Yep even the later ones. I used to sit in front of a Solaris CDE desktop locked in a basement. Made me want to slit my wrists. The colour scheme, how it worked, the peformance. All horrible.
I used RISC OS at home. Was wonderful to come back to that.
Ooo, a rare fellow home RISC OS user! I had an A3000 at home myself so I didn't have the benefit of using RISC OS with a hard drive, and we never upgraded to an ARM3, but we did use both RISC OS 2 and 3.
Still love the old Acorn machines. I mostly use Arculator[0] nowadays for that nostalgia though.
Amazing walk through memory lane, and super useful. One big omission though - starting in the early 1990s, we should be seeing some Linux desktops in there, but I didn’t see any through 1995 or so when I stopped browsing. Also, Irix would be nice to get — although I don’t recall if SGI had much in the way of custom vibes for their window managers, they certainly had amazingly cool 3D demos.
A nice vibe coding project here would be to show these in a carousel with the UI being 1:1 pixels. It’s hard to understand just how different NeXTStep (Did I capitalize that correctly?) felt from Windows — part of it was refresh rates, but part of it was going from 800x600 to 1132x800-ish on the monitor. Color, refresh rates, monitor quality, a cool plastic color and design for the box were all part of the experience.
> It’s hard to understand just how different NeXTStep (Did I capitalize that correctly?) felt from Windows — part of it was refresh rates, but part of it was going from 800x600 to 1132x800-ish on the monitor.
You can't really get it from these screenshots, but I'll give an example of what you're talking about.
I remember GEM when it came out, and it simply looked terrible. Not just their color choice, but simply that low resolution display there were stuck with in the day. It looked cheap, and like a toy. Specifically in contrast to the Mac, which, while it was a smaller monitor, and even lower pixel count, the overall display was crisper, and cleaner, brighter, better contrast.
The Amiga suffered similarly. Big and blocky and fuzzy.
Also, don't forget that the NeXT computers were striving for being "3M" computers. "3M" for 1M pixels, 1 MIPS, and "1 Megapenny" ($10,000). Definitely a different class of machines to OTS PCs of the day.
> The Amiga suffered similarly. Big and blocky and fuzzy.
The Amiga was designed to look good on the crappiest TV around. It was a home computer, not a professional workstation. But if you had a nice monitor, high-res B&W screen modes were easily available.
RE: GEM, the Atari SM124 monochrome monitor was actually a super high quality monitor that was known at the time for producing a crisp comfortable image, and it was higher resolution (640x400) than the Mac (512x342).
GEM on it actually looked really good. The problem was two fold: with the Atari you had the choice of one or the other (colour or mono), the colour was very low resolution, GEM looked squished and crappy and cheap in low (360x200) & med-res (640x200) on colour .. and on the application development side there just wasn't the same caliber and quantitiy of developers to build good looking GEM applications.
But I mean if you look at some of the better more sophisticated applications like Cubase or Calamus or the original version of Logic, they were pretty nicely designed.
The base window decorations were a bit chunky compared to the Mac .. but not awful, and also easily changed. There were accessories that re-themed things via changing the font.
GEM over top of DOS on the PC? Yeah, awful.
The Ventura Publisher branch of GEM looked decent though
> Also, Irix would be nice to get — although I don’t recall if SGI had much in the way of custom vibes for their window managers, they certainly had amazingly cool 3D demos.
Notably, NeXT scrollbars were also on the left edge of the window, the logic being that (at least for left-to-right languages) most people focus on the left side of the document more often. I remember liking it.
I wonder why Apple swapped back to the right-hand scrollbars with OS X. I guess just because that's what classic MacOS and nearly everyone else did.
I wonder if it's righthanded mouse users? I'm using a vertical ergo mouse beneath my monitor, and your comment made me realize that it's quite similar to if I just.. reached for the scrollbar and pulled it. As opposed to having to cross the whole screen, metaphorically.
There's also the distraction factor. Maybe having the bar moving on the left edge competes with moving from line to line, and the general anchoring edge of the F shaped reading pattern.
1. There were far more users of the classic Mac OS than there were users of NeXTstep/OPENSTEP. Mac OS X has many of OPENSTEP’s underpinnings, but it wasn’t OPENSTEP 5.0; it was Mac OS X, a continuation of the Mac but with new underpinnings. The interface was different enough to represent a new direction for the Mac but without turning the Mac UI/UX into that of NeXT.
2. At the time NeXTstep was under development (mid-late 1980s), the case law surrounding UI look-and-feel and how much borrowing and inspiration one could have before it became infringing wasn’t settled. Apple had lawsuits with Digital Research and Microsoft over whether GEM and Windows infringed on the Macintosh’s look-and-feel. Recall that NeXT was formed after Steve Jobs’ failed coup at Apple against then-CEO John Sculley. Apple sued NeXT due to Jobs’ poaching of key Apple employees who worked with him on the Macintosh and allegations that NeXT was going to use Apple’s intellectual property (in some ways NeXT could be thought of as the evolution of the “Big Mac” project Steve Jobs worked on before his departure). They ended up settling out of court, but given Apple’s litigious nature and given the history of how NeXT came to be, it was very wise for NeXTstep to feature a UI/UX that was a radical departure from the Macintosh. While I don’t think a lawsuit about right-hand scroll bars would succeed, having them on the left helps defend against allegations that NeXTstep ripped off the Mac.
There is an SGI IRIX screenshot there from late 90’s. I scanned the list to take a look specifically for it.
I once saw 4 of the SGI Onyx2 RealityMonster supercomputers in a post-production house’s render farm in London.
They were so expensive, ($1m+ per computer) that it was only financially viable if they were engaged on client work 24/7/365. Damn gorgeous things and they turned the display of those into almost an art piece for wow-ing film studio execs.
Nice. A Redhat Mother’s Day set would be amazing. I didn’t screenshot much in that era, and had a catastrophic data loss in 1998 or so that was a real bummer; Usenet, emails, IRC logs. Even then it hurt, but today, ouch.
Invisible scroll bars are a source of constant annoyance. And it sometimes takes me several attempts to move a window, because of all the various clickable things without visible boundaries. Frustrating.
I'm on Windows and Mac. Not because I love them, but because that is where my customers are. Also I try to keep my computers fairly vanilla, so that they don't look too different to the user's computer when I do videos or screenshots of my software.
I only know it existed because on Portugal, Phillips had an option to ship GeoWorks instead of Windows on their PCs, and a guy on our class was very adamant defending it.
That was my first GUI, on the Commodore 64 with RAM expansion (don't remember if I had the 128kb or 256kb expansion). I wrote and laid out my user group newsletter on GeoPublish. I felt like I was running a Mac.
I can't help thinking about how much we have lost. Just finding the scrollbar nowadays can be a challenge. Not to mention if you want to resize a pane - in some applications they seem to have taken extra steps to make it difficult to find the line to grab.
Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer". This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs. Most managers are not Steve Jobs.
> in some applications they seem to have taken extra steps to make it difficult to find the line to grab
Pet peeve of mine in Windows where the line is at most one pixel now. They also took away the coloured distinction between title bars for the active window, so you don't know where keystrokes are going to go.
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research
Too many developers nowadays don't know this. On any HN discussion of UIs, I've been noticing a growing number of younger devs insisting that usability is entirely subjective (their words, not mine). It's not just that they don't know about cleverly thought-out things such as safe triangles in nested menus or all the affordances/signifiers espoused by Don Norman et al. The bigger problem is that they don't know what they don't know, and they come across as being unwilling to learn.
It does make UX discussions frustrating and meaningless when they could, and should, be interesting and a learning experience for us all.
> This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs.
Steve indirectly had a hand in this, by emphasizing the humanities. That, unfortunately, backfired as a sort of positive feedback loop.
Someone hired a few underemployed artists onto the team, and the artists invited all their friends and soon took over the department.
People that in an alternate timeline would be smoking weed whilst sculpting wood in a derelict loft somewhere are now the lead designers, using our software as the canvas of a perpetual avant-garde art piece.
They also need to look productive to justify their jobs, so the need to change things is constant.
That's why in 2026 you could have a PhD in CS and still need to watch a YouTube video to learn how to change the volume.
Can anyone name a single substantive UI improvement in the last 20 years? They're simply hiding or moving stuff around at this point while no one has even touched accessibility.
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
I have a lot of thoughts on things like PC usability today. You're right that UX research would have heavily contributed to the design on these older systems. As computers moved from the warehouse to the living room they had to be easier to use and understand for people without CS degrees. I think it is fair to assume *some* things about what people these days are familiar with when it comes to the desktop GUI, but usability should receive more focus now even if it slightly hinders aesthetic. A friend of mine has been teaching a college program for video editing and she has students who needed her to explain what files and folders are. This is not the first time I've heard of things like this.
Smartphones and tablets have obfuscated so many basic functions and features that it is actively harming people's understanding of how to use a computer. Things like window sizing, executables, how apps know where things are, and how programs are installed. Android does allow users to peek behind the curtain more than iOS but Google has been going down the path of locking down Android. I haven't been in an elementary school classroom for like 17 years but I remember having computer lab time where we would learn how to use Windows 95/98. I think what has benefited my friends and others my age (~30) is that we grew up when computers were in the home and were usable enough for us to log in and intuit our way around but there was enough friction that made it so we would have to figure things out on our own.
"Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer"."
With desktop OS I feel a lot of designers don't know how to use them. They grew up with phones and never use a desktop OS outside of work.
> based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
It's worthwhile to note that this was not just research in a vacuum, but a lot of user studies where they literally watched and studied people using the software and how they were confused, found or didn't find functionality, etc. Lots of interviews, talking to people, boiling things down to how actual people struggled with the software.
One example of a UI being a result of research seems to be Windows 98. Much of the surface is gray, and a lot of the text is black. It might look boring, but that is how you get to use a little colour for things that need accent, and it will make a difference. Also in a factory, the walls are gray, but the fire extinguisher is red so that you can hardly miss it.
> opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them
The latest design of interfaces is designed by people who have barely used a desktop computer and have no idea of the conventions or advanced usage. They create terrible UIs because they have no idea what a good UI is and they often don't even use the product they create.
My pet peeve is spacing. My usual resolution is 1920x1080 (scaled or not) and it feels I could cram more information in an old 1024x768 desktop. You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information.
For the brief time I used Windows 11 the amount of times I placed a window over another and then clicked on the wrong window because I couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended was absolutely ridiculous.
I'm afraid that the core of the problem is something far more simple and fundamental.
The people designing desktop apps today simply never learned the conventions that make desktop applications good. They grew up with smartphone apps, web apps, electron apps, games, etc.
In fact, you can observe from things like JavaFX, Flutter, WPF, etc., that the trend has long been about the ability of easily creating custom widgets like you could with Javascript (or Flash), rather than the convenience of having a library of widgets that look and feel exactly the same as every other widget in the system.
We also lost clearly identifiable buttons, loading bars (replaced with throbbers), status bars that tell you what you're hovering over and what the program is doing, stable UIs to develop muscle memory, etc.
But we did gain some nice things!
- Tabs.
- Titlebar buttons and other space-saving measures.
- Document editors remembering unsaved changes.
- Forms that validate on focus lost, instead of submission.
- Ctrl+P menus to fuzzy-search all actions and settings (we need more of those).
- Easy syncing (if I open Spotify on any device I'll see the same playlists, my clipboard is shared between phone/desktop/notebook, Immich integrates local and remote media, etc).
- Program-specific URL protocols, so that you can click on a link and have it open in a separate program (like `steam://open/games`).
- Map widgets, a small miracle we take for granted.
- Package managers/app stores that cleanly install and uninstall applications.
Titlebar buttons are actually bad. The titlebar exists (or existed) for a reason, so you'd have somewhere you could grab to manipulate the window. Now it's kind of a guessing game with every app on where you can grab without causing the app to do something you didn't want.
> Titlebar buttons and other space-saving measures.
This has been net negative. Now everyone thinks it’s ok to shove every control up there and there’s nowhere to grab a window to move it that isn’t also a button. But the OS interprets button click and mouse drag as cancel the button click.
I wish people would stop doing this.
We HAVE HI DPI screens with large resolutions and even 640x480 had title bars!!!!!
> Forms that validate on focus lost, instead of submission.
Not always positive. The form briefly loses focus for two seconds (while you open your password manager or whatever) and you are shouted at to “PLEASE ENTER A VALID USERNAME” in red.
Tabs aren't really new: look at BeOS which could "tab" windows..
That said I agree with you that tab are really nice, especially the way VSCode manage them with the vertical list of opened files (I switched from vim to VSCode due to this feature).
There is a very practical reason for this; most GUI apps are webapps (whether local or not is irrelevant), and the fetch API was so poorly thought out that it was not possible to get an indicate of progress - all if gives you is inprogress or done (nothing in between).
As a result the loading indicator can only indicate in-progress or done.
There might have been worse ways to design the fetch API, but off-hand, I can't think of any - what came before it was immensely better for a user experience.
I don't miss the loading bar. The progress in the bar never seems to correlate well with the actual time taken. It's not uncommon to have a progress bar breeze through the first half in seconds and spend minutes on the later half or vice versa. It's misleading to the point I recall "progress bar stuck on 99%" became a meme before people started calling them memes.
Just give me the option to view a log of what is happening under the hood. Tell me which step of the process you are at, what files are you copying etc.
There was a brief moment in history where we had the best of both worlds.
I grew up with Windows XP. We had most of these (except the titlebar buttons — although on second thought some custom Windows Media Player skins did have that, haha).
We all carried USB sticks around. So you always had your files with you. The computer itself was interchangeable, for the most part. (Which also led to my interest in portable apps.)
None of the gains you list have anything to do with user interfaces. They would all or mostly be possible in any of the older desktop environments shown.
One of my biggest bugbears is losing the OK/Apply/Cancel concept with dialog boxes or settings windows. If I have a window with lots of settings that I want to experiment with then I've no problem with that setting taking effect immediately, but please give me the ability to back out all the changes I've tentatively made via a Cancel button.
I have a feeling you're in the minority. I've been using computers for 35+ years and I feel like I still don't understand OK/Apply/Cancel buttons. I still click Apply before clicking OK even if I know it's unnecessary.
Plus, I don't believe Cancel reverts changes the user made if they clicked Apply already. So your suggestion would go against how the UX of OK/Apply/Cancel has historically worked.
I agree. There's something about those 80s and 90s interfaces with their visible affordances, grab points, etc., that just makes them instantly comprehensible. Many of them are also beautiful.
The absolute peak, for me, though are those early releases of MacOS X. Cheetah and Puma were both incredible, both in appearance, and in use. They looked fantastic but they still had all the affordances and comprehensibility of earlier interfaces.
One thing that's also very noticeable to me: title bars are title bars and nothing else. It's just easy to grab windows and move them, resize them, etc. Nowadays I really struggle sometimes to find a place in (what should be) the titlebar to drag a window in many application.
It is very difficult for people with impaired vision to find the scrollbars, buttons et.al. on windows 11. The scrollbars are too narrow and often auto hidden. The buttons are flat and not easy to separate from normal text. Tell one window from another is also quite challenge.
I'm curious - how often do you use the scrollbar? For me, almost never (or only as an indication of progress through a document). I'm scrolling only with wheel or arrows or PgUp etc.
Perhaps though this is learned behaviour from scrollbars being tiny. I'd rather have the extra screen space. The scrollbar is usually a nuisance when I accidentally touch it (touchscreen) and the page jumps away.
When reading a document in a browser, I rely on the scrollbar to know things like: how long is it? Where am I in the document? How much of the document is on my screen right now?
This is critical for decisions like: "Should I read the whole thing?" and for building a mental map of the whole document.
I use the scrollbar to scroll between parts of the document if I need to flick back and forth quickly, say between the data and the interpretation, once I have that mental map and know where things roughly are.
For mouse users, clicking and dragging the scrollbar is the fastest and most intuitive way to scroll through a large document or list. (The scroll wheel, if you have one, is much slower.)
For scrolling large distances in large documents, that's an important use case to me. As an indication of progress is another important use case, but also as an indication to show the size of the document relative to the viewport.
I don't think we've lost these things so much as our preferences have now become a minority where once we were the majority. It seems completely normal. With the barrier to entry dropping, designs now match what is appealing to the largest number. Linux DEs are still quite customizable, and we're fortunate that niche desires can still be met there.
Have you been unable to find a DE or a DE theme with that type of UI/UX? I haven't looked into it, since I don't have these issues and prefer a more modern look, but surely there must be options out there if that's what you want.
SerenityOS is the most well known but it's a fully custom operating system of its own. For Linux you can install the chicago95 theme (includes a widget set for GTK+3) and the b00merang GTK+4 theme (doesn't help with excess padding unfortunately, but it still has proper high-contrast 3D for the widgets and color for the headerbar. The mobile-friendly responsive UX of new GTK+4 apps actually works great with the traditional 3D look.)
It's suprising at first look that GEM tops my preferences
but I recall having a very fond time on the Atari ST 520+.
It had one of the best b/w monitors and TOS+GEM was orderly and uncluttered.
Only preemptive multitasking and per-window menus were missing. As a plus, the OS was in ROM, so boot times were <1s.
I'll be honest, 1053 might be my favourite xkcd comic ever, purely because it's so encouraging of sharing knowledge and learning new things. Always excided to see the lucky 10,000 mentioned in the wild.
The man behind this site is known for his skills of recoverying data from QIC tapes.
Looking at the "Software Library" section makes me always wonder if it will be released at some point, since that there is some stuff that isn't on BitSavers or other sites.
It's one of my favourite things, looking at and analyzing older interfaces. Some are lovely, some are cute, some are ugly, but most are... "naïve"? I love to think about the effort, the research, the trials and tribulations. I feel I will spend a great deal of time in this page!
First and foremost to me those screenshots are somewhat disappointing as they can't match my memories. NeXT, BeOS, Irix, OpenLook, SunOS, Arthur (imagine the diversity)... they were SO awesomely impressive at insanely high multi-sync CRT resolution.
Reality simply can't match the mind's eye, at least not for me.
I was thinking exactly the same. IRIX on a great Sony CRT is still awesome to just look at, to this day (I have _few_ SGIs). HP Vue, Solaris.. the greats.
One that does seem to be an odd man out is Genera. What a concept.
I really wish Windows 11 had a Windows 2000 mode. I want a grey, boxy UI, but I also want al the modern technologies Windows has introduced since—DirectStorage, D3D12, fast SSDs, device-independent pixels and vector UIs, all written directly against a Windows API that is modernised, safe, and easy to use. No React, no ads in my weather app; the only browser on my computer will be the browser itself.
Hardware features are contained in the kernel. GUI has nothing to do with them.
GUI frameworks provide features for applications to draw their UI.
A selection of numerous windows managers and desktop environments allows you to choose the best GUI shell to work in.
It is somewhat of a bazaar, with different components sometimes not fitting perfectly into each other and there's a constant migration to a best new thing, whether it's systemd, pulseaudio, wayland or pipewire, but generally things work OK and it's not like Windows today offers a significantly different experience.
No thanks, I do not want Linux. I use Linux for my home servers and at work, and I'd like to keep it that way, at arm's length.
I don't know why people suggest Linux for desktop use at the first swoop. I dislike it. I dislike how janky its various GUI desktop managers are, I dislike how edge cases that are handled straightforwardly on Windows just aren't on Linux. Things like high pixel density, different audio setups, multi-touch trackpad support, notebook battery life management, and more. The bazaar thing contributes to all of these sharp edges and jank.
And more importantly I dislike the sanctimony of the Linux community, I dislike the distribution and the linking model of most desktop distributions, I dislike how it is 'developers first' and not 'users first', unless a giant entity rewrites the entire user mode stack to provide a useful, straightforward, and mostly intuitive platform interface (that is, Android).
An OS is more than the kernel. It is the entire platform including user-mode libraries, toolkits, and applications. For all its faults, I find the Windows platform better than any Linux distro platform, except one.
> Hardware features are contained in the kernel. GUI has nothing to do with them.
What I listed aren't only hardware features; they are platform interfaces that can be programmed against to produce user-mode applications without having to muck around with kernel interfaces. In fact the less as a user or user-mode developer I have to work with the kernel, the better, and Windows provides a gigantic surface area for that.
I am happy with how Windows works, I like a Windows workflow, I like developing for and on Windows, I like gaming on Windows. I've used it for 26 years and broadly have no issues with it. It is a pretty superb platform which regressed after Windows 10, and about 99% of the problems with it are user-mode frameworks and applications, thin coats of paint. Windows isn't even close to 'beyond salvation'.
The "constant migration to a new best thing" is a big problem. Once written, a program should be able to run forever, but this is only true on Windows for GUIs and on Linux only for some CLIs. Arch just recently dropped the original vi from its repos because "it no longer compiled" with stricter GCC settings, and if you want to run an older GUI, just forget about it. It's hars to blame people for only targeting the Web or Windows when those two will work forever, but on Linux you have to keep up with the endless treadmill of X11 to Wayland, GTK 2 to 3 to 4, Qt 3 to 4 to 5 to 6, pulseaudio to pipewire, etc., and if you miss just one you may as well give up.
I would recommend WindowBlinds to achieve the "grey, boxy UI" look. As for a Windows 2000 theme out of the box, I am not sure, but I know it can make your Windows 10/11 UI look and behave like Windows XP.
There is a custom skin editor as well, so you can tailor the look of Windows to anything you choose, so you can probably get very close to the Windows 2000 look you are seeking.
Cheers. Some of the themes look pretty good! I used to use StarDock Start and StartIsBack back when I was using Windows 8 to, well, get the Windows 7 Aero theme and the start menu back.
That being said I do notice that many of the rounded corners aren't fully transparent...
> I really wish Windows 11 had a Windows 2000 mode. I want a grey, boxy UI, but I also want al the modern technologies Windows has introduced since—DirectStorage, D3D12, fast SSDs, device-independent pixels and vector UIs, all written directly against a Windows API that is modernised, safe, and easy to use. No React
I know that you said "no React" but you might want to try ReactOS. Of course if you don't need Windows-specific driver support Linux+Wine might suffice for your needs.
ReactOS does not have the features that the parent specifically asked for (and that you quoted). It’s also far from being usable as a production OS.
What the parent wants doesn’t exist, it’s interesting to see people give suggestions for alternatives. It’s clear that their priority are these underlying features and they wish it had a boxy grey UI, not that the boxy grey UI is the only requirement and everything else is optional.
Windows 10 doesn’t have the UI that the parent is asking for. Windows 7 was the last one that had that. Windows 11 isn’t much different in terms of UI from Windows 10 after tweaking a couple of things.
I'm currently running Windows 10 Enterprise with a volume key from my alma mater. When I eventually upgrade to 11, either Server or LTSC is on my radar.
I dont know about Win11, but in Win10, it is still there. You can see it in MDI apps and, in a few rare circumstances, I have seen the window manager seemingly crash and flash the old Win2000-style boxy design before going back to what it currently does.
Microsoft is really good at supporting the old libraries and GUIs etc (is the Windows 3.11 font picker still there?) - the problem is that modern programs aren't built to the W2K paradigm so even if you force W11 to "look" like windows 2000 all the apps will not suddenly grow title bars, etc.
For the people that didn’t live through this time, lining these images up makes it obvious why those that did speak of how visually impressive the Amiga was.
I am starting to think the top half of the screen should be the desktop, the bottom half should be the start menu but already activated and full of programs. No conventional bottom panel-bar with a start button. A right-most column should exist that fills up with a list of opened windows. [1]
When I first saw Win95 with a cleared desktop, I immediately thought - where has everything gone? Why is this empty? Decades later I still think it's cumbersome to have to look and press at bottom left to see all the programs every time.
[1] proportions and locations can be set
Also, a "sweep" button that quickly clears the desktop into a "desktop archive." I do that manually anyway with my own "sweep" folders. Every few months I delete and categorize within the sweep folder. Keeping the desktop clean and organized is the new frontier, especially as screens become smaller and people don't want to lose flow.
Verbose response, but what are your thoughts? Maybe use voice recognition that uses lip-reading through a camera to launch or modify?
Mice and keyboards are just so passe, right, but I wouldn't go so far as getting a brain chip? Maybe a spherical "touchball" that senses the pressure of each finger to move a cursor? Trackballs are too laborsome. I have my mouse on maximum sensitivity and acceleration anyway.
Screen real estate is precious unless on the very largest screens. Especially vertical. I'm a big fan of being able to put the app list/bar on the right, keeping the maximum vertical space available and allowing its captions to be readable horizontally.
> Maybe use voice recognition that uses lip-reading through a camera to launch or modify?
This feels like the result of a competition to design the worst possible user interface. To about 5% of people it might be an accessibility feature, to everyone else it's worse, and people with beards, marks, or dark skinned faces are going to find it a disaster.
Seeing these brought back a flood of memories. Logging onto AOL through GeoWorks for the first time. Clicking that tiny lit apartment window in the Macintosh mouse tutorial and watching the curtain peel back to reveal a couple dancing inside. Mesmerized by the soft shade on OS/2 buttons like they were works of art (yes, I know that’s weird). Bringing my NeXTstation into the office when I was just a lowly game tester and getting that look from my boss.
NextStep interface still looks sleek and timeless. No doubt a decaying Apple went to acquire them. Having seen some NextStep demos online, it was way ahead of its time. Few weeks ago just started to use WindowMaker again on one of my VMs.
VMS DECwindows Motif 1.0 was released in August 1991; it is difficult for me to comprehend that was 35(!) years ago. I still have a mouse pad from the release party.
im just scrolling through these while I prepare for a VC pitch session and I realize these UI are actually pretty darn good ?
Like the old Windows 98 UI (probably biased) to me just handles so much, why can't apps just look like that? Its boring sure but there's no complexity or inferred action there like modern apps ?
Why do seniors struggle to use modern mobile phones but in those days they could easily work through those UIs?
Just some ranting here but it's shockingly better than what I have currently on Mac
Where did the author get a copy of pre-X-integration NeWS, I wonder (if indeed they did). I haven’t been able to locate one online after a lot of determined searching, but I also can’t bring myself to declare that there isn’t one because the name is so ungoogleable.
He also got Parallax p/NeWS in his collection, which is super rare. I also wrote a person who has a SunDew QIC cassette, and another that has various NeWS sources (including the portable REF tree of the 1.1 version). Unfortunately they haven't released them yet, because of the unknown copyright situation.
Another person has the OpenWindows 1.0 binary tapes for Sun-3 and Sun-4, among other stuff.
For now we have the sources of NeWS 1.1 (and operators.h if you look more in depth) and X/NeWS 2.0. I also have the RBuss sources (an incomplete clone), but I have to ask the author if they can be put on the internet.
> Unfortunately they haven't released them yet, because of the unknown copyright situation.
I’m guessing that’s a euphemism for “almost all software archival work[1] is, technically, illegal enough to ruin the life of everyone who touches it”. This includes stuff like the Space Cadet Pinball for Linux that was on the front page recently and had approving comments from the original programmers. (I believe pre-commercialization Unix is one of the rare exceptions, assuming you ignore the copyrights of everyone who sent their patches to Bell Labs unofficially, as both the authors of those patches and the Bell Labs folks did.)
And it’s fair and probably correct to be afraid here. I just want to point out that this is one of the places where “legal” and “ethical” unequivocally point in opposing directions, and waiting for the legal situation to become more favourable is pretty much equivalent to never doing it. Software has the misfortune of having happened after the advent of pervasive copyright, so there are no out-of-copyright old masters that we could legally base our art on.
Any chance of getting them to donate the code anonymously to one of the willing sacrifices^W^W well-known community figures like Jason Scott?
OK, does anyone actually remember if half of the systems of the 80s really had such perfect font rendering or is this just some emulation 'current version'?
The first computers I used were 486 with DOS and early Pentiums with Windows 3.11 and nothing looked nearly as nice. Some of those old screenshots look A LOT better than stuff 10 years later that I used (incl MacOS 8 or 9).
Older OSs had pixel fonts, which were carefully hand-crafted --- vector fonts were something which folks dreamed about having, or which were accessed when using incredibly expensive printers.
Font rendering on Windows 3.11 was pretty decent, so long as one used the nicer TrueType fonts --- Times New Roman and Arial had man _years_ of hinting effort by Monotype which kicked in at typically screen sizes --- that said, certain apps would still use the older pixel fonts Tms Rmn and Helv (over which Linotype sued for trademark infringement which is part of why Monotype got the contract) as well as the "vector fonts" Roman and Modern which are (one can still access them in Windows 11) stick/plotter fonts like to the Hershey fonts. When I bought my copy of Windows 3.0, I drove almost 100 miles into Richmond to get a copy of Adobe Type Manager 1.0 for Windows.
RISC OS (1987) had built-in support for anti-aliased vector fonts, though they aren't shown in the screenshot. The OS was in ROM and had insufficient space for the actual fonts so they needed to be loaded from disk. This was fine if you had a hard disk but a pita with floppies.
The monitors of the time were a lot blurrier than the screen you're looking at the screenshots on. For maximum verisimilitude you'd have to have photographs of screens.
I got an 800x600 LCD monitor in about 1999, and it was a massive upgrade.
It's a tradeoff. A 800x600 CRT will look "blurry" compared to a LCD when rendering old-style GUIs or text in a properly hinted font, but the 800x600 LCD will look blocky and pixelated when rendering a real-world photorealistic image compared to the CRT. The real look of that CRT is more like taking that old 800x600 photo and upscaling it to 1440x1080 on a modern FullHD display. Blurry to be sure, but not blocky or pixelated. Early LCDs also had terrible image persistence/ghosting issues that showed up when playing games.
It's funny how early some things do and don't look familiar. A decent chunk of unix-family OSs have changed some since then, but also kinda not. CDE 1.0 looks almost exactly like the latest version:)
This collection is a great complement to the everything-x86 PC workstation jungle of the day.
I built a huge tower PC server to run NeXTStep in 1993, but I had no idea how difficult hardware comparability would be. It was a journey. But things improved quickly. So I installed lots of these: OS/2, Windows NT, NextStep, BeOS, Linux, various BSDs.
I found a Computer Shopper from that time. I'm pretty sure I bought one of the tower cases from page 786. Great stuff. Tell them I sent you!
I think the NT4/2000 desktop was pretty perfect. It laid down everything without getting in your way. A lot of early systems were forced to follow simplicity because of lack of resources. This coincidentally led to better interfaces because complexity is difficult to get right and often is in service of business interests instead of technical interests.
I think its obvious that there's a degradation in business products as they age. They become more 'competitive' which means more profit-seeking, so the marketing end of things takes over and the engineering end takes a back seat. Simplicity is replaced with shiny and complexity to catch more edge case sales. Weird cargo cults emerge, product manager cults of personality, etc instead of following proper usability guidelines. Industry fads become self-fulfilling prophecies. Lockdowns and walled gardens emerge because they are more profitable than open systems.
Today, I almost can't believe how hostile and bloaty Windows 11 is and MacOS isn't much better. At least we have FOSS, but the commercial end of things is 'late stage' and frankly awful.
There's a real tragedy how capitalism always leads here. I sometimes wonder if the USSR stuck around what a more technocratic-led system would produce compared to the West.
Reviewing the screenshots here, I realize profoundly that something about the idealism of the 1990s is baked into them; the 1990s a time before the bad vibes of commercialism mostly destroyed the interwebs.
Over time much NeWS related stuff resurfaced, wheter are application binaries, sources (both application and the server itself) or documentation, so anyone could play with them on a real machine (Sun-3 or SPARC) or inside QEMU SPARC.
I'm waiting for a copy of "Portable NeWS 1.0" to be recovered, to see how much different the sources are compared to the 1.1 version.
I also hope to see resurface binaries/sources of other server implementations, Sun Symbolic Programming Environment (which includes code originally developed at Schlumberger, including LispScript), the sources of the PdB compiler, CMU Andrew wm (although is not directly related, is the ancestor of this window system, from the same authors), and whatever is related to this system.
God beOS is the absolute peak of pixel-based UI design. It's like what Metal Slug was for pixel art games. Someone needs to add a CRT filter button to the site.
I kinda miss that in the early 2000's kde and gnome shipped with a fuck ton of window decorations based on all those (then-not-so) old OS. Teenager me had fun switching them every day and playing with windowing behavior (focus follows mouse! hover to select and only one click needed!). I wonder what techy kids today do to explore and have fun.
Speaking of the early 2000's, man, Aqua was such a good design. I appreciate the nextstep paradigm and design, but Aqua was just so futuristic, in a good way.
In some ways X11 with it's focus follows mouse, don't raise on focus, select:middle click paste features provide a far more refined desktop experience then mac or windows ever could. No wait, stop laughing, sure X11 was a garbage fire when it came to consistent professional design, but because it was such a wild west of an environment there was place for real ui innovation. I know, I get grumpy fast without middle click paste. And I hate having to raise a window in order to click and type on it(A common access pattern for me is to read docs on the top window while I am operating the bottom window).
The plan 9 interface has evolved quite a bit, but it's largely invisible in screenshots. The differences are in things like triple click behavior, jumps to insertion points, effective use of mouse cursor warping, chording.
Can't help noticing how the interface and general mechanics of these old OSes were tightly coupled to the hardware. Both the makers and users of that era seemed to relish that vibe. I know I certainly do.
However, that paradigm made computers daunting for anyone who wasn't an enthusiast. While I’m nostalgic for that level of transparency, I recognize that those hurdles stood in the way of mass adoption.
We might lament how 'dull' or 'abstracted' modern software feels, but technology's primary purpose is utility, not just to be venerated as an artifact.
THAT SAID, I still believe that user-friendliness isn't an excuse to strip away agency.
Modern simplification shouldn't feel like a forced lobotomy of the OS (or any piece of software really). There’s no reason we can't have both: an interface that stays out of the way for the average user, while providing total control for power users.
It's nice to see some of these things and finally make out any contents! I've felt hurt by Wikipedia's somewhat odd and sad screenshot policy, which makes it impossible to see any details of the things I've been looking at recently, like early Windows NT.
I remember using some kind of software around the time of windows xp i think, that could replace the chrome/shell so you could design your own GUI entirely – but I can't remember what it was called! I spent a lot of time iterating and experimenting back then, replacing iexplore.exe or whatever the main process was called.
There is a `man` entry displayed in a terminal window there. The first Unix I've ever touched was HP-UX on an HP-9000 (server series, not the workstation one), and I have this memory that the underlined words you can see in that manpage as well were actually hyperlinks you can select and would bring you to the relevant section of the manpage that discussed that term. Am I fabricating that memory or is it real? I cannot find any info about it on the Internet.
I started with HP-UX 9.03 on a PA-RISC-powered 715-75 (to
use Emacs, our whole research group logged into the 735 server to edit there, which was faster than running it locally).
Any unclean pointer fiddling in C, and the process was terminated by the OS, so the machine was wonderful to use as a development box (especially with Purify installed) for software that would later be run on Windows or Linux.
I eventually bought my own refurbished (and using academic discount) 715 (instead of a car), so I had the fastest machine in our student dorm of anyone I knew, undergrad, grad student or professor. I could just write my Master's thesis when everyone else kept re-installing Windows - the HP never crashed in 6.5 years, which has left me with deep respect for the old-schol (pre-Compaq) HP engineers. The machine (21" color CRT) occupied half of my 9 square metre dorm room, but it also kept me warm.
In the GNU world, indeed. And that's why it makes even harder for me to remember exactly, it was 30 years ago, I was clueless and also Linux was already "big enough" to have some Red Hat installed in some x86 PC in the same lab.
I'm studying old operating systems, because it's very interesting how we've been so productive with less screen pixels than we have today. It's basically mind blowing that 800x600 pixels have been a long time enough to get work done.
Currently I'm typing this on an iPhone 17 with a larger screen and after all the years there is nothing like a good charting, dashboarding or spreadsheet on it.
The aspect ratios were much "taller" back then, which was kind of better for editing code. All these late 90s designs were near NTSC at the time - aspect ratios like 1.25:1 (1280x1024) or 1024x768 (1.33:1). Monitors have always followed TVs, since displays now are the "HD" ratio of 16:9 (1.77:1), or 16:10 if we're lucky. But we do get way more pixels now anyway.
Use portrait displays! You'll never complain about the height again. Use 1440p (or scaled equivalent) and the width won't be an issue either. Many displays make this easy (all the Dells I've had can rotate), and adequate rotating stands aren't necessarily expensive.
It is strange to me that tiling windows have never become a norm. I really don't understand how people live with all these windows piled on top of each other!
System76's COSMIC DE has been a real life-changer for me in making tiling accessible.
No https version of this site, I configured my browser to warn or block non https websites, since from my experience few of those tried to force download (what i can only assume to be viruses) to my computer
I understand that https can do that to, but its usually the none https that does, so its a decent configuration to have
I was still in school when OS/2 came out. I read about it in the magazines never touching it myself. I was impressed with its aesthetics but never knew with the clout of IBM why it never took off. My guess is internal politics killed OS/2 more than Microsoft?
Internal politics, yeah, maybe; because IBM certainly didn’t do much to market it. That, and bundling deals Microsoft had with OEM hardware vendors (if you want the discount, then Windows has to go on every machine). OS/2 advertised a “better Windows than Windows”. Problem was, software vendors then said, “great, now we don’t have to do an OS/2 port!”
While I recognize many of these, I had no idea about the IBM Academic Operating System (a version of UNIX for their RT RISC workstations distinct from the normal IBM version AIX). There are just snippets of info about this OS on Wikipedia and other sites -- I wonder why IBM created it when they already had AIX.
Regarding Amiga screenshots, they've taken care to get the DigiPaint aspect ratios right, but the Workbench 2.04 screenshot is in a resolution that comes from an add-in graphics card rather than the Amiga's custom chips. It's a resolution Workbench wasn't graphically designed for, so it looked wrong in such a resolution at the time. If you double the screenshot's height, then everything (text, icons, window gadgets etc) looks right.
It would be more representative of the OS, and the era, to have a height-doubled "HiRes" screenshot, 640x200 or 640x256.
The aspect ratio is correct on all screenshots and are accurate de-interlaced representations of a 640x400/512 workbench setup, even though these particular screenshots are in RTG dimensions. Starting with ECS, the Amiga was also capable of true non-interlaced 640x400 output (and even 480 vertical lines unless I misremember) in what was commonly called "productivity mode", limited to 4 colors (2 bitplanes).
Interlaced workbench setups weren't uncommon. I ran such on and off for years for certain productivity stuff where I wanted more screen real estate, until I decided to spend money on a flicker-fixer.
I miss my GEM desktop and products. They were so ahead of their time. And Ventura publisher! I made some school projects using that. Brings back some good memories.
... Is that Sinfest? From before the author went weird? If so, then that's certainly a very different way of feeling old than I expected when clicking the link.
P.S.: There's another in "RiscOS 3.71", and "System V Release 4 Amiga Version 1.1" references Penny Arcade. [0]
The BeOS aesthetic has aged so well. I'll always wonder what might've been had they not been deliberately smothered in the crib (or at the very least if Apple had chosen to acquire them).
I hated magenta-blue CGA graphics soooo sooo much as a kid. It was (and still is IMHO) the ugliest thing I ever saw on a computer, by far.
I had a monitor that had a switch in the back that would change those colors to red-yellow-green. It was still awful but at least it was less awful than white-magenta-blue
There's a lot of nostalgia in the comments here. I wonder if any reader under say 25 is willing to comment; do you think OS's today are a regression? do those look better?
To me they look unwieldy, heavy and overwhelming and I can't help but think the love for them is just the love for youth or whatever
There is definitely an element of nostalgia. However, a lot of earlier desktop OS GUIs do seem to be more internally consistent and with more emphasis on usability than the current crop. I think part of the issue is that things that might make sense on a phone have bled into desktop OSes, where they make a lot less sense.
I don't mean this in a dismissive way but based on your profile I'd say you're > 25. I'm curious about the perspective of someone who didn't grow up with the those os's
Basing one's opinion on how a static screenshot looks, is the reason we've moved towards pretty looks and away from usability concerns.
As other commentors have said, the overriding concern with these older OSs was to make them as easy as possible to use. It would never have crossed these developers' minds to, for example, hide the scrollbar because they think it looks ugly.
Looking at a screenshot doesn't really tell you anything if you're not familiar with it, but it's a nice reminder of using that software for those who are.
In most of the comments here, I'm not seeing "nostalgia" or "the love for youth". I'm seeing frustration with how the carefully researched and developed principles have been forgotten.
For some of these, you have to use them on the actual hardware to understand why so many of us are bummed about what we have lost. The latency of modern systems is kind of bonkers. Even though the machines were incredibly slow they feel faster than modern machines. Some musicians used Atari STs for years after they were discontinued because of the stable timing.
For others, the hardware wasn't important, but some of the functionality isn't apparent in a static screenshot. For example, I loved OS/2 and the Workplace Shell. It had functionality similar to Windows COM or CORBA in that everything on the system exposed an interface that could be easily scripted or used by other applications. The built-in scripting language was Rexx which I feel could have played the role Python does now if only OS/2 had taken off. Using OS/2 from 1.3 onwards felt like you were using a computer from the future.
I'm under 30 at least and I do feel nostalgia for these albeit not having used most of them. First OS I ever used must have been Windows 95. I wish we could all go back to Windows 7, that was the best OS ever imo.
Hi! I'm slightly under that so I feel like I'm qualified :)
I wholeheartedly agree, they're quite a regression.... although I don't think this is a popular opinion around here.
When people say "something used to be better" they usually don't mean literally, they mean that for the circumstances, it was better. Of course, more modern systems support more hardware, more features, etc., but if you made those same modern technical improvements on top of an older designs, you'd get much better results.
To me it looks like software design has been massively overtaken by "form over function", everyone just wants a unique "brand" but the actual UX is complete dogshit. Borderless buttons, zero indication what's clickable, no visual delimiters for different areas of programs, no good shortcut / altkey menu support, etc....
This has somehow infected even Linux to such a crazy extent...
I'm 23 and IMO, the Windows desktop style peaked somewhere in Windows 95-2000. The first Windows I ever used was XP, so I'm mostly making that decision based off screenshots and emulators.
UIs back then were dense, didn't waste large amounts of space in a misguided attempt to be "minimalist", and had affordances for ease of use. There was no scrollbar hiding, no animations that made the user wait for no reason other than the designer's ego, very visible borders on windows and buttons that made finding/resizing them easier, large bars at the top of windows that let you move them around, and actual text for most buttons instead of icons that are anyone's guess what they mean. Thankfully some of this can be dialed back in the Windows 11 accessibility settings, at least for missing scrollbars and getting rid of time wasting animations, but a lot of programs don't respect those.
That's right there is a good indicator for which programs care about their users. I'm using your program because I want to actually do something, not waste time watching your designers show off.
I've disabled animations on my Android phone too, and it gives an extremely noticable speedup. Menus appear right when I click them, instead of a second later as they slide into existence. Too bad iPhones just replace the slide with a fade of equal duration; disrespect for the user's time like that is yet another reason I will never buy one.
Those older GUIs didn't try to hide the filesystem hierarchy either. It infuriates me to no end when I use a new OS and have to hunt down the way to show the disk root, or filename extensions, or hidden files. MacOS was especially bad; I had to look up a freaking keyboard shortcut that I never would have found on my own. The common reason is so "normal people" can use the interfaces, but I think that's infantilizing and is why tons of Gen Z don't know what files or folders are. Most people can learn .docx means a Word document, and C:\Users\TheirName is where their files are.
(Notable shoutout, the GNOME open/save dialogs are the absolute worst. I wish distros wouldn't default to it. People will just go right back to Windows 11 because it's somehow better.)
There's some improvements possible, for sure. I'd like to see some programs put hint letters over buttons when you press a modifier like Ctrl so you can easily see what the shortcuts are. I don't know of any that do, but it'd be very useful for more complex software like drawing programs or word processors.
> Notable shoutout, the GNOME open/save dialogs are the absolute worst. I wish distros wouldn't default to it.
I'll never understand who in their right mind would think that in a save dialog, if I start typing, I mean to search for something instead of trying to change the name of the file. It's really baffling.
That Wikipedia article needs a better screenshot. Otherwise, very interesting. And DESQview/X was X Window System on DOS with pre-emptive multitasking, wow.
GEM Desktop 1.2 looks sooooooo like the ancient Apple operating systems. I first saw this on a friends' parents computer and was quite astonished why computers may look like that. I was very used to Windows/DOS back then.
I am also glad to have switched to Linux in 2004 already. Once you have been using Linux for a while, whenever I use windows I am annoyed at how slow it is. Just file copy operations alone and then billion excuses windows developers make, trying to copsplain why it is so slow. When I have to backup 30GB, I don't want an explanation why it is slow - I simply use what is faster. And that's just one advantage of many more Linux has. (I use the commandline most of the time though, so KDE and GNOME are IMO just pointless eyecandy these days.)
xfm from the first Slackware print, I really liked that file manager. But these days it fails to work. I tied many years ago to get it work but failed :(
You might be looking at these old Unix GUIs thinking they're shit compared to now, but actually, at the time, they were shit too.
Actually no, CDE, NeWS and NeXTSTEP are my favourite UNIX GUIs.
On FOSS side, I would vote for afterstep, windowmaker, original GNOME with sawmill, and KDE.
Yep even the later ones. I used to sit in front of a Solaris CDE desktop locked in a basement. Made me want to slit my wrists. The colour scheme, how it worked, the peformance. All horrible.
I used RISC OS at home. Was wonderful to come back to that.
Ooo, a rare fellow home RISC OS user! I had an A3000 at home myself so I didn't have the benefit of using RISC OS with a hard drive, and we never upgraded to an ARM3, but we did use both RISC OS 2 and 3.
Still love the old Acorn machines. I mostly use Arculator[0] nowadays for that nostalgia though.
[0] https://b-em.bbcmicro.com/arculator/
1 reply →
No bloat was good! Snappy responsiveness on early CPUs.
Even xterm on a sun sparcstation running openlook was sluggish at the time. cde made it hopeless.
2 replies →
Amazing walk through memory lane, and super useful. One big omission though - starting in the early 1990s, we should be seeing some Linux desktops in there, but I didn’t see any through 1995 or so when I stopped browsing. Also, Irix would be nice to get — although I don’t recall if SGI had much in the way of custom vibes for their window managers, they certainly had amazingly cool 3D demos.
A nice vibe coding project here would be to show these in a carousel with the UI being 1:1 pixels. It’s hard to understand just how different NeXTStep (Did I capitalize that correctly?) felt from Windows — part of it was refresh rates, but part of it was going from 800x600 to 1132x800-ish on the monitor. Color, refresh rates, monitor quality, a cool plastic color and design for the box were all part of the experience.
> It’s hard to understand just how different NeXTStep (Did I capitalize that correctly?) felt from Windows — part of it was refresh rates, but part of it was going from 800x600 to 1132x800-ish on the monitor.
You can't really get it from these screenshots, but I'll give an example of what you're talking about.
I remember GEM when it came out, and it simply looked terrible. Not just their color choice, but simply that low resolution display there were stuck with in the day. It looked cheap, and like a toy. Specifically in contrast to the Mac, which, while it was a smaller monitor, and even lower pixel count, the overall display was crisper, and cleaner, brighter, better contrast.
The Amiga suffered similarly. Big and blocky and fuzzy.
Also, don't forget that the NeXT computers were striving for being "3M" computers. "3M" for 1M pixels, 1 MIPS, and "1 Megapenny" ($10,000). Definitely a different class of machines to OTS PCs of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M_computer
> The Amiga suffered similarly. Big and blocky and fuzzy.
The Amiga was designed to look good on the crappiest TV around. It was a home computer, not a professional workstation. But if you had a nice monitor, high-res B&W screen modes were easily available.
2 replies →
RE: GEM, the Atari SM124 monochrome monitor was actually a super high quality monitor that was known at the time for producing a crisp comfortable image, and it was higher resolution (640x400) than the Mac (512x342).
GEM on it actually looked really good. The problem was two fold: with the Atari you had the choice of one or the other (colour or mono), the colour was very low resolution, GEM looked squished and crappy and cheap in low (360x200) & med-res (640x200) on colour .. and on the application development side there just wasn't the same caliber and quantitiy of developers to build good looking GEM applications.
But I mean if you look at some of the better more sophisticated applications like Cubase or Calamus or the original version of Logic, they were pretty nicely designed.
The base window decorations were a bit chunky compared to the Mac .. but not awful, and also easily changed. There were accessories that re-themed things via changing the font.
GEM over top of DOS on the PC? Yeah, awful.
The Ventura Publisher branch of GEM looked decent though
2 replies →
> Also, Irix would be nice to get — although I don’t recall if SGI had much in the way of custom vibes for their window managers, they certainly had amazingly cool 3D demos.
IRIX used the 4Dwm window manager, which is a lot more polished than other UNIX desktops. Few screens I found: https://deskto.ps/u/fathonix/d/3p6fkk https://files.catbox.moe/cognfj.jpg https://guidebookgallery.org/guis/irix/screenshots
> https://files.catbox.moe/cognfj.jpg
That screenshot shows songs from the band "Bran Van 3000" playing and "Drinking in L.A." is in the list, now that is trip down memory lane! (late 90s)
Thank you so much for that, haven't listened to that in a very long time.
Notably, NeXT scrollbars were also on the left edge of the window, the logic being that (at least for left-to-right languages) most people focus on the left side of the document more often. I remember liking it.
I wonder why Apple swapped back to the right-hand scrollbars with OS X. I guess just because that's what classic MacOS and nearly everyone else did.
I wonder if it's righthanded mouse users? I'm using a vertical ergo mouse beneath my monitor, and your comment made me realize that it's quite similar to if I just.. reached for the scrollbar and pulled it. As opposed to having to cross the whole screen, metaphorically.
There's also the distraction factor. Maybe having the bar moving on the left edge competes with moving from line to line, and the general anchoring edge of the F shaped reading pattern.
Total speculation on my part.
My thoughts:
1. There were far more users of the classic Mac OS than there were users of NeXTstep/OPENSTEP. Mac OS X has many of OPENSTEP’s underpinnings, but it wasn’t OPENSTEP 5.0; it was Mac OS X, a continuation of the Mac but with new underpinnings. The interface was different enough to represent a new direction for the Mac but without turning the Mac UI/UX into that of NeXT.
2. At the time NeXTstep was under development (mid-late 1980s), the case law surrounding UI look-and-feel and how much borrowing and inspiration one could have before it became infringing wasn’t settled. Apple had lawsuits with Digital Research and Microsoft over whether GEM and Windows infringed on the Macintosh’s look-and-feel. Recall that NeXT was formed after Steve Jobs’ failed coup at Apple against then-CEO John Sculley. Apple sued NeXT due to Jobs’ poaching of key Apple employees who worked with him on the Macintosh and allegations that NeXT was going to use Apple’s intellectual property (in some ways NeXT could be thought of as the evolution of the “Big Mac” project Steve Jobs worked on before his departure). They ended up settling out of court, but given Apple’s litigious nature and given the history of how NeXT came to be, it was very wise for NeXTstep to feature a UI/UX that was a radical departure from the Macintosh. While I don’t think a lawsuit about right-hand scroll bars would succeed, having them on the left helps defend against allegations that NeXTstep ripped off the Mac.
There's a Slackware screenshot from 1994:
http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/linux-0.99p15-fvwm-m...
There is an SGI IRIX screenshot there from late 90’s. I scanned the list to take a look specifically for it.
I once saw 4 of the SGI Onyx2 RealityMonster supercomputers in a post-production house’s render farm in London.
They were so expensive, ($1m+ per computer) that it was only financially viable if they were engaged on client work 24/7/365. Damn gorgeous things and they turned the display of those into almost an art piece for wow-ing film studio execs.
Fun times.
I may have some KDE 2 and 3 screenshots to add.
Nice. A Redhat Mother’s Day set would be amazing. I didn’t screenshot much in that era, and had a catastrophic data loss in 1998 or so that was a real bummer; Usenet, emails, IRC logs. Even then it hurt, but today, ouch.
Invisible scroll bars are a source of constant annoyance. And it sometimes takes me several attempts to move a window, because of all the various clickable things without visible boundaries. Frustrating.
On GNU/Linux run this command, it will fix it for all the GTK based desktops, such as XFCE, Gnome and Mate:
Under Mac you might have a similar Cocoa setting or whatever is called (nsproperties?) with "defaults write".
On Mac, the setting is also simply exposed in the normal “System Settings” app. “Appearance” → “Show scroll bars” → “Always”.
1 reply →
I'm on Windows and Mac. Not because I love them, but because that is where my customers are. Also I try to keep my computers fairly vanilla, so that they don't look too different to the user's computer when I do videos or screenshots of my software.
3 replies →
No mention of GeOS!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOS_(8-bit_operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Softworks
I only know it existed because on Portugal, Phillips had an option to ship GeoWorks instead of Windows on their PCs, and a guy on our class was very adamant defending it.
That was my first GUI, on the Commodore 64 with RAM expansion (don't remember if I had the 128kb or 256kb expansion). I wrote and laid out my user group newsletter on GeoPublish. I felt like I was running a Mac.
Or GS/OS for the Apple IIgs, the weird "not exactly Mac OS" GUI.
There is the 16-bit Geoworks Ensemble (PC/GEOS), at least.
Which is FOSS now!
https://github.com/bluewaysw/pcgeos
I can't help thinking about how much we have lost. Just finding the scrollbar nowadays can be a challenge. Not to mention if you want to resize a pane - in some applications they seem to have taken extra steps to make it difficult to find the line to grab.
Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer". This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs. Most managers are not Steve Jobs.
> in some applications they seem to have taken extra steps to make it difficult to find the line to grab
Pet peeve of mine in Windows where the line is at most one pixel now. They also took away the coloured distinction between title bars for the active window, so you don't know where keystrokes are going to go.
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research
Too many developers nowadays don't know this. On any HN discussion of UIs, I've been noticing a growing number of younger devs insisting that usability is entirely subjective (their words, not mine). It's not just that they don't know about cleverly thought-out things such as safe triangles in nested menus or all the affordances/signifiers espoused by Don Norman et al. The bigger problem is that they don't know what they don't know, and they come across as being unwilling to learn.
It does make UX discussions frustrating and meaningless when they could, and should, be interesting and a learning experience for us all.
17 replies →
> This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs.
Steve indirectly had a hand in this, by emphasizing the humanities. That, unfortunately, backfired as a sort of positive feedback loop.
Someone hired a few underemployed artists onto the team, and the artists invited all their friends and soon took over the department.
People that in an alternate timeline would be smoking weed whilst sculpting wood in a derelict loft somewhere are now the lead designers, using our software as the canvas of a perpetual avant-garde art piece.
They also need to look productive to justify their jobs, so the need to change things is constant.
That's why in 2026 you could have a PhD in CS and still need to watch a YouTube video to learn how to change the volume.
Can anyone name a single substantive UI improvement in the last 20 years? They're simply hiding or moving stuff around at this point while no one has even touched accessibility.
8 replies →
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
I have a lot of thoughts on things like PC usability today. You're right that UX research would have heavily contributed to the design on these older systems. As computers moved from the warehouse to the living room they had to be easier to use and understand for people without CS degrees. I think it is fair to assume *some* things about what people these days are familiar with when it comes to the desktop GUI, but usability should receive more focus now even if it slightly hinders aesthetic. A friend of mine has been teaching a college program for video editing and she has students who needed her to explain what files and folders are. This is not the first time I've heard of things like this.
Smartphones and tablets have obfuscated so many basic functions and features that it is actively harming people's understanding of how to use a computer. Things like window sizing, executables, how apps know where things are, and how programs are installed. Android does allow users to peek behind the curtain more than iOS but Google has been going down the path of locking down Android. I haven't been in an elementary school classroom for like 17 years but I remember having computer lab time where we would learn how to use Windows 95/98. I think what has benefited my friends and others my age (~30) is that we grew up when computers were in the home and were usable enough for us to log in and intuit our way around but there was enough friction that made it so we would have to figure things out on our own.
If you haven't tried it already, I've found it useful to get Windows to use the accent colour in the title bar and window borders: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/personalize-your...
1 reply →
"Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer"."
With desktop OS I feel a lot of designers don't know how to use them. They grew up with phones and never use a desktop OS outside of work.
Chesterton's fence! Don't delete something unless you know why it's there in the first place.
> based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system.
It's worthwhile to note that this was not just research in a vacuum, but a lot of user studies where they literally watched and studied people using the software and how they were confused, found or didn't find functionality, etc. Lots of interviews, talking to people, boiling things down to how actual people struggled with the software.
One example of a UI being a result of research seems to be Windows 98. Much of the surface is gray, and a lot of the text is black. It might look boring, but that is how you get to use a little colour for things that need accent, and it will make a difference. Also in a factory, the walls are gray, but the fire extinguisher is red so that you can hardly miss it.
> opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them
The latest design of interfaces is designed by people who have barely used a desktop computer and have no idea of the conventions or advanced usage. They create terrible UIs because they have no idea what a good UI is and they often don't even use the product they create.
‘Took out usability features to make them "look nicer"’ is exactly how Steve Jobs gave us the double-click, undiscoverable and timing-sensitive.
7 replies →
My pet peeve is spacing. My usual resolution is 1920x1080 (scaled or not) and it feels I could cram more information in an old 1024x768 desktop. You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information.
6 replies →
For the brief time I used Windows 11 the amount of times I placed a window over another and then clicked on the wrong window because I couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended was absolutely ridiculous.
I'm afraid that the core of the problem is something far more simple and fundamental.
The people designing desktop apps today simply never learned the conventions that make desktop applications good. They grew up with smartphone apps, web apps, electron apps, games, etc.
In fact, you can observe from things like JavaFX, Flutter, WPF, etc., that the trend has long been about the ability of easily creating custom widgets like you could with Javascript (or Flash), rather than the convenience of having a library of widgets that look and feel exactly the same as every other widget in the system.
9 replies →
We also lost clearly identifiable buttons, loading bars (replaced with throbbers), status bars that tell you what you're hovering over and what the program is doing, stable UIs to develop muscle memory, etc.
But we did gain some nice things!
- Tabs.
- Titlebar buttons and other space-saving measures.
- Document editors remembering unsaved changes.
- Forms that validate on focus lost, instead of submission.
- Ctrl+P menus to fuzzy-search all actions and settings (we need more of those).
- Easy syncing (if I open Spotify on any device I'll see the same playlists, my clipboard is shared between phone/desktop/notebook, Immich integrates local and remote media, etc).
- Program-specific URL protocols, so that you can click on a link and have it open in a separate program (like `steam://open/games`).
- Map widgets, a small miracle we take for granted.
- Package managers/app stores that cleanly install and uninstall applications.
Titlebar buttons are actually bad. The titlebar exists (or existed) for a reason, so you'd have somewhere you could grab to manipulate the window. Now it's kind of a guessing game with every app on where you can grab without causing the app to do something you didn't want.
12 replies →
> Titlebar buttons and other space-saving measures.
This has been net negative. Now everyone thinks it’s ok to shove every control up there and there’s nowhere to grab a window to move it that isn’t also a button. But the OS interprets button click and mouse drag as cancel the button click.
I wish people would stop doing this.
We HAVE HI DPI screens with large resolutions and even 640x480 had title bars!!!!!
What space could possibly need saving?
2 replies →
> Forms that validate on focus lost, instead of submission.
Not always positive. The form briefly loses focus for two seconds (while you open your password manager or whatever) and you are shouted at to “PLEASE ENTER A VALID USERNAME” in red.
1 reply →
> - Tabs.
Tabs aren't really new: look at BeOS which could "tab" windows..
That said I agree with you that tab are really nice, especially the way VSCode manage them with the vertical list of opened files (I switched from vim to VSCode due to this feature).
> loading bars (replaced with throbbers)
There is a very practical reason for this; most GUI apps are webapps (whether local or not is irrelevant), and the fetch API was so poorly thought out that it was not possible to get an indicate of progress - all if gives you is inprogress or done (nothing in between).
As a result the loading indicator can only indicate in-progress or done.
There might have been worse ways to design the fetch API, but off-hand, I can't think of any - what came before it was immensely better for a user experience.
7 replies →
I don't miss the loading bar. The progress in the bar never seems to correlate well with the actual time taken. It's not uncommon to have a progress bar breeze through the first half in seconds and spend minutes on the later half or vice versa. It's misleading to the point I recall "progress bar stuck on 99%" became a meme before people started calling them memes.
Just give me the option to view a log of what is happening under the hood. Tell me which step of the process you are at, what files are you copying etc.
I appreciate this balanced take! Let's hope one day we'll get the best of today's and yesterday's era.
There was a brief moment in history where we had the best of both worlds.
I grew up with Windows XP. We had most of these (except the titlebar buttons — although on second thought some custom Windows Media Player skins did have that, haha).
We all carried USB sticks around. So you always had your files with you. The computer itself was interchangeable, for the most part. (Which also led to my interest in portable apps.)
1 reply →
> - Tabs.
Should have been a generic window manager feature.
3 replies →
"- Document editors remembering unsaved changes."
This can be really annoying when I don't want to save these changes
But we did gain some nice things!
None of the gains you list have anything to do with user interfaces. They would all or mostly be possible in any of the older desktop environments shown.
1 reply →
> Ctrl+P menus to fuzzy-search all actions and settings
Wasn’t that in Emacs for decades?
4 replies →
One of my biggest bugbears is losing the OK/Apply/Cancel concept with dialog boxes or settings windows. If I have a window with lots of settings that I want to experiment with then I've no problem with that setting taking effect immediately, but please give me the ability to back out all the changes I've tentatively made via a Cancel button.
I have a feeling you're in the minority. I've been using computers for 35+ years and I feel like I still don't understand OK/Apply/Cancel buttons. I still click Apply before clicking OK even if I know it's unnecessary.
Plus, I don't believe Cancel reverts changes the user made if they clicked Apply already. So your suggestion would go against how the UX of OK/Apply/Cancel has historically worked.
1 reply →
My favorite is when I click a button to cancel an operation and a confirm dialog pops up where clicking “cancel” cancels the cancel.
I agree. There's something about those 80s and 90s interfaces with their visible affordances, grab points, etc., that just makes them instantly comprehensible. Many of them are also beautiful.
The absolute peak, for me, though are those early releases of MacOS X. Cheetah and Puma were both incredible, both in appearance, and in use. They looked fantastic but they still had all the affordances and comprehensibility of earlier interfaces.
One thing that's also very noticeable to me: title bars are title bars and nothing else. It's just easy to grab windows and move them, resize them, etc. Nowadays I really struggle sometimes to find a place in (what should be) the titlebar to drag a window in many application.
We have lost indeed.
In Mac I use:
in order to enable dragging windows via `Cmd + Ctrl + Click`.
I still want alt+underlined letter for menus.
Ubuntu is great for resizing - alt + middle click anywhere on the window. If only other OS'es could do the same.
> Ubuntu is great for resizing - alt + middle click anywhere on the window. If only other OS'es could do the same.
Not Ubuntu -specific. On all my setups alt+LMB moves, alt+RMB near any edge resizes that specific edge.
No need for pixel-perfect grabbing.
Yeah, this is the one thing about Linux I constantly miss when using anything else.
I wonder how hard it would be to make a thing for that...
1 reply →
Microsoft's PowerToys did add that in (I think) the last version. Alt + Left click moves, alt + right click resizes.
1 reply →
It is very difficult for people with impaired vision to find the scrollbars, buttons et.al. on windows 11. The scrollbars are too narrow and often auto hidden. The buttons are flat and not easy to separate from normal text. Tell one window from another is also quite challenge.
I'm curious - how often do you use the scrollbar? For me, almost never (or only as an indication of progress through a document). I'm scrolling only with wheel or arrows or PgUp etc.
Perhaps though this is learned behaviour from scrollbars being tiny. I'd rather have the extra screen space. The scrollbar is usually a nuisance when I accidentally touch it (touchscreen) and the page jumps away.
When reading a document in a browser, I rely on the scrollbar to know things like: how long is it? Where am I in the document? How much of the document is on my screen right now?
This is critical for decisions like: "Should I read the whole thing?" and for building a mental map of the whole document.
I use the scrollbar to scroll between parts of the document if I need to flick back and forth quickly, say between the data and the interpretation, once I have that mental map and know where things roughly are.
While reading, I'm dragging or wheeling.
You can do interesting things in the scroll bar. Some coding editors (like Visual Studio) cram a lot of useful information into the scroll bar.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/how-to-tr...
For mouse users, clicking and dragging the scrollbar is the fastest and most intuitive way to scroll through a large document or list. (The scroll wheel, if you have one, is much slower.)
2 replies →
For scrolling large distances in large documents, that's an important use case to me. As an indication of progress is another important use case, but also as an indication to show the size of the document relative to the viewport.
> I'm curious - how often do you use the scrollbar?
Almost every time. Scrolling with the mouse has bugs in Windows (focus on the active field) and fine grained scrolling is not possible with the mouse.
I don't think we've lost these things so much as our preferences have now become a minority where once we were the majority. It seems completely normal. With the barrier to entry dropping, designs now match what is appealing to the largest number. Linux DEs are still quite customizable, and we're fortunate that niche desires can still be met there.
Have you been unable to find a DE or a DE theme with that type of UI/UX? I haven't looked into it, since I don't have these issues and prefer a more modern look, but surely there must be options out there if that's what you want.
I think the parent is lamenting the lack of this in a commercially viable DE, like MacOS or Windows.
As much as it pains me to say it: custom Linux distros are not often deployed en masse. Especially not the ones that “look old”.
SerenityOS is the most well known but it's a fully custom operating system of its own. For Linux you can install the chicago95 theme (includes a widget set for GTK+3) and the b00merang GTK+4 theme (doesn't help with excess padding unfortunately, but it still has proper high-contrast 3D for the widgets and color for the headerbar. The mobile-friendly responsive UX of new GTK+4 apps actually works great with the traditional 3D look.)
The latest KDE with a suitable theme actually comes quite close.
Just finding a drag able area of the window to reposition it is a huge pain.
My favorites:
GEM + Ventura Publisher http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/ventura-publisher-1....
Viewpoint http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/6085-viewpoint-2.0-p...
AUX http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/aux-3.0.1.png
It's suprising at first look that GEM tops my preferences but I recall having a very fond time on the Atari ST 520+. It had one of the best b/w monitors and TOS+GEM was orderly and uncluttered.
Only preemptive multitasking and per-window menus were missing. As a plus, the OS was in ROM, so boot times were <1s.
I love this kind of thing :) I finally have a second site to bookmark alongside this similar collection: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots
Irix 5 was so clean!
QNX too, I awe to that vision of the world.
Probably also worth dropping this here in the off chance someone here will be part of today's lucky 10,000. http://toastytech.com/guis/
At first glance it looks like this is much more breadth over depth. Quite an array of systems here.
ToastyTech is wonderful but don't forget GUIdebook, which also is.
https://guidebookgallery.org/
More:
• <https://ui.codexpanse.com/>
• <https://history.vpon.me/>
1 reply →
http://nixon-development.com/guis
Thank you for all these links - brought back a ton of memories, especially the Whistler screenshots. I remember running those back in the day.
Obligatory Link to xkcd [0]
I'll be honest, 1053 might be my favourite xkcd comic ever, purely because it's so encouraging of sharing knowledge and learning new things. Always excided to see the lucky 10,000 mentioned in the wild.
[0]: https://xkcd.com/1053/
The man behind this site is known for his skills of recoverying data from QIC tapes. Looking at the "Software Library" section makes me always wonder if it will be released at some point, since that there is some stuff that isn't on BitSavers or other sites.
This is like porn for me :)
It's one of my favourite things, looking at and analyzing older interfaces. Some are lovely, some are cute, some are ugly, but most are... "naïve"? I love to think about the effort, the research, the trials and tribulations. I feel I will spend a great deal of time in this page!
> [..] lovely [..] cute [..] ugly [..] naive...
First and foremost to me those screenshots are somewhat disappointing as they can't match my memories. NeXT, BeOS, Irix, OpenLook, SunOS, Arthur (imagine the diversity)... they were SO awesomely impressive at insanely high multi-sync CRT resolution.
Reality simply can't match the mind's eye, at least not for me.
I was thinking exactly the same. IRIX on a great Sony CRT is still awesome to just look at, to this day (I have _few_ SGIs). HP Vue, Solaris.. the greats.
One that does seem to be an odd man out is Genera. What a concept.
I really wish Windows 11 had a Windows 2000 mode. I want a grey, boxy UI, but I also want al the modern technologies Windows has introduced since—DirectStorage, D3D12, fast SSDs, device-independent pixels and vector UIs, all written directly against a Windows API that is modernised, safe, and easy to use. No React, no ads in my weather app; the only browser on my computer will be the browser itself.
You want Linux.
Hardware features are contained in the kernel. GUI has nothing to do with them.
GUI frameworks provide features for applications to draw their UI.
A selection of numerous windows managers and desktop environments allows you to choose the best GUI shell to work in.
It is somewhat of a bazaar, with different components sometimes not fitting perfectly into each other and there's a constant migration to a best new thing, whether it's systemd, pulseaudio, wayland or pipewire, but generally things work OK and it's not like Windows today offers a significantly different experience.
Windows is beyond salvation at this point.
No thanks, I do not want Linux. I use Linux for my home servers and at work, and I'd like to keep it that way, at arm's length.
I don't know why people suggest Linux for desktop use at the first swoop. I dislike it. I dislike how janky its various GUI desktop managers are, I dislike how edge cases that are handled straightforwardly on Windows just aren't on Linux. Things like high pixel density, different audio setups, multi-touch trackpad support, notebook battery life management, and more. The bazaar thing contributes to all of these sharp edges and jank.
And more importantly I dislike the sanctimony of the Linux community, I dislike the distribution and the linking model of most desktop distributions, I dislike how it is 'developers first' and not 'users first', unless a giant entity rewrites the entire user mode stack to provide a useful, straightforward, and mostly intuitive platform interface (that is, Android).
An OS is more than the kernel. It is the entire platform including user-mode libraries, toolkits, and applications. For all its faults, I find the Windows platform better than any Linux distro platform, except one.
> Hardware features are contained in the kernel. GUI has nothing to do with them.
What I listed aren't only hardware features; they are platform interfaces that can be programmed against to produce user-mode applications without having to muck around with kernel interfaces. In fact the less as a user or user-mode developer I have to work with the kernel, the better, and Windows provides a gigantic surface area for that.
I am happy with how Windows works, I like a Windows workflow, I like developing for and on Windows, I like gaming on Windows. I've used it for 26 years and broadly have no issues with it. It is a pretty superb platform which regressed after Windows 10, and about 99% of the problems with it are user-mode frameworks and applications, thin coats of paint. Windows isn't even close to 'beyond salvation'.
5 replies →
The "constant migration to a new best thing" is a big problem. Once written, a program should be able to run forever, but this is only true on Windows for GUIs and on Linux only for some CLIs. Arch just recently dropped the original vi from its repos because "it no longer compiled" with stricter GCC settings, and if you want to run an older GUI, just forget about it. It's hars to blame people for only targeting the Web or Windows when those two will work forever, but on Linux you have to keep up with the endless treadmill of X11 to Wayland, GTK 2 to 3 to 4, Qt 3 to 4 to 5 to 6, pulseaudio to pipewire, etc., and if you miss just one you may as well give up.
1 reply →
I would recommend WindowBlinds to achieve the "grey, boxy UI" look. As for a Windows 2000 theme out of the box, I am not sure, but I know it can make your Windows 10/11 UI look and behave like Windows XP.
There is a custom skin editor as well, so you can tailor the look of Windows to anything you choose, so you can probably get very close to the Windows 2000 look you are seeking.
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/
Cheers. Some of the themes look pretty good! I used to use StarDock Start and StartIsBack back when I was using Windows 8 to, well, get the Windows 7 Aero theme and the start menu back.
That being said I do notice that many of the rounded corners aren't fully transparent...
> I really wish Windows 11 had a Windows 2000 mode. I want a grey, boxy UI, but I also want al the modern technologies Windows has introduced since—DirectStorage, D3D12, fast SSDs, device-independent pixels and vector UIs, all written directly against a Windows API that is modernised, safe, and easy to use. No React
I know that you said "no React" but you might want to try ReactOS. Of course if you don't need Windows-specific driver support Linux+Wine might suffice for your needs.
ReactOS does not have the features that the parent specifically asked for (and that you quoted). It’s also far from being usable as a production OS.
What the parent wants doesn’t exist, it’s interesting to see people give suggestions for alternatives. It’s clear that their priority are these underlying features and they wish it had a boxy grey UI, not that the boxy grey UI is the only requirement and everything else is optional.
Win2K was peak windows.
98 SE or XP SP2.
Go with Win 10 LTSC or use Win Server as a daily. Both are crap-less and can be fully debloated in minutes.
Windows 10 doesn’t have the UI that the parent is asking for. Windows 7 was the last one that had that. Windows 11 isn’t much different in terms of UI from Windows 10 after tweaking a couple of things.
3 replies →
I'm currently running Windows 10 Enterprise with a volume key from my alma mater. When I eventually upgrade to 11, either Server or LTSC is on my radar.
I dont know about Win11, but in Win10, it is still there. You can see it in MDI apps and, in a few rare circumstances, I have seen the window manager seemingly crash and flash the old Win2000-style boxy design before going back to what it currently does.
Microsoft is really good at supporting the old libraries and GUIs etc (is the Windows 3.11 font picker still there?) - the problem is that modern programs aren't built to the W2K paradigm so even if you force W11 to "look" like windows 2000 all the apps will not suddenly grow title bars, etc.
Alleycat in CGA just hit me hard.
For the people that didn’t live through this time, lining these images up makes it obvious why those that did speak of how visually impressive the Amiga was.
Nothing beats a 40 year nostalgia in the morning!
Except missing that sock and falling down into the dog's path and understanding the concept of fighting like cats and dogs.
I just found out that the theme song is on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alley_Cat_(video_game)
>you'll dance to anything by toad the wet sprocket. loser.
love a good screenshot easter egg
This leaves me kind of sad, that we've had such little innovation in desktop / window-managers for 30 years.
Certainly it doesn't feel any easier to manage multiple windows than when we had a quarter of the screen space.
I am starting to think the top half of the screen should be the desktop, the bottom half should be the start menu but already activated and full of programs. No conventional bottom panel-bar with a start button. A right-most column should exist that fills up with a list of opened windows. [1]
When I first saw Win95 with a cleared desktop, I immediately thought - where has everything gone? Why is this empty? Decades later I still think it's cumbersome to have to look and press at bottom left to see all the programs every time.
[1] proportions and locations can be set
Also, a "sweep" button that quickly clears the desktop into a "desktop archive." I do that manually anyway with my own "sweep" folders. Every few months I delete and categorize within the sweep folder. Keeping the desktop clean and organized is the new frontier, especially as screens become smaller and people don't want to lose flow.
Verbose response, but what are your thoughts? Maybe use voice recognition that uses lip-reading through a camera to launch or modify?
Mice and keyboards are just so passe, right, but I wouldn't go so far as getting a brain chip? Maybe a spherical "touchball" that senses the pressure of each finger to move a cursor? Trackballs are too laborsome. I have my mouse on maximum sensitivity and acceleration anyway.
Screen real estate is precious unless on the very largest screens. Especially vertical. I'm a big fan of being able to put the app list/bar on the right, keeping the maximum vertical space available and allowing its captions to be readable horizontally.
> Maybe use voice recognition that uses lip-reading through a camera to launch or modify?
This feels like the result of a competition to design the worst possible user interface. To about 5% of people it might be an accessibility feature, to everyone else it's worse, and people with beards, marks, or dark skinned faces are going to find it a disaster.
3 replies →
I just turn off desktop icons. Bam! Problem of messy desktop goes away.
2 replies →
You would really dedicate half the screen to something we use like 5% of the time?
1 reply →
Previously:
Historical workstation desktop interface screenshots - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968745 - Dec 2017 (58 comments)
I miss the old days. Thirty years ago, 64MB of RAM was considered a thing (http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/winnt-4.0-ppc-new.in...)
With the way RAM prices are going we aren't far from that.
Wait till you see the UI the Amiga could run in 1 measly MiB of RAM. You could even run a sophisticated shell, multitasked along with everything else.
Seeing these brought back a flood of memories. Logging onto AOL through GeoWorks for the first time. Clicking that tiny lit apartment window in the Macintosh mouse tutorial and watching the curtain peel back to reveal a couple dancing inside. Mesmerized by the soft shade on OS/2 buttons like they were works of art (yes, I know that’s weird). Bringing my NeXTstation into the office when I was just a lowly game tester and getting that look from my boss.
Those really were magical days.
NextStep interface still looks sleek and timeless. No doubt a decaying Apple went to acquire them. Having seen some NextStep demos online, it was way ahead of its time. Few weeks ago just started to use WindowMaker again on one of my VMs.
Absolutely!
I wish projects like nextspace could get more love.
That page does not include VMS DECwindows Motif, so here is a link:
https://www.xanthos.se/~joachim/OpenVMS.html
VMS DECwindows Motif 1.0 was released in August 1991; it is difficult for me to comprehend that was 35(!) years ago. I still have a mouse pad from the release party.
There is the very similar Ultrix version:
http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/decwindows-ultrix4.5...
im just scrolling through these while I prepare for a VC pitch session and I realize these UI are actually pretty darn good ?
Like the old Windows 98 UI (probably biased) to me just handles so much, why can't apps just look like that? Its boring sure but there's no complexity or inferred action there like modern apps ?
Why do seniors struggle to use modern mobile phones but in those days they could easily work through those UIs?
Just some ranting here but it's shockingly better than what I have currently on Mac
Where did the author get a copy of pre-X-integration NeWS, I wonder (if indeed they did). I haven’t been able to locate one online after a lot of determined searching, but I also can’t bring myself to declare that there isn’t one because the name is so ungoogleable.
He also got Parallax p/NeWS in his collection, which is super rare. I also wrote a person who has a SunDew QIC cassette, and another that has various NeWS sources (including the portable REF tree of the 1.1 version). Unfortunately they haven't released them yet, because of the unknown copyright situation. Another person has the OpenWindows 1.0 binary tapes for Sun-3 and Sun-4, among other stuff.
https://github.com/larsbrinkhoff/bagley-nottingham-tapes
For now we have the sources of NeWS 1.1 (and operators.h if you look more in depth) and X/NeWS 2.0. I also have the RBuss sources (an incomplete clone), but I have to ask the author if they can be put on the internet.
P.S: check BitSavers and Don Hopkins archives...
Thank you for the pointers!
> Unfortunately they haven't released them yet, because of the unknown copyright situation.
I’m guessing that’s a euphemism for “almost all software archival work[1] is, technically, illegal enough to ruin the life of everyone who touches it”. This includes stuff like the Space Cadet Pinball for Linux that was on the front page recently and had approving comments from the original programmers. (I believe pre-commercialization Unix is one of the rare exceptions, assuming you ignore the copyrights of everyone who sent their patches to Bell Labs unofficially, as both the authors of those patches and the Bell Labs folks did.)
And it’s fair and probably correct to be afraid here. I just want to point out that this is one of the places where “legal” and “ethical” unequivocally point in opposing directions, and waiting for the legal situation to become more favourable is pretty much equivalent to never doing it. Software has the misfortune of having happened after the advent of pervasive copyright, so there are no out-of-copyright old masters that we could legally base our art on.
Any chance of getting them to donate the code anonymously to one of the willing sacrifices^W^W well-known community figures like Jason Scott?
Have you checked the Don Hopkins archive yet?
https://www.donhopkins.com/home/pub/
OK, does anyone actually remember if half of the systems of the 80s really had such perfect font rendering or is this just some emulation 'current version'?
The first computers I used were 486 with DOS and early Pentiums with Windows 3.11 and nothing looked nearly as nice. Some of those old screenshots look A LOT better than stuff 10 years later that I used (incl MacOS 8 or 9).
Older OSs had pixel fonts, which were carefully hand-crafted --- vector fonts were something which folks dreamed about having, or which were accessed when using incredibly expensive printers.
Font rendering on Windows 3.11 was pretty decent, so long as one used the nicer TrueType fonts --- Times New Roman and Arial had man _years_ of hinting effort by Monotype which kicked in at typically screen sizes --- that said, certain apps would still use the older pixel fonts Tms Rmn and Helv (over which Linotype sued for trademark infringement which is part of why Monotype got the contract) as well as the "vector fonts" Roman and Modern which are (one can still access them in Windows 11) stick/plotter fonts like to the Hershey fonts. When I bought my copy of Windows 3.0, I drove almost 100 miles into Richmond to get a copy of Adobe Type Manager 1.0 for Windows.
RISC OS (1987) had built-in support for anti-aliased vector fonts, though they aren't shown in the screenshot. The OS was in ROM and had insufficient space for the actual fonts so they needed to be loaded from disk. This was fine if you had a hard disk but a pita with floppies.
1 reply →
The monitors of the time were a lot blurrier than the screen you're looking at the screenshots on. For maximum verisimilitude you'd have to have photographs of screens.
I got an 800x600 LCD monitor in about 1999, and it was a massive upgrade.
It's a tradeoff. A 800x600 CRT will look "blurry" compared to a LCD when rendering old-style GUIs or text in a properly hinted font, but the 800x600 LCD will look blocky and pixelated when rendering a real-world photorealistic image compared to the CRT. The real look of that CRT is more like taking that old 800x600 photo and upscaling it to 1440x1080 on a modern FullHD display. Blurry to be sure, but not blocky or pixelated. Early LCDs also had terrible image persistence/ghosting issues that showed up when playing games.
I think the factor here is that the screens were CRTs.
Font rendering was better. Today the fonts are scaled up or down or both and the rendering is hit or miss.
It's funny how early some things do and don't look familiar. A decent chunk of unix-family OSs have changed some since then, but also kinda not. CDE 1.0 looks almost exactly like the latest version:)
So happy to have been along for that ride.
This collection is a great complement to the everything-x86 PC workstation jungle of the day.
I built a huge tower PC server to run NeXTStep in 1993, but I had no idea how difficult hardware comparability would be. It was a journey. But things improved quickly. So I installed lots of these: OS/2, Windows NT, NextStep, BeOS, Linux, various BSDs.
I found a Computer Shopper from that time. I'm pretty sure I bought one of the tower cases from page 786. Great stuff. Tell them I sent you!
https://archive.org/details/computer-shopper-march-1993/
It's not listed here and maybe I'm just nostalgic for the computer labs from elementary/middle school but Windows 2000 was so peak
I think the NT4/2000 desktop was pretty perfect. It laid down everything without getting in your way. A lot of early systems were forced to follow simplicity because of lack of resources. This coincidentally led to better interfaces because complexity is difficult to get right and often is in service of business interests instead of technical interests.
I think its obvious that there's a degradation in business products as they age. They become more 'competitive' which means more profit-seeking, so the marketing end of things takes over and the engineering end takes a back seat. Simplicity is replaced with shiny and complexity to catch more edge case sales. Weird cargo cults emerge, product manager cults of personality, etc instead of following proper usability guidelines. Industry fads become self-fulfilling prophecies. Lockdowns and walled gardens emerge because they are more profitable than open systems.
Today, I almost can't believe how hostile and bloaty Windows 11 is and MacOS isn't much better. At least we have FOSS, but the commercial end of things is 'late stage' and frankly awful.
There's a real tragedy how capitalism always leads here. I sometimes wonder if the USSR stuck around what a more technocratic-led system would produce compared to the West.
I live for Old UNIX screenshots, you just made my day, my week, my month ... ok my year! Thanks!
I also love to collect old xpm icons from that era, and try and assemble arcane FVWM configs that weave them in.
Oh, NsCDE is a great start if anyone wants to emulate some of the Solaris screenshots in the collection.
http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/decwindows-ultrix4.5... <-- XV! I used that back in the day. Does anyone remember gv too? GhostView? Another great Motif application for pdf documents.
Reviewing the screenshots here, I realize profoundly that something about the idealism of the 1990s is baked into them; the 1990s a time before the bad vibes of commercialism mostly destroyed the interwebs.
great list, would be cool to see each OS evolving over time.
NextStep/OSX was the only desktop OS that did not feel like a downgrade from Amiga Workbench
I distinctly remember, and found, the NeWS (Network extensible windowing sisten), where you could develop with PostScript(TM) for application windows.
Over time much NeWS related stuff resurfaced, wheter are application binaries, sources (both application and the server itself) or documentation, so anyone could play with them on a real machine (Sun-3 or SPARC) or inside QEMU SPARC. I'm waiting for a copy of "Portable NeWS 1.0" to be recovered, to see how much different the sources are compared to the 1.1 version.
I also hope to see resurface binaries/sources of other server implementations, Sun Symbolic Programming Environment (which includes code originally developed at Schlumberger, including LispScript), the sources of the PdB compiler, CMU Andrew wm (although is not directly related, is the ancestor of this window system, from the same authors), and whatever is related to this system.
It would be interesting a revival like Interlisp.
Them beOS icons were lovely at the time
Check out Haiku.
God beOS is the absolute peak of pixel-based UI design. It's like what Metal Slug was for pixel art games. Someone needs to add a CRT filter button to the site.
I'm struck how it used to be _almost_ universal that the active window title bar stands out visually from the other ones.
I kinda miss that in the early 2000's kde and gnome shipped with a fuck ton of window decorations based on all those (then-not-so) old OS. Teenager me had fun switching them every day and playing with windowing behavior (focus follows mouse! hover to select and only one click needed!). I wonder what techy kids today do to explore and have fun.
Speaking of the early 2000's, man, Aqua was such a good design. I appreciate the nextstep paradigm and design, but Aqua was just so futuristic, in a good way.
In some ways X11 with it's focus follows mouse, don't raise on focus, select:middle click paste features provide a far more refined desktop experience then mac or windows ever could. No wait, stop laughing, sure X11 was a garbage fire when it came to consistent professional design, but because it was such a wild west of an environment there was place for real ui innovation. I know, I get grumpy fast without middle click paste. And I hate having to raise a window in order to click and type on it(A common access pattern for me is to read docs on the top window while I am operating the bottom window).
Cut-buffer (the middle click) I just can't live without. People that never experienced that still get awestruck with the ease and effortlessness.
And virtual desktops/workspaces also had that awe-effect back then. Although with multimonitor setups this faded a bit.
Yes Aqua was quite striking. Also much more consistent than the rag bag of different styling you see on Windows or Mac today.
Even before those, AfterStep, Enlightenment and many others were really nice.
No Plan 9. Otherwise, resources like this might help studying how the interfaces of the past evolved (at least, on the surface).
The plan 9 interface has evolved quite a bit, but it's largely invisible in screenshots. The differences are in things like triple click behavior, jumps to insertion points, effective use of mouse cursor warping, chording.
Screenshots -- or GIFs -- of Plan 9 compared with Inferno would be most instructive.
The Plan 9 folks I've talked to are a bit shocked by this, but I preferred Inferno's GUI to plain old Rio/Acme etc.
Can't help noticing how the interface and general mechanics of these old OSes were tightly coupled to the hardware. Both the makers and users of that era seemed to relish that vibe. I know I certainly do.
However, that paradigm made computers daunting for anyone who wasn't an enthusiast. While I’m nostalgic for that level of transparency, I recognize that those hurdles stood in the way of mass adoption.
We might lament how 'dull' or 'abstracted' modern software feels, but technology's primary purpose is utility, not just to be venerated as an artifact.
THAT SAID, I still believe that user-friendliness isn't an excuse to strip away agency.
Modern simplification shouldn't feel like a forced lobotomy of the OS (or any piece of software really). There’s no reason we can't have both: an interface that stays out of the way for the average user, while providing total control for power users.
Whatever happened to progressive disclosure?
It's nice to see some of these things and finally make out any contents! I've felt hurt by Wikipedia's somewhat odd and sad screenshot policy, which makes it impossible to see any details of the things I've been looking at recently, like early Windows NT.
They do that on purpose with proprietary apps to avoid copyright complaints.
Nostalgic for VAXstation/DECwindows terminals where at the time the monitor weighed more than I did.
I remember using some kind of software around the time of windows xp i think, that could replace the chrome/shell so you could design your own GUI entirely – but I can't remember what it was called! I spent a lot of time iterating and experimenting back then, replacing iexplore.exe or whatever the main process was called.
Are you thinking of WindowBlinds / Stardock?
https://www.stardock.com/products/windowblinds/
I seem to remember it was available at the same time as the Winamp skins / viz craze.
Resource Hacker?
Try this out for all of KDE to CDE window theming needs:
https://github.com/spacestate1/cde-plasma
Here's a good starting point for those of us that use XFCE:
https://www.xfce-look.org/p/1231025/
Let's talk about the HP-9000 as depicted in http://www.typewritten.org/Media/Images/hpwindows-starbase-u...
There is a `man` entry displayed in a terminal window there. The first Unix I've ever touched was HP-UX on an HP-9000 (server series, not the workstation one), and I have this memory that the underlined words you can see in that manpage as well were actually hyperlinks you can select and would bring you to the relevant section of the manpage that discussed that term. Am I fabricating that memory or is it real? I cannot find any info about it on the Internet.
I started with HP-UX 9.03 on a PA-RISC-powered 715-75 (to use Emacs, our whole research group logged into the 735 server to edit there, which was faster than running it locally).
Any unclean pointer fiddling in C, and the process was terminated by the OS, so the machine was wonderful to use as a development box (especially with Purify installed) for software that would later be run on Windows or Linux.
I eventually bought my own refurbished (and using academic discount) 715 (instead of a car), so I had the fastest machine in our student dorm of anyone I knew, undergrad, grad student or professor. I could just write my Master's thesis when everyone else kept re-installing Windows - the HP never crashed in 6.5 years, which has left me with deep respect for the old-schol (pre-Compaq) HP engineers. The machine (21" color CRT) occupied half of my 9 square metre dorm room, but it also kept me warm.
I thought only `info` had hyperlinks
In the GNU world, indeed. And that's why it makes even harder for me to remember exactly, it was 30 years ago, I was clueless and also Linux was already "big enough" to have some Red Hat installed in some x86 PC in the same lab.
My 'first Unix' was MIPS Risc/OS, and it had that feature too.
Thank you so much for this link :-)
I'm studying old operating systems, because it's very interesting how we've been so productive with less screen pixels than we have today. It's basically mind blowing that 800x600 pixels have been a long time enough to get work done.
Currently I'm typing this on an iPhone 17 with a larger screen and after all the years there is nothing like a good charting, dashboarding or spreadsheet on it.
The aspect ratios were much "taller" back then, which was kind of better for editing code. All these late 90s designs were near NTSC at the time - aspect ratios like 1.25:1 (1280x1024) or 1024x768 (1.33:1). Monitors have always followed TVs, since displays now are the "HD" ratio of 16:9 (1.77:1), or 16:10 if we're lucky. But we do get way more pixels now anyway.
Use portrait displays! You'll never complain about the height again. Use 1440p (or scaled equivalent) and the width won't be an issue either. Many displays make this easy (all the Dells I've had can rotate), and adequate rotating stands aren't necessarily expensive.
There's even maybe some Actual Scientific Evidence to justify the switch: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47638928
It is strange to me that tiling windows have never become a norm. I really don't understand how people live with all these windows piled on top of each other!
System76's COSMIC DE has been a real life-changer for me in making tiling accessible.
+1. The idea of making tiling + floating a first class citizen was the best decision they made.
Sun Solaris PPC (CDE) takes me back. I've built plenty of 3G/WCDMA telephony code on that thing. It never let me down.
I love old desktop OSes so much I've created a Windows 3.1 theme for mine: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47909295
No https version of this site, I configured my browser to warn or block non https websites, since from my experience few of those tried to force download (what i can only assume to be viruses) to my computer
I understand that https can do that to, but its usually the none https that does, so its a decent configuration to have
Please consider making the site https
Lifestreams was also an interesting take on a desktop UI back in the day
[flagged]
Compare https://deskto.ps/
I was still in school when OS/2 came out. I read about it in the magazines never touching it myself. I was impressed with its aesthetics but never knew with the clout of IBM why it never took off. My guess is internal politics killed OS/2 more than Microsoft?
Internal politics, yeah, maybe; because IBM certainly didn’t do much to market it. That, and bundling deals Microsoft had with OEM hardware vendors (if you want the discount, then Windows has to go on every machine). OS/2 advertised a “better Windows than Windows”. Problem was, software vendors then said, “great, now we don’t have to do an OS/2 port!”
Yes. But with IBM’s war chest at the time, it could have undercut anything Microsoft offered.
For anyone pining for innovation in Desktop, a small part of this culture is still alive in Ricing competitions.
A recent favorite of mine is this one. Timestamp starts at the final submission being reviewed: https://youtu.be/DxEKF0cuEzc?si=mqE_2vpKDBsMWlKW&t=557
While I recognize many of these, I had no idea about the IBM Academic Operating System (a version of UNIX for their RT RISC workstations distinct from the normal IBM version AIX). There are just snippets of info about this OS on Wikipedia and other sites -- I wonder why IBM created it when they already had AIX.
What wonderful memories, have a vivid one of working on a computer at Kinkos using the old System 7 (Mac OS 8) UI. Thanks :)
I'm sure someone reading this thread has UAE handy in order to contribute a screenshot of AmigaOS/Workbench 1.x.
Regarding Amiga screenshots, they've taken care to get the DigiPaint aspect ratios right, but the Workbench 2.04 screenshot is in a resolution that comes from an add-in graphics card rather than the Amiga's custom chips. It's a resolution Workbench wasn't graphically designed for, so it looked wrong in such a resolution at the time. If you double the screenshot's height, then everything (text, icons, window gadgets etc) looks right.
It would be more representative of the OS, and the era, to have a height-doubled "HiRes" screenshot, 640x200 or 640x256.
The aspect ratio is correct on all screenshots and are accurate de-interlaced representations of a 640x400/512 workbench setup, even though these particular screenshots are in RTG dimensions. Starting with ECS, the Amiga was also capable of true non-interlaced 640x400 output (and even 480 vertical lines unless I misremember) in what was commonly called "productivity mode", limited to 4 colors (2 bitplanes).
Interlaced workbench setups weren't uncommon. I ran such on and off for years for certain productivity stuff where I wanted more screen real estate, until I decided to spend money on a flicker-fixer.
1 reply →
Even the site with its NeXTStep style (love it).
Year of release for each would be extra awesome.
I miss on the list Counterpoint GUI for Amstrad PCs with MS-DOS
https://www.seasip.info/AmstradXT/Counterpoint/index.html
I miss my GEM desktop and products. They were so ahead of their time. And Ventura publisher! I made some school projects using that. Brings back some good memories.
Surprised Enlightenment didn't make the cut while fvwm is there
https://networkencyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/n...
I was not ready to start my day with a OS/2 Warp nostalgia feeling
> DECWindows
> /tmp/med_16.sixel
... Is that Sinfest? From before the author went weird? If so, then that's certainly a very different way of feeling old than I expected when clicking the link.
P.S.: There's another in "RiscOS 3.71", and "System V Release 4 Amiga Version 1.1" references Penny Arcade. [0]
[0] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2005/01/05/the-merch#
So much gray, even when the hardware could do color. Perhaps for compatibility with other hardware or get out of the way?
The BeOS aesthetic has aged so well. I'll always wonder what might've been had they not been deliberately smothered in the crib (or at the very least if Apple had chosen to acquire them).
Well, that was an unexpectedly emotional trip through most of my nerd life to date lol
I hated magenta-blue CGA graphics soooo sooo much as a kid. It was (and still is IMHO) the ugliest thing I ever saw on a computer, by far.
I had a monitor that had a switch in the back that would change those colors to red-yellow-green. It was still awful but at least it was less awful than white-magenta-blue
VUE was so excellent looking it makes me want to run CDE today.
Nice walk through history. So many people trying to be the next big thing.
The HPC Integral PC has a fascinatingly compact design... by necessity.
What a wonderful resource! HP VUE has interesting color choices and a nice "Dock"
There's a lot of nostalgia in the comments here. I wonder if any reader under say 25 is willing to comment; do you think OS's today are a regression? do those look better?
To me they look unwieldy, heavy and overwhelming and I can't help but think the love for them is just the love for youth or whatever
There is definitely an element of nostalgia. However, a lot of earlier desktop OS GUIs do seem to be more internally consistent and with more emphasis on usability than the current crop. I think part of the issue is that things that might make sense on a phone have bled into desktop OSes, where they make a lot less sense.
I don't mean this in a dismissive way but based on your profile I'd say you're > 25. I'm curious about the perspective of someone who didn't grow up with the those os's
7 replies →
Basing one's opinion on how a static screenshot looks, is the reason we've moved towards pretty looks and away from usability concerns.
As other commentors have said, the overriding concern with these older OSs was to make them as easy as possible to use. It would never have crossed these developers' minds to, for example, hide the scrollbar because they think it looks ugly.
Looking at a screenshot doesn't really tell you anything if you're not familiar with it, but it's a nice reminder of using that software for those who are.
In most of the comments here, I'm not seeing "nostalgia" or "the love for youth". I'm seeing frustration with how the carefully researched and developed principles have been forgotten.
For some of these, you have to use them on the actual hardware to understand why so many of us are bummed about what we have lost. The latency of modern systems is kind of bonkers. Even though the machines were incredibly slow they feel faster than modern machines. Some musicians used Atari STs for years after they were discontinued because of the stable timing.
For others, the hardware wasn't important, but some of the functionality isn't apparent in a static screenshot. For example, I loved OS/2 and the Workplace Shell. It had functionality similar to Windows COM or CORBA in that everything on the system exposed an interface that could be easily scripted or used by other applications. The built-in scripting language was Rexx which I feel could have played the role Python does now if only OS/2 had taken off. Using OS/2 from 1.3 onwards felt like you were using a computer from the future.
I'm under 30 at least and I do feel nostalgia for these albeit not having used most of them. First OS I ever used must have been Windows 95. I wish we could all go back to Windows 7, that was the best OS ever imo.
Hi! I'm slightly under that so I feel like I'm qualified :)
I wholeheartedly agree, they're quite a regression.... although I don't think this is a popular opinion around here.
When people say "something used to be better" they usually don't mean literally, they mean that for the circumstances, it was better. Of course, more modern systems support more hardware, more features, etc., but if you made those same modern technical improvements on top of an older designs, you'd get much better results.
To me it looks like software design has been massively overtaken by "form over function", everyone just wants a unique "brand" but the actual UX is complete dogshit. Borderless buttons, zero indication what's clickable, no visual delimiters for different areas of programs, no good shortcut / altkey menu support, etc....
This has somehow infected even Linux to such a crazy extent...
I'm 23 and IMO, the Windows desktop style peaked somewhere in Windows 95-2000. The first Windows I ever used was XP, so I'm mostly making that decision based off screenshots and emulators.
UIs back then were dense, didn't waste large amounts of space in a misguided attempt to be "minimalist", and had affordances for ease of use. There was no scrollbar hiding, no animations that made the user wait for no reason other than the designer's ego, very visible borders on windows and buttons that made finding/resizing them easier, large bars at the top of windows that let you move them around, and actual text for most buttons instead of icons that are anyone's guess what they mean. Thankfully some of this can be dialed back in the Windows 11 accessibility settings, at least for missing scrollbars and getting rid of time wasting animations, but a lot of programs don't respect those.
That's right there is a good indicator for which programs care about their users. I'm using your program because I want to actually do something, not waste time watching your designers show off.
I've disabled animations on my Android phone too, and it gives an extremely noticable speedup. Menus appear right when I click them, instead of a second later as they slide into existence. Too bad iPhones just replace the slide with a fade of equal duration; disrespect for the user's time like that is yet another reason I will never buy one.
Those older GUIs didn't try to hide the filesystem hierarchy either. It infuriates me to no end when I use a new OS and have to hunt down the way to show the disk root, or filename extensions, or hidden files. MacOS was especially bad; I had to look up a freaking keyboard shortcut that I never would have found on my own. The common reason is so "normal people" can use the interfaces, but I think that's infantilizing and is why tons of Gen Z don't know what files or folders are. Most people can learn .docx means a Word document, and C:\Users\TheirName is where their files are.
(Notable shoutout, the GNOME open/save dialogs are the absolute worst. I wish distros wouldn't default to it. People will just go right back to Windows 11 because it's somehow better.)
There's some improvements possible, for sure. I'd like to see some programs put hint letters over buttons when you press a modifier like Ctrl so you can easily see what the shortcuts are. I don't know of any that do, but it'd be very useful for more complex software like drawing programs or word processors.
edit: typo
> Notable shoutout, the GNOME open/save dialogs are the absolute worst. I wish distros wouldn't default to it.
I'll never understand who in their right mind would think that in a save dialog, if I start typing, I mean to search for something instead of trying to change the name of the file. It's really baffling.
Anyone here remember dos? The og CLI bases OS
It is depressing how little has changed.
I love how little df has changed since 1985.
Deeply nostalgic! Thanks for sharing.
Risc OS is the GOAT
Impressive collection
where's desqview? I ran my first BBS on that back in the 90s before switching over to OS/2 Warp.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DESQview
That Wikipedia article needs a better screenshot. Otherwise, very interesting. And DESQview/X was X Window System on DOS with pre-emptive multitasking, wow.
GEM Desktop 1.2 looks sooooooo like the ancient Apple operating systems. I first saw this on a friends' parents computer and was quite astonished why computers may look like that. I was very used to Windows/DOS back then.
I am also glad to have switched to Linux in 2004 already. Once you have been using Linux for a while, whenever I use windows I am annoyed at how slow it is. Just file copy operations alone and then billion excuses windows developers make, trying to copsplain why it is so slow. When I have to backup 30GB, I don't want an explanation why it is slow - I simply use what is faster. And that's just one advantage of many more Linux has. (I use the commandline most of the time though, so KDE and GNOME are IMO just pointless eyecandy these days.)
That beos yellow..
That brings back memories from pre press days and the SGI Indigo machines. They did some heavy lifting for the time.
Sometime I wish time goes slower
in 30 years someone will do this with LLMs
Is that an illustration of the Canadian museum of history made in Corel Draw I spy?
Amazing resource!
The Cambrian period of operating systems and GUIs.
"We have learned nothing in 10,000 years."
I don’t see any pie menus, so I’m leaning towards agreement...
Patents are very good at stifling progress and learning, even bogus ones.
Probably more accurately 40-45 years.
xfm from the first Slackware print, I really liked that file manager. But these days it fails to work. I tied many years ago to get it work but failed :(
"403 Forbidden"
[dead]
[dead]
All of them look much, much better than Windows 10, Windows 11, Android or iOS although all run on less powerfull hardware.
But using only one level of library to draw on the screen "is so lame'. /s