Hacker News Reader

Comment by masklinn | Hacker News Reader

> Everything old is new again? I remember when people were deriding Windows XP for being "Fisher-Price" in appearance and preferring to run Windows 2000 because it was more stable

That’s more of a truth universally acknowledged. XP was goofy then, it’s goofy now, and it was goofy at every instant between.

View on HN

Yes but in hindsight endearingly so. And the UX itself was still really good. The start menu in particular was an actual improvement over the old one, as were the clickable login screen icons.

The usability was very good. The appearance was goofy and Fisher-Price-like. The two things are mostly orthogonal.

I wouldn't say orthogonal. Making something inviting, approachable and feel like a safe place to experiment/explore for a novice is a critical and overlooked part of usability. The childlike choices of "bright primary colours" and "no sharp edges" is one way to attempt that.

It's what the general public needs that us nerds can least relate to.

It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that. It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes.

The best-looking Windows UI, IMO, was Vista.

> It might have been good for brand-new users and children, but not all computer users are like that.

Well, are you sure which of those groups you belong to? At least as far as Windows is concerned? Because:

> It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes.

It did. One click in the right place in the Control Panel and it looked like W95/NT4/W2K. (So did Windows 7, and therefore I must assume Vista, too. [Skipped that one myself.])

But, hey, brand-new users and children couldn't be expected to find that, right?

I was a Linux user back then (and still am). I didn't spend enough time with XP to bother learning intricacies like that.

Plus, W2K was ugly too, just in a different way.

> I was a Linux user back then (and still am). I didn't spend enough time with XP to bother learning intricacies like that.

Then why spend time commenting -- ERRONEOUSLY -- on them now?

> Plus, W2K was ugly too, just in a different way.

Über den Geschmack streiten sich selbst die Götter vergebens.

Anyway, point stands:

> > It would have been much better if they had had selectable themes.

> It did.

You could switch the theme (at least in SP2) to look basically like 2000, which is what I always did. You could actually do that in 7 too.

It may have looked goofy, but it was usable. I'll take ugly/goofy and usable over pretty and hard-to-use every single time.

You shouldn't need to make that trade off though. There is no rule that says a usable interface has to be ugly.

You didn't need to. Select the W95/NT4/W2K theme in the "Appearance" Control Panel, and done.

> XP was goofy then, it’s goofy now, and it was goofy at every instant between.

Only if you didn't/don't know how to use it. Like, for instance, where to click to make it look like W95/NT4/W2K.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com