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

(mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

swallowmygraphicdesign.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 231 posts

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#51

Post by userbinator »

martinald wrote: post #30
zrail wrote: post #24

I know at least one person who would pay _very good money_ for a version of Slack that opened channels in separate windows.

Yeah, watching that video really reminds me how poor slack performance is. It genuinely feels like it could fit into a couple of MB of RAM back in those days and been super snappy. I literally do not use slack for anything that IRC wouldn't do back in the late 90s, with the exception of threads, embedded images, and emojis. It is crazy how close but how far IRC was. Session persistence, notification support even when…

It genuinely feels like it could fit into a couple of MB of RAM back in those days

You may enjoy this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21831951

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#52

Post by zozbot234 »

nebula8804 wrote: post #45
martinald wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, watching that video really reminds me how poor slack performance is. It genuinely feels like it could fit into a couple of MB of RAM back in those days and been super snappy. I literally do not use slack for anything that IRC wouldn't do back in the late 90s, with the exception of threads, embedded images, and emojis. It is crazy how close but how far IRC was. Session persistence, notification support even when…

You know whats crazy? A few years back I had this Core i3 Haswell system and I installed Windows 7 with Office 2003 on it. The PC shipped with Windows 8 but I decided to go backwards. My god the performance was out of this world. Everything was instant! It was such a pleasant experience I didn't feel again until I got my M1 mac. Even now the bloat is slowly beginning on even the m1 Mac. I think we need to find every…

> My god the performance was out of this world. Everything was instant!

That's not too far from the performance you can get from a plain Linux install and a lightweight DE (Xfce/LXDE). Though I'll grant you that Office 2003 is going to be a lot lighter than its modern free equivalent.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#53

Post by nine_k »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
srvmshr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a screenshot from my MBP which used to run 10.7 until two years ago :). I would anyday prefer these over the flatter icons. https://imgur.com/a/e6AEdwR

But is that just based on what you're used to rather than what is intuitively better?

Yes, it refers to well-recognizable imagery from outside the computer world.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#54

Post by zozbot234 »

mmphosis wrote: post #47
zrail wrote: post #24

I know at least one person who would pay _very good money_ for a version of Slack that opened channels in separate windows.

I miss floating tool palettes.

I miss dockable floating palettes.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#55

Post by com2kid »

zozbot234 wrote: post #33
srvmshr wrote: post #8

It might be an unpopular opinion (in general), but OS 9 was actually beautiful. The design elements might look clunky by today's standards, but they were quite self-explanatory & functional, as compared to current macOS flat designs. I am stating purely from an angle of being friendly to an absolute beginner (e.g. a kid). I was in middle school in 2001 when I saw a paint program (MacPaint?) on an oyester iBook - It w…

> The design elements might look clunky by today's standards They were optimized for the low-resolution screens of that time (hence 'pixel perfect' design was the norm), and there was also no expectation whatsoever of "touch friendly" controls so everything was a lot more tightly-spaced than today. Though the mockup does show how larger widgets could also be integrated quite well in that sort of design. "Flat design"…

> "Flat design" is a disaster

The original flat designs, Zune HD and the Zune software, Windows Phone 7, Windows Media Center, was incredibly usable.

All those were produced by small design teams at Microsoft, and for, relative to an entire OS, small projects. (Settings aside Windows Phone 7 for a bit, which IMHO actually had very few distinct UI elements.)

Heck Windows Phone 7, to this day, is unlike anything else on the market, It is still going to be more responsive, and look cleaner, than almost anything else out there.

I am not sure why someone decided "flat" means "no button border", that is where I think it all went wrong.

Oh and also people who think flat means getting rid of text! Windows Phone 7 loved text, text was everywhere!

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#56

Post by jen20 »

I definitely can’t help but wish a version of Slack that actually gave a passing concern for integration into a system UI exists. The “look we can do custom CSS everywhere and not look like ANY of our target platforms” garbage has the bane of my work day since it became popular.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#57

Post by chrisseaton »

nine_k wrote: post #53
chrisseaton wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is that just based on what you're used to rather than what is intuitively better?

Yes, it refers to well-recognizable imagery from outside the computer world.

But kids pick it up fine without these clues.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#58

Post by jjoonathan »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
srvmshr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a screenshot from my MBP which used to run 10.7 until two years ago :). I would anyday prefer these over the flatter icons. https://imgur.com/a/e6AEdwR

But is that just based on what you're used to rather than what is intuitively better?

You'll find a lot of people, myself included, that point to the 10.6 era as peak OSX aesthetics. I personally prefer "steel and grass," some people prefer space, the specifics vary person-to-person but a lot of people agree on the trend. Skeuomorphism has an uncomfortably high skill floor, but it has an astronomical skill ceiling. With Apple, it shows. It really shows.

In contrast, flat design has a skill ceiling so low that it can turn the most creatively bankrupt troglodyte of a non-artist into a hunchback.

Re: (mac)ostalgia – how Spotify, Slack, Chrome, Figma could look on Mac OS 9

#59

Post by labster »

chrisseaton wrote: post #50
srvmshr wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a screenshot from my MBP which used to run 10.7 until two years ago :). I would anyday prefer these over the flatter icons. https://imgur.com/a/e6AEdwR

But is that just based on what you're used to rather than what is intuitively better?

No, the old icons are objectively better. I’ve used iPhones since the iPhone 1 and I still keep the original as a music player. I have to hunt down apps on current iOS but astonishingly they all look somewhat different in the old days, which means they are easier to find. It’s easier to find my way around an old iOS I use once a month than one I use every hour.
Post reply on HN