What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
1–10 of 213 posts
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#2For me: everything! I clicked so well with it, everything made sense and was responsive.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#3Design language, like any language is metaphorical.
The thing that makes these skeumorphic designs work so well is that it kinda forces a consistent metaphor, and consistency above all else is huge for UX.
The fact that it's based on things we've seen in real life is also helps, as it means we can reason about the UI with the same faculties we've spent our entire life training.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#4Was this peak Windows UI?
I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move.
Fisher-price came next, with Windows XP. At least you could easily switch back to classic.
And then Windows 8, we won't even talk about that.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#5Was this peak Windows UI? I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move. Fisher-price came next, with Windows XP. At least you could easily switch back to classic. And then Windows 8, we won't even talk about that.
The title bar of windows in Windows XP was Fisher-Price. But I thought the rest was OK.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#6It was clear, clean and understandable.
Buttons looked like buttons.
Windows (which have frames), looked like windows.
And there was no distracting design elements.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#7Design language, like any language is metaphorical. The thing that makes these skeumorphic designs work so well is that it kinda forces a consistent metaphor, and consistency above all else is huge for UX. The fact that it's based on things we've seen in real life is also helps, as it means we can reason about the UI with the same faculties we've spent our entire life training.
Like the floppy disk for “save”? Or the old school phone receiver for “call”?
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#8Was this peak Windows UI? I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move. Fisher-price came next, with Windows XP. At least you could easily switch back to classic. And then Windows 8, we won't even talk about that.
Windows Vista / 7 was peak UI for me.
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#9Design language, like any language is metaphorical. The thing that makes these skeumorphic designs work so well is that it kinda forces a consistent metaphor, and consistency above all else is huge for UX. The fact that it's based on things we've seen in real life is also helps, as it means we can reason about the UI with the same faculties we've spent our entire life training.
Why are designers not understanding this these days?
I think one reason is that flat UI is super easy. Skeuomorphic is extremely hard to get right, and if you don't get it right it looks super tacky. Most people who have the word "designer" in their job title don't have the artistic skills needed to pull it off. This is why most designers are opposed to skeuomorphic.
Somewhere in between is the right approach. The NeXTSTEP UI from the late 1980s is what we need to return to. It still looks beautiful today: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/openstep42
Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000
#10Was this peak Windows UI? I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move. Fisher-price came next, with Windows XP. At least you could easily switch back to classic. And then Windows 8, we won't even talk about that.
I think Windows XP looks very nice if you install the Royale theme. It's a shiny and glassy version of the default XP style.