Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

(www.youtube.com)

179 points joelkesler | 1 comments | 13 Dec 25 18:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

sprash ◴[13 Dec 25 21:06 UTC] No.46258061[source]▶

Unpopular take: Windows 95 was the peak of Desktop UX.

GUI elements were easily distinguishable from content and there was 100% consistency down to the last little detail (e.g. right click always gave you a meaningful context menu). The innovations after that are tiny in comparison and more opinionated (things like macos making the taskbar obsolete with the introduction of Exposé).

replies(2): >>46258739 #>>46259446 #

SoftTalker ◴[13 Dec 25 23:57 UTC] No.46259446[source]▶

>>46258061 #

I would say Windows 2000 Pro, but that really wasn't too different from Windows 95. The OS was much better though, being based on NT.

replies(2): >>46260741 #>>46262192 #

1. Telaneo ◴[14 Dec 25 04:23 UTC] No.46260741[source]▶

>>46259446 #

I don't think it's a stretch to call it the UI language of 95, while 2000 just adds more functionality within the bounds of that framework. Add in the Win7 search bar in the start menu, and the OS not crashing, you haven't really done anything of note with the UI beyond staying within its framework. It'll still be a Win95 UI.

Meanwhile, WinXP started to fiddle with the foundation of that framework, sometimes maybe for the better, sometimes maybe for the worse. Vista did the same. 7 mostly didn't and instead mostly fixed what Vista broke, while 8 tried to throw the whole thing out.

↑