Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Windows 95 UI Design

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 312 posts

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#191

Post by Scoundreller »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #110
spectramax wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not sure if I buy that - Apple makes millions of iPhones every year, shaving off a part from the BOM has huge impact. I worked in manufacturing for 10 years where we made 6 million things per week . It was a big deal.

Can confirm. I use to work in hardware before and the pressure was to reduce BOM costs whenever possible and compensate via firmware. BOM cost is also why Apple's top €1000 device is stuck with an 18W "fast charger" while the competition is eons ahead. If they can save money and line their margins and people will still buy it why not do it?

Maybe charging faster is bad for the batteries?

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#192

Post by petepete »

zozbot234 wrote: post #136
petepete wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd recommend LXDE or XFCE for this kind of desktop. With this theme, you can even make XFCE look just like Windows 95. https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95

I'd like to see a KDE1/GNOME1/FVWM version of this. Something that could be packaged in a Linux distribution and be accessible out of the box.

There's a theme for Gnome 2/Mate that looks quite extensive. Pretty niche market these days I guess.

https://www.gnome-look.org/p/1012363/

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#193

Post by chinesempire »

xcv321 wrote: post #57
spectramax wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come on, UI design and the OS crashing down are two separate orthogonal issues. Yes, they culminate at the end as “User experience”, but the OP is clearly talking about UI elements and how their functional design is eroding away. What’s that to do with BSOD!!??

Sounds like you probably weren't using computers back in the Win 9x days. For us who remember it, Windows 95 is synonymous with BSOD.

I don't like to downvote comments, but this one is particularly bad.

First of all, BSOD where not that common, and for sure they are not what all of "us" remember about Windows 95.

Secondly, Amiga and Mac had their own version of the BSOD, there were just far less Amiga and Mac around.

Third: Windows 95 bootstrapped the PC gaming era, having the GUI code in the Kernel (for performance reasons) and not having the WHQL to test third party drivers yet, made BSOD popular, because many saw them when they were kids playing some game on their parent's computer.

Of course you can do what Apple does, forbid third party drivers and give up to Nvidia cards on your OS.

It is not a big deal, right?

I'm assuming you also never used a Mac with Mac OS classic and never saw the sad Mac...

https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/11/17/sad_mac_face.jpg

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#195

Post by GeekyBear »

redwall_hp wrote: post #83
zapzupnz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Force Touch is on its way out. Has been for about two generations of iPhone. There's now Haptic Touch which is nothing but a long-press with better feedback.

It has the same problem: invisible, undiscoverable UI driven by seemingly random gestures. Who cares if you long press or press harder? You still can't tell it's an option unless you try it on everything.

So exactly like right clicking on items to see if a contextual menu pops up in Windows 95?

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#196

Post by GuiA »

eitland wrote: post #165
flippyhead wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, my mom found windows 95 etc very hard to use but has no trouble with her iPhone, iPad or even a Mac (let alone the TV or can-speak-to appliance). Maybe part of is it is that a lot of problems that required UI solutions before just work magically now. Like file sharing, networking or dealing with different document formats. You don't need nearly as many controls for the most part so the UI can be simpler.

That is actually a good point. Simple stuff might have become simpler. That said I am firmly in the "we lost something between 95 and here" camp for now. And to while it does explain why pads are different it doesn't explain why we needed to mess up the desktop in the process.

We have gained many, many features between 95 and today. Your phone does many things (mapping, notifications, cameras, various permissions/access, etc) that your computer did not in 1995.

The degree of complexity that can be adequately conveyed graphically on a single screen though is fairly constant.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#197

Post by jraph »

m_mueller wrote: post #187
PunksATawnyFill wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not always. After working for years at Apple I was told (in response to a bug report I filed about missing menu items) that Mac menus might totally change their contents if you PRESSED A MODIFIER KEY. WTF! So every Mac menu conceivably had (has?) 7 sets of contents, 6 of which are essentially secret. Idiotic.

totally agreed there - these modifiers should go away. edit: with my post I in no way wanted to indicate that Apple's UI is the pinnacle of design - just that they IMO made the right choice at first by avoiding context menus, or at least keep them optional.

Well, there is this "move to trash" menu item that turns into "really delete" on many file managers. I find it not bad.

If you really need it, you will discover it. Otherwise, you can still go to the trash and really delete the file from there. It's safer than having the really delete item by default, and it's there if you need it.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#198

Post by GuiA »

asjw wrote: post #175
flippyhead wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, my mom found windows 95 etc very hard to use but has no trouble with her iPhone, iPad or even a Mac (let alone the TV or can-speak-to appliance). Maybe part of is it is that a lot of problems that required UI solutions before just work magically now. Like file sharing, networking or dealing with different document formats. You don't need nearly as many controls for the most part so the UI can be simpler.

Windows 95 came out 25 years ago and many jumped directly from DOS or typewriters to it She has +25 years of experience in using computing devices now, and computers are hundreds of times more powerful, of course things are easier for her

I don’t think that argument holds very strongly.

My grandma worked on typewriters, and then word processors in the 70s/80s. She had no problem doing her job.

She’d been using a Windows laptop since the mid/late 2000’s, and it’s always been a huge struggle for her. She’d frequently enable/disable features without noticing, etc.

Her tablet has been, as they say, like a glass of iced water in hell. She is far from a power user, but there is not a single thing she did on her laptop that she cannot do on her tablet.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#200

Post by mntmoss »

agumonkey wrote: post #11
RodgerTheGreat wrote: post #4

A generation was raised on usable designs which clearly communicated interactability with a consistent visual language. It is only natural that they would come to think of computers as inherently ordered, understandable devices. Machines had always been this way. It was obvious to this new generation that the affordances of youth were purely redundant. Clutter. Overhead. Junk! Widget by widget, pixel by pixel, bevels…

It was a crossroad of limited computing affordance and abstraction necessity. I grew up in CGI land, basically high end CGI programs were what the latest web app is. Reactive redrawing of free form geometries. I wanted this to be mainstream so bad. I got old and it became slightly true. Not keeping aside the drift of website content and pop overs.. something hit me. My brain doesn't want real time and free floating.…

I myself can't tell if this feeling is just me getting older. I liked the shiny dynamic stuff when I was younger. Gradually I found myself ignoring more of it and developing more specific rules for what I wanted out of the UX. When a recent thread on "calm computing" mentioned Fraidycat I took to it immediately. It's nearly the antithesis of the news feed - there's no repetitive rhythm to it, although there is a bit of clicking around. There was a time when I actually wanted news feeds, I would cycle through a few sites and F5 constantly.

I know a few twenty-somethings who are still falling for shiny stuff. I don't think that's going away, but I do think the overall culture will come to realize that it's junk food computing.

Post reply on HN