Live data from Hacker News

What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

movq.de

131–140 of 213 posts

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#131
post #21

> Me: "I don't like smartphone UIs. Everything is flat, nothing indicates where you can touch or not. I have to randomly try everything on the screen." Response by non-tech person: "Well, yeah, of course you have to try everything? How else would this work?" I think this goes deeper than many tech people realize. From what I understood from talking with "nontechnical"(*) friends, relatives, etc, for a good potion of…

My parents never had any problem understanding where they can click on Windows 3.11. They never could understand how to interact with DOS GUIs. Nowadays they have decades of experience with computers. They still can't predict what part of a web-site they can interact with, but they have memorized all the actions they can make on the phone apps they use.

My mother learned BASIC in college (not at all proficiently though), searched the web before the era of Google to learn about my sister's medical condition, and has used technology to enhance her teaching (when it actually helps) whenever she can, including trying to learn OBS during COVID to better teach remote classes, but when Windows Vista came around, she had to ask "What do I do?" to open her program.

Because Microsoft, after spending millions to recognize that labeling the button "Start" was brilliant, removed that label.

There was no justification for abandoning the millions of dollars of research that multiple computer companies produced for good UI design decades ago.

It was all just thrown away because some design asshole somewhere wanted to swing their dick around.

Millions of the same people who had no issue migrating from Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000 systems have been fucked over. People who knew how to use computers were given a huge middle finger at everything they learned. They were handed a system that was objectively harder to use than the previous one.

For some "designers" wet dreams.

People are bad with computers because "Designers" have been objectively value negative for decades. Instead of paying attention to the reams of scientific data that tells you exactly how to make a UI better, they smoke crack and make things transparent.

Clear buttons with obvious intent have been replaced with a goddamned inscrutable "Hamburger" menu. Decades old metaphors and systems that made sense to people who were born before computers were abandoned. Reliable and predictable functions that you could trust across applications have been eschewed in favor of hacked together javascript trash that screws up basic things like scrolling and copy/paste and drag and drop. Even though such functionality is often provided directly by the browser, they override it and fuck it up.

And people call these idiots "The best of the best"

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#132
post #120

> While we're at it: Hiding filename extensions was one of the capital sins in computer history, if you ask me So true! Does anyone know why this happened?

It's been the default since Windows 95, and I suspect it's because it was just noise to the average and upcoming computer user (ignoring the fact that coolsong.mp3.exe would soon become a problem, since that probably hadn't happened yet). MacOS functionally did the same, so MS probably wanted to seem equally 'sleek'.

The fact that it continued to be the default past Windows 98/ME/2000, when problems caused by it were widespread, baffles me though.

I can't find a source to find an exact reason though, and given it's been a thing since 95, there might not been one out there.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#134
post #88

When are we going to start designing UIs based on scientific HCI instead of marketing BS? Or has that gone the way of the dodo?

That era ended 20+ years ago. Sorry, pal. Microsoft has been flailing since Windows 2000 to "improve" the UI, often with one bad idea after another: let's make Windows apps look like webpages, let's make Windows apps look like phones, let's remove all the graphics elements that let you distinguish one window or element from another, let's put 5 times more whitespace into every screen than is needed...

Yes, I can see where the Windows 2000 "Classic" UI was considered bland, but it was also the functional and consistent UI Microsoft ever made. Most changes since have been a step backwards.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#136
post #120

> While we're at it: Hiding filename extensions was one of the capital sins in computer history, if you ask me So true! Does anyone know why this happened?

It's been the default since Windows 95, and I suspect it's because it was just noise to the average and upcoming computer user (ignoring the fact that coolsong.mp3.exe would soon become a problem, since that probably hadn't happened yet). MacOS functionally did the same, so MS probably wanted to seem equally 'sleek'. The fact that it continued to be the default past Windows 98/ME/2000, when problems caused by it were…

Huh, I could swear the Windows XP we had when I was a kid showed file extensions by default.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#137
post #74

win2k is the goat. fast, clear, no bullshit. sadly rdp and cleartype dragged me away and i've regretted it ever since.

On Windows 7 it was still possible to have the Win 2000-esque UI. I think it was an option between the classic UI or the fancy UI with gradient buttons and translucency and slowness.

I don't understand why they couldn't have kept that option. The Windows UI is currently the least customizable I've ever seen and I started using Windows with 2.1.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#138
post #41

When Windows XP came out, computer magazines wrote articles on how to switch the more modern, colorful UI back to the old, grey, drab, boring UI of Windows 95/98/2000. I was young at the time and this seemed absurd to me. Why would you willingly use a UI that looks like wearing an old grey tie for a dusty office job in a depressing concrete building?

I was youngish at the time and thought Windows XP looked like clown vomit. There is a German saying "Grün und blau schmückt die Sau" ~"green and blue grace the pig" - and XP was green and blue and shiny like hard candy.

Yeah, it was butt-ugly. The default Windows UI didn't actually look better until Windows 7, but I used the "Classic" look as long as it was supported. I skipped Windows 8/8.1 entirely, and while Windows 10 was reasonable in terms of how it worked, it was also butt-ugly, but now you couldn't do much of anything to customize it.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#139
post #41

When Windows XP came out, computer magazines wrote articles on how to switch the more modern, colorful UI back to the old, grey, drab, boring UI of Windows 95/98/2000. I was young at the time and this seemed absurd to me. Why would you willingly use a UI that looks like wearing an old grey tie for a dusty office job in a depressing concrete building?

Some people like brutalist architecture. I think is so ugly that I'm half tempted to chatgpt fact check this comment. It very well could have been a deliberate conspiracy to lie to the public and say it looks good to make some austerity go down easier.

If you were to quiz people who preferred the Windows 2000 look, you would more likely get detailed answers regarding the design language and functionality. If you were to quiz people who preferred the XP look, you would more likely get answers revolving around colors and shiny.

Re: What was nice about the UI of Windows 2000

#140
post #21

> Me: "I don't like smartphone UIs. Everything is flat, nothing indicates where you can touch or not. I have to randomly try everything on the screen." Response by non-tech person: "Well, yeah, of course you have to try everything? How else would this work?" I think this goes deeper than many tech people realize. From what I understood from talking with "nontechnical"(*) friends, relatives, etc, for a good potion of…

I've witnessed this so much over the years. Much of the time when someone would ask me for help with something on the computer, I would have no idea, but I could discover the answer with a little bit of exploration and a good understanding of how UIs are supposed to work. Windows 2000 was peak Windows UI, and everything since then has been worse. Then Microsoft started thinking it was a good idea to make native appli…

> Windows 3-era UI pieces still hanging around the Control Panel

odbc data sources

Post reply on HN