasses on those UIs, unlike current interfaces and fonts.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  The original 1990s version could be scaled by just picking different pixel sizes for the UI elements. And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution.
  - cesarb 2y ago
    > And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution. For those who didn't live through these days: the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now (other than being more square, bulky, and really heavy), but the resolution was much lower; 640x480 was not just a "basic resolution", it was the standard display resolution everybody used (a higher 800x600 resolution became common later). Icons, labels, fonts, etc, were designed to be readable and look good on a typical-sized CRT monitor at 640x480 resolution. The whole user interface was designed to work well at 640x480 resolution.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      > the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now At the time when 640x480 was a common resolution, the most common computer monitor was a 15" CRT, and 21" was for rich designers.
- mixmastamyk 2y ago
  “Large fonts” was a setting back then.
lurk2 2y ago
> And the line of text with "Windows Update is committed to helping reduce carbon emissions" is as superfluous as many other controls as well. I mean nice for MS, but it really doesn't belong there. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but would note that this isn’t anything new. I can remember seeing messages like this on HP and DELL machines as early as 2007.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

gjvc 2y ago

somewhere, "simplicity is a feature" got lost in the everyday computer experience

no_wizard 2y ago
It seems sometimes the past is better than the future that came after. In my opinion, peak usability for platforms I use: - iOS 6 - Windows 7 - Snow Leopard - Windows Phone 10 (may actually have been the best mobile OS user experience I ever had)
- Zambyte 2y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you enjoyed about the Windows Phone? I've heard people say they liked it, but I've never really dug into why before.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    In my opinion it’s this: The interface was incredibly fast and intuitive. It was slick and easy to understand but felt modern at the same time. The font felt timeless, it had the best camera app for the time, which was a time where amazing mobile phone cameras were just starting to become a thing (Nokia famously made a 42 megapixel camera for their flagship windows phone and the pics were gorgeous) The first party software was really fast and stable. They were also some of the first phones I ever used with proper OLED screens If you ever get a chance to use one it’s worth it even if it’s only for a day. Really changes one’s perspective on what’s possible with mobile devices. IMO nothing has captured that magic again
    - skydhash 2y ago
      And it really felt like a professional device. Very minimalist but on point. A tablet version of it (not Win8 mismatch) would have been great!
    - mrweasel 2y ago
      > proper OLED screens I had the Nokia Lumia 920, which wasn't an OLED screen, but an IPS, if I recall correctly. Even that screen looked beautiful. I think part of it was the font rendering and the UI design just being perfectly suited to the platform. In any case it just looked amazing.
  - doubled112 2y ago
    Windows Phone was really snappy even on the low end devices. Android at the time had significant lag issues. The UI was fairly consistent. There was no guessing what was a button, what an accidental drag would do, etc. The live squares on the homepage, in my opinion, are still better than anything iOS has come up with.
  - sunaookami 2y ago
    Not OP but I also had a Windows Phone (8). It had a consistent design in every app and it just "felt" good to use. The inboxed apps were great (surprisingly!) and the phones themselves were quite cheap. Windows Phone was optimized for low RAM phones so it ran smooth there. I also miss the keyboard, I rarely mistyped which happens constantly with GBoard. Haven't found a replacement that doesn't suck yet... It's hard to put into words because you have had to use it to understand! I despise Windows 10 Mobile though - it killed the whole platform and made the OS unbearably slow. It was full of bugs and it was clear that it was the beginning of the end for Microsoft's mobile amibitions. I use Android now but it's a mess. Google can't decide on a consistent UI + UX and everything is all over the place.
  - nguyenkien 2y ago
    Everything feel smooth, on par with iOS. Unfortunate there no quality apps for it. If you want a detox phone (like light phone) just get an old WP, it's cheaper.
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    The UI was very good. The tiles didn't work on the desktop (Windows 8) but it make a lot of sense on the phone. Every touchable element was large enough that you'd never miss. The UI itself ensured a very consistent experience. I assume that you could do more custom apps, but most apps I used conformed to the general look an feel of the operating system. One thing I don't think enough people mentions is the messaging app. It integrated with Facebook, before Facebook Messenger. This might not be a big thing today, with people leaving Facebook, but it was absolutely brilliant back then. Basically like iMessage, but with Facebook as the non-SMS protocol. I think it may also have integrated with LinkedIn, I don't recall, but it was suppose to just merge all your contacts into one messaging app. As much as I dislike Windows on the desktop, Windows Phone made perfect sense. The UI was completely tailored to the touchscreen and was so easy it use and navigate. It's a real shame it didn't take of. In some sense Microsoft should have treated it more like Windows on the desktop and aggressively offered it to OEMs.
- cosmic_cheese 2y ago
  Snow Leopard is pretty good, but personally I’ve found that Mavericks (10.9) edges it out for the little bits of polish it has that SL doesn’t, as well as its brighter more cheery color scheme. The only big downside of Mavericks for me is that it’s missing Snow Leopard’s 2D grid of virtual desktops and instead only has the linear arrangement found in modern versions. I really miss the 2D grid.
  - TheAmazingRace 2y ago
    Mavericks is also the last HiDPI release of Mac OS X that used the Leopard-era icon pack. After that, it went to these garish looking flat icons that I couldn't stand to look at.
    - detectd 2y ago
      I was never a fan of the skeuomorphic icons (and design in general), personally. I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons, etc. It is interactive elements that should be the ones to stand out, not everything. If the homogeny of flat design makes the main interactive elements less salient, then everything designed to look 3D with glossy surfaces and brushed metal outlines does the same, just with noise. I think there should be a combination of both, which I think is why many find the older interfaces from the 90s and early 2000s much more usable. That's a long way of saying that I prefer the flat application icons and dock on current macOS. The dock stays in the peripheral and the icons identify the application all while not drawing my attention until I purposefully go to it.
      - zozbot234 2y ago
        > I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons Funnily enough, these are precisely the elements that are flat in the Windows 9x look. (Windows 9x does not have a "dock" but it does have a quick launch bar and a system tray, and these show flat icons.)
      - 2y ago
- bee_rider 2y ago
  Are those the systems you learned as a teenager/young adult? I felt the same way about XP, despite it being generally regarded as a UI abomination. I think it was just familiar. Anyway, I eventually shook lose of that nostalgia, and for me the best usability has been more recent. The wmii/i3/sway family of window managers are have been just great: simple, to the point, and automatic. I dunno. There are pretty clearly some bad trends in computing generally and mainstream UX specifically, but improvements are still bouncing around in the margins.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    I learned Win3.1 as a kid, but I still consider Win7 the best UX that Windows had to date.
- lurk2 2y ago
  The thing that gets me about iOS is that they tanked responsiveness in exchange for such a small number of features that don’t even work well.
- NoSalt 2y ago
  It's funny that you mentioned "Snow Leopard", as Apple moving on from that OS version was my reason for going Linux 100% of the time, and I haven't regretted the switch at all.
  - dijit 2y ago
    why? Snow Leopard was widely regarded as an excellent release. Mavericks to Yosemite I would understand, but Snow Leopard felt like a strict improvement to me. What did it do wrong?
    - arcanemachiner 2y ago
      Pretty sure they're agreeing with you. Apple moved on from Snow Leopard, so they moved on to Linux.
      - dijit 2y ago
        Ah, sorry, I must have read it wrong.
dartharva 2y ago
Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?
- gjvc 2y ago
  Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces? "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison?
  - dartharva 2y ago
    > Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison? Compare with current-gen GNOME then. > "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime.
    - trinix912 2y ago
      > The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. Not when the menus were 15-20 entires with occasional icons and the ribbon is 50+ icons of various sizes (and hidden functionalities - the little group corner arrows). "Easier" also implies easy visual parsing.
    - gjvc 2y ago
      The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. GUI gaslighting.

klabb3 2y ago

> Peak usability in my opinion. Space efficient and simple. Disagree. Aside from nostalgia, there are numerous visual clutter issues that affect the ability to overview. Not to mention the aliased text rendering. Then you have double click to open files/dirs which might feel normal, but both younger and older people struggle with (like long press on iOS) + knowing what can be double clicked. My mom always asks me if she’s supposed to double or single click. But she can use a smartphone UI without my help. That said, the one thing I like compared to modern designs is the very clear layering (with awful fake bevel 3d but nevertheless it does the job). This makes it very clear what toggle state a button has, and also which things are on top of other things.

mixmastamyk 2y ago
Single-click was implemented possibly by 2k but definitely by XP. Think it had to do with IE—yes, details below.
- zozbot234 2y ago
  You could single-click to open files in Windows 98 already. You could also hover your mouse pointer on a file icon and it would become selected.
  - trinix912 2y ago
    It was the Internet Explorer shell integration that brought us this feature. The idea was to blend the desktop and web user interfaces. If you installed IE4 on Windows 95, you'd get that option there too.
    - kapitar 2y ago
      Yes, it was called Active Desktop if memory serves.
dijit 2y ago
double click vs single click is interesting, seems nobody knows how to handle an object needing to be interacted with more than a single way. Maybe the right idea is to just pick one arbitrarily and stick to it consistently. I’m only mildly joking, UX guidelines are basically just this. There is no way to make people implicitly know how to do things (skeuomorphism was a solid attempt). In society it’s only things like hammers that have a universal/innate understood use.

dartharva 2y ago

Horrible accessibility. I couldn't make out jack without my glasses on those UIs, unlike current interfaces and fonts.

zozbot234 2y ago
The original 1990s version could be scaled by just picking different pixel sizes for the UI elements. And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution.
- cesarb 2y ago
  > And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution. For those who didn't live through these days: the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now (other than being more square, bulky, and really heavy), but the resolution was much lower; 640x480 was not just a "basic resolution", it was the standard display resolution everybody used (a higher 800x600 resolution became common later). Icons, labels, fonts, etc, were designed to be readable and look good on a typical-sized CRT monitor at 640x480 resolution. The whole user interface was designed to work well at 640x480 resolution.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    > the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now At the time when 640x480 was a common resolution, the most common computer monitor was a 15" CRT, and 21" was for rich designers.
mixmastamyk 2y ago
“Large fonts” was a setting back then.

lurk2 2y ago

> And the line of text with "Windows Update is committed to helping reduce carbon emissions" is as superfluous as many other controls as well. I mean nice for MS, but it really doesn't belong there. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but would note that this isn’t anything new. I can remember seeing messages like this on HP and DELL machines as early as 2007.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]