Hacker News Reader

Comment by dusted | Hacker News Reader

Windows 2000 control panel was perfect. I'd take pretty much any of the interfaces over the abominiation that is windows 10 control panel.

It's form over function so hard it hurts, in a place where function is all I want. I'm not on a "journey" or having an "experience" or whatever they're aiming for. I just want to change a setting, so show me ALL the settings programs, RIGHT NOW. It's laughable how much you need to click on random stuff to see where stuff may be hiding.. Search is great, if you can remember what it's called, but often, I can't and I need to look through the options to be reminded.

View on HN

I agree about Windows 2000, it was the pinnacle of Windows UI.

The font, buttons and how everything is spaced is just perfect. I wish we could have a minimalistic Windows, that have this UI.

Just x3, x4 integer scaling so it can display on modern screens.

No crapware included by default. And then you download software you need form the net, like browsers, mailclient, torrent client, games, or what ever you need.

No idea about the display scaling and included software, but SerenityOS has the same aesthetics IMO, could be worth checking out.

https://www.serenityos.org/

> The font, buttons and how everything is spaced is just perfect. I wish we could have a minimalistic Windows, that have this UI.

Does ReactOS tick the requirements? It is FOSS.

Surely, Windows 95 was the pinnacle. ;)

Windows 2000 was something of a local maximum of UI. I contend you simply can't do much better without completely changing the paradigm. While the underpinnings of Windows have improved since then, the UI only continues to go backwards and it's a real shame.

IMHO Windows XP classic view was the best from what Windows offered. To be fair, every design between Windows 95 and XP classic view was good. Icon view was Windows oldschool design that just worked. They could add categories, kind of like OSX did at some point and just leave at that.

Windows 10 control panel is just a viewer you can't even do control stuff in it. It's not even doing a good job as a viewer of what you have on your computer. I don't know what Microsoft was thinking when they were building it.

Why does the control panel need an address bar and back buttons?

I think the 98 side panel added to 95 would be the best usability. Not every user knows it is safe to open the programs in the control panel (maybe it’ll change something if I run it!) so the select icon to view description was a really good idea imho.

> Not every user knows it is safe to open the programs in the control panel (maybe it’ll change something if I run it!)

That's why old Windows versions had Cancel buttons in every configuration window.

Double clicking on an icon in windows does one of 3 things:

- opens a folder

- opens a document

- executes a program

I think it is reasonable for a user to assume those icons in the control panel are programs and worry whether they’ll open a dialogue with an “okay” and “cancel” option or just do something.

We have the same problem on the command line. We can reasonably assume that `config-program -—help` won’t execute anything, but we don’t know until we try. However, we are assured that `man config-program` won’t execute anything.

The sidebar brings intermediate users closer to assurance and helps novice users understand where they are.

At least that’s how I see it as a good UX addition to windows. I wouldn’t be surprised if most scared users wouldn’t even look at the sidebar.

Programs meant to be ran by doube-clicking (rather than invoked as a command) generally are not meant to do anything until the user commands them to by clicking something else in their window. An application launching is meant to be kind of a "pure function", a side-effect-free operation (of popping up the app Window) from the user point of view.

If you design an app which writes anything into a document file as soon as you open the document in them you are doing it really wrong.

This given, the confusion you describe comes straight from lack of awareness of the UI metaphor logic in the software engineers. A well-designed GUI app (a non-GUI app should not be executed by double-clicking at all) would do virtually nothing to leave any traces (let alone break anything) right after you run them, by just launching them or "launching" any specific document to be opened in them.

But I get your point. From the practical point of view - given the reality, what we actually have, you are perfectly right.

One of my most-used muscle memories is Win+R -> "control". Works even as far as Windows 11 and is still the most effective way to make changes happen on a Windows PC.

10 is half-assed attempt at porting control panel to tablet/touch UI. I hated it. At the same time I have to say that 11 ported enough of it to new UI that I barely need Win32 control panel anymore.

Surprising then that Windows has no settings for touchscreens (it has for touchpads).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com