Why?
Make Linux look like Windows 95
121–130 of 207 posts
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#122Why?
Why not?
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#123Can anyone think of a reason why to do this? Apart from personal fun project, of course!
Because we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000. Just about everything since then has been a step backwards in speed and usability. The Mac Finder is a hot mess and seems to get worse with every release. The 964 different desktops available for Linux are in general a hodgepodge of slow impossible-to-use disasters. A notable exception is XFCE but it's a bit of a second-class citizen and even things in XFCE don't…
> The 964 different desktops available for Linux
83% of people are using just 4. Hell 65% are using just 2 and its the same 2 as in 2003.
https://linux-hardware.org/?view=os_de&colors=30
> slow impossible-to-use disasters
We are actually spoiled for choice if you just omit gnome 3. Mostly entirely usable
> even things in XFCE don't work well. (Example: network configuration, you need to be logged in as root to use this applet.)
This is like someone exclaiming loudly manual transmission cars are OK but how is everyone driving while sitting on that hard space between seats and reaching between their legs to shift. Well we aren't doing that. You don't need to log in as root to use the applet to configure your network options your system was just misconfigured probably because of something interesting you did manually.
Out of the box on basically every distro that isn't entirely do it yourself you see a little networking icon you click it and you connect to a network just like on windows.
> : I would like to point out that the Win2k desktop was blazing fast on a machine with 256MB of RAM. I can't get Debian to install on a machine with less than 512MB without complaining.
I cannot think of a worse metric of utility than ability to run well on amounts of memory that are found only in machines older than some people reading this forum. 4GB modules now cost as little as $17. Windows 2000 crashed, it leaked memory, it developed weird problems for no reason that could only be fixed by reinstalling. I don't miss any version of windows from this era.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#124I actually didn't like (and still don't) Windows in any form, but the one thing I did/do like is the Windows 95/98/2000 UI. I came from an Amiga background, and even though I think of Amiga with fond memories, I thought the UI was a bit too spartan and clumsy (MUI was a step in the right direction though).
Nowadays I use Memphis-98 [0] as GUI theme (not desktop and window decorations). It's is kinda like Chicago95, but feels a bit more modern, not just a straight copy of Windows. There are some layout bugs, and some apps looks overall bad, like Firefox, Thunderbird and BDeaver. I had to manually turn off theming of DBeaver because it's basically useless with the Memphis theme.
For Qt I use the built in Windows look.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#125I'll be the first to say the unpopular take on HN: I don't think Windows 95 looks that good (compared to today). I personally find more modern (like MacOS 10) styles to look the best, and flat designs to be just as usable as more skeumorphic ones. It seems to me that preference for UI styles is completely personal, probably being influenced by what OS we initially used. As someone (potentially a lot) younger than man…
My brain believes two things simultaneously: * that Windows 95 was the first GUI I used for any extended period of time and that I will naturally think it's the best one for this reason, for the same reason people tend to think things they liked when they were teenagers peaked when they were teenagers; and * that Windows 95 really did rule - to repurpose Hoare, "not only an improvement on its predecessors but also on…
> but I definitely don't miss how unstable it was
We had NT4 with that same look and it was much better.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000. Just about everything since then has been a step backwards in speed and usability. The Mac Finder is a hot mess and seems to get worse with every release. The 964 different desktops available for Linux are in general a hodgepodge of slow impossible-to-use disasters. A notable exception is XFCE but it's a bit of a second-class citizen and even things in XFCE don't…
> we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000 I could not disagree more strongly. Win2000 buttons are tiny, drag areas are tiny, basically everything is tiny and unclickable. I strongly prefer the generously-proportioned, touch-inspired interfaces of the last 4-5 years.
They are not tiny if you run it on a 800x600 screen
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#127This with WINE is what I think is the perfect combination of GUI and CLI... but as a long-time Windows user, several things stood out and made it look slightly off: the menu bar and padding around the icon labels is too tall the window borders are slightly too wide (compared to the default) scrollbar buttons shouldn't disable at end of travel sort direction indicator in header control (which first appeared in Win2k)…
This comment makes me so happy. If I read it anywhere else I'd invoke Poe's Law and guess it was a joke. But it being HN I know it's for real, and I love it. Excellence in all we do
The font in the terminal called my attention. IIRC, the default one was the 8x8 CGA font with the option for it to be “Lucida Console”. Also, the icon for the terminal was the MSDOS 3D logo.
All in all, amazing work.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we hit peak desktop right around Windows 2000. Just about everything since then has been a step backwards in speed and usability. The Mac Finder is a hot mess and seems to get worse with every release. The 964 different desktops available for Linux are in general a hodgepodge of slow impossible-to-use disasters. A notable exception is XFCE but it's a bit of a second-class citizen and even things in XFCE don't…
What’s even worse is Debian running on 256 MB environment, you’ll need swap or pip will be killed by the OOM reaper. Linux used to be embedded first but nowadays most Linux distros are strangely oriented toward desktop and don’t work correctly on low memory environments without heavy customization.
Linux was NEVER embedded first. Linux was unix for 386s PCs a very expensive machine.
Not sure how desktop orientation is at all strange as any linux distro you are likely to install on your PC has been specifically prepared to install on a PC. If its anticipated to also be used as as server it also provides a minimal install which will almost certainly be less useful.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#129This with WINE is what I think is the perfect combination of GUI and CLI... but as a long-time Windows user, several things stood out and made it look slightly off: the menu bar and padding around the icon labels is too tall the window borders are slightly too wide (compared to the default) scrollbar buttons shouldn't disable at end of travel sort direction indicator in header control (which first appeared in Win2k)…
That and Inconsolation was my preferred blog for years.
Re: Make Linux look like Windows 95
#130I can't express how excited I am for consistent and metaphorical UI to be rediscovered by the 'designers' of today.
It’s not about “today”, it’s about Linux vs Win/Mac. The former is a lot less consistent than the latter and this was just as true in 1995 as it is today.
At least with respect to Linux and Windows, both suffer from similar problems with consistency. Both have suffered from a great deal of churn over the years. Both have a variety of toolkits that vary in both appearance and functionality. If you compare current software on both platforms, it is difficult to claim that one is much better than the other. (Though I will agree that Linux was incredibly inconsistent in 1995.)