The best macOS interface was 10.3 in my opinion, here’s some screenshots: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/macosx103
10.4 was better.
Remembering Windows 2000
191–200 of 243 posts
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#192You can get back that old-school Windows feeling on Linux with https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95
Chicago95 is nice, but I'd like to see a reimplementation of the old GTK2 themes, now that GTK3 seems to have gotten a stable theming interface. It could even be merged upstream, or at least be contributed to the major distro repositories.
I miss Gorilla and the one with a metallic theme. And the one from the Java Metal theme.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#193Wouldn't it be nice for MS to release A GNU/linux distro with the official Win2k UI. PS. That network monitor icon in the taskbar was quite brilliant!
Icewm has something similar to that tray icon. Also, with Chicago 95 icon theme and some IceWM/GTK2-3 themes you can almost copycat the W2k theme.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#194Windows 2000, like many 'server' Windows OS, took FOREVER AND EVER to boot up. It could have been more popular on desktop-class machines if it wasn't due to that.
Windows 20000 had a workstation release.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No load times, even back then. Somebody at Disney seems to have had a different experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBctBJ3mKNg&feature=youtu.be...
Wrong era.
The OS in the cartoon was called "Doors 2000". Seems pretty squarely targeted at this.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#196From what I remember it went like this: Microsoft: we're giving everyone the NT Kernel Geeks: No, we want 9x Kernel Microsoft: Fine, here's Windows ME Geeks: Noooooo! Microsoft: Releases Windows 2000 Geeks: We want Windows 2000 It was so much more solid than Windows ME and they had 99% of the NT compatibility layer figured out by SP1 (if that's what it was called). But the best thing for me was that I had 2 processor…
Who was clamoring for the 9x kernel? No me nor any geeks I knew...
And as sibling mentioned, ME was before 2000. I remember this because at one point the actively marketed versions were Windows ME, NT and of course CE for those ARM devices. Some people, complaining Windows was slow, pointed out that if you rearrange those version identifiers you get Windows CE-ME-NT (cement).
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree on the vertical space thing. I would add that lack of contrast between controls is very annoying. That 'flat' look is a pain. Can I or can I not click on this? The one that is a real pain is the disappearing scroll bar. It is there. The space for it is used. But just gone until you hover over it. Then it is clunky to use in relation to all of the other windows controls. The rules for making a GUI were dead si…
I must use scrolling windows differently than you, because I haven't clicked and dragged a scroll bar probably for years. The only thing I need a scroll indicator for is to see how far I am down the page, which I only do when I'm actively scrolling. MacOS disappearing scrollbars (which do not waste space when inactive, but pop in over content when you scroll) are my ideal implementation.
I often like to know how long a page is when I'm not scrolling too.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone once remarked "On XP everything looks as though it should go MOO! when you click on it."
Ha, that’s so true. After growing up with Amiga and then MacOS, I only really encountered Windows XP when I started my first proper job. Couldn’t believe that that was the default OS for professionals and businesses. With all the chunky graphics and bright colours it looked so childish - like it was designed for preschoolers, not 98% of the world’s computing. There was even a puppy animation when doing a search.
Thank MS Bob for that...
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#199Windows 2000 also represents the zenith of UI design for Microsoft software. I'm still rather baffled about how people look back fondly on XP, it looked like a toy for toddlers, and installing the Zune theme was the first thing I did after a fresh install to try and tone it down. The in-your-face over decoration of UI's thankfully hasn't persisted, but instead we're seeing a similar kind of decadence among our suppos…
> I'm still rather baffled about how people look back fondly on XP
Imho that's probably based on Windows Vista setting the bar so low that, in contrast, XP looked like something rather good.
Re: Remembering Windows 2000
#200Windows 2000 also represents the zenith of UI design for Microsoft software. I'm still rather baffled about how people look back fondly on XP, it looked like a toy for toddlers, and installing the Zune theme was the first thing I did after a fresh install to try and tone it down. The in-your-face over decoration of UI's thankfully hasn't persisted, but instead we're seeing a similar kind of decadence among our suppos…
Windows 2000 always reminded me of brutalist architecture. It was efficient, functional, and worked well, but it wasn't pretty at all. This is probably a very unpopular opinion but I rather liked Windows Vista's design. It was still very compact compared with later designs, and it had a certain charm from its prevalent use of translucency. I disliked XP for the same reason you cited, and upgraded to Vista almost as s…
I like the brutalist comparison. And it's why I ran 2000 server as a desktop for a long time. I wanted efficient, functional and worked well...pretty was not gonna pay the bills.