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

Windows 96

windows96.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 332 posts

Re: Windows 96

#11

Post by userbinator »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

The mere presence of buttons that look like buttons, and static text that looks like static text, is innumerably better than the "ambiguous text and icons floating in a sea of flat white/blackspace" that UIs today seem to mostly consist of.

Re: Windows 96

#12

Post by Gualdrapo »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

I think usability has to take a part on that.

You can scan an interface of this fashion and be almost certain about what is a button, what is a scroll bar, what is a text input, etcetera.

While with Windows 8+ the flat UI lets a huge space for ambiguity and causes a bigger cognitive load to the user, who is forced to tell things between flat rectangles and lines.

Re: Windows 96

#13

Post by systemvoltage »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

I predict we're going to come full circle in ~10 years.

Re: Windows 96

#15

Post by mopsi »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

The old design makes easier to grasp things at a glance, especially in Control Panel. Each icon has a distinct shape and color, in contrast with Windows 10 Settings app that has much more abstract monochrome icons that are difficult to tell apart.

Monochrome vector icons make things like dark mode easier to implement. Such small software shops like Microsoft unfortunately cannot afford to hire designers to do multiple sets of icons.

Re: Windows 96

#16

Post by soheil »

Sad dir in terminal doesn't work, I had to do ls. How does copyright apply here, surely MS did not approve of this?

Re: Windows 96

#17

Post by kentonv »

Gualdrapo wrote: post #12
pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

I think usability has to take a part on that. You can scan an interface of this fashion and be almost certain about what is a button, what is a scroll bar, what is a text input, etcetera. While with Windows 8+ the flat UI lets a huge space for ambiguity and causes a bigger cognitive load to the user, who is forced to tell things between flat rectangles and lines.

Consistency is boring, and HTML makes it entirely too easy to do entirely your own thing. The result is most modern designers are trying to make a design that wows people at a glance, which is often at odds with actual usability and discoverability. UI design is basically fashion now, with passing fads and everything. Conforming to any kind of standard makes you look dated.

I wish we could somehow force people to use a standard toolkit again, but I think the cat is out of the bag.

Re: Windows 96

#18

Post by ngcc_hk »

pier25 wrote: post #5

These UIs definitely look outdated, but somehow they seem better than current Windows UIs. Not, sure if it's nostalgia or if there's something there.

One wonder how it compares with the Mac OS 7 in terms of obviousness?

Re: Windows 96

#19

Post by kinghajj »

soheil wrote: post #16

Sad dir in terminal doesn't work, I had to do ls . How does copyright apply here, surely MS did not approve of this?

You could probably make an argument that it's a parody/satire.
Post reply on HN