[2-718-281-828]

Mac OS UI is a great example for why one shouldn't "improve" software just for the sake for changing something. UI design peaked at Windows XP style. the design portraied here falls for my opinion in that category. As a user of xfce (on Linux Mint) which is basically Windows XP with different icons I am super happy. Apple actually came up with only a single valuable UI element and that is the three finger swipe to switch workspaces or display running applications. The rest is crap and I am flabbergasted at how Mac fanboys are willing to jump through hoops to justify and praise whatever Apple dumps on them.

Working in IT they gave me an MBP (the edition w/o an Esc key) and now my second IPhone (13PM). I say with confidence that the only reason why Mac / IPhone is more popular than a TP (be it with Windows or Linux) / Android is simply b/c it is more expensive and a status symbol. That's it. A status symbol. Congratulations to Apple for conning even IT experts who are at the end of the day also just human beings with psychological weaknesses to be capitalized on.

[edgyquant]

I have never seen anyone argue Mac OS was anything but beautiful but I guess there’s a first for everything. These threads pop up constantly and I always jump in to ask people claiming they find the blocky beige of late 90s OSS more aesthetically pleasing to explain how it is they believe this to be true.

There are lots of complaints about modern OSs one can make but none of the major three are anything close to ugly and are all easy on the eyes. So I ask you to explain why you believe UI design peaked in the 90s, when just using these OSs was unintuitive to anyone but a tech enthusiast, other than you are looking through rose colored glasses.

I started on Win95 and remember how I couldn’t wait to switch to XP and where there were actual colors and it didn’t feel so empty. I then wanted to switch to vista so bad that when my PC wouldn’t handle it I download SUSE Community Edition (a Linux) because Vista copied a lot of its fancy new UI (like previews and 3D icons) from Gnome (at least it seemed that way to me, may not be true or it could be they just happened to be tested on Gnome first.)

I get rose colored glasses for sure but romanticizing about a UI that only looked as plain as it did due to technical limitations just seems weird to me.

Then again I suppose their were people who thought black and white cartoons were objectively prettier than technicolor. People have a way of convincing themselves what they initially got used to is the best way and any change is a regression.

[jeroenhd]

> I have never seen anyone argue Mac OS was anything but beautiful but I guess there’s a first for everything.

Well, allow me to be number two, then. In my opinion, macOS is bland, unclear and the general UX is peculiar to say the least. I dislike the concept and the design of the system bar at the top and the blur effect they add to some UI elements (which Microsoft copied for their latest Metro design language) just looks excessive to me. The iPhone-i-fied controls that have been added to macOS are a step back, in my opinion, because now there's a giant system status popup that looks like you're supposed to touch it but Apple doesn't want to introduce touch screens to macOS.

The thing the macOS-ecosystem does well is integration, which is arguably much more important than just design. I rarely use any tool on Windows that follows Microsoft's guidelines, whatever those are this month, but on macOS the UI designers seem to be focused on integrating well with the looks of rest of the system. This has the unfortunate side effect of putting some of developers using the macOS design language on other platforms as well, fragmenting the system even further, but for macOS users this is a great benefit. Even an awfully ugly system (like the BeOS look which some people love, but also the Gnome 2 "3D" look) is still much more usable than most "modern" designs because you know what to expect from applications running on that system.

You can disagree with me, and that's alright. Any design is liked and disliked by different people. I personally enjoy the simplicity and elegance in designs like the SerenityOS UI, but I can definitely see why others hate it.

But, if you truly have never met heard anyone say that they didn't like macOS' design, then you're part of some very different social circles than I am.

[grishka]

Two things.

- The UIs of the 90s were made with mice and keyboards in mind. The designers' minds weren't yet compromised by the existence of touchscreens, both on phones and Windows laptops.

- IT companies were building tools to empower users and actually competed with each other fiercely. It was important to make sure your UI doesn't suck, because otherwise someone else will. This competition required the companies to put users' needs before their own.

And tangential to that: "developer experience" wasn't a thing. Writing software was an engineering job done by people knowing what they're doing. The bar was set pretty high. Compare that to now, when it's almost encouraged to be a junior developer and pile libraries into your project without ever looking under to hood to assess the compromises you're making. And the way the code looks and builds is considered more important by many than the end result that ships.

[KptMarchewa]

How is mac UI "compromised by the existence of touchscreens", when there's not a single MacOS device with a touchscreen?

>IT companies were building tools to empower users and actually competed with each other fiercely.

Glorifying 90s feature factories? That's a new one.

[spectre3d]

>there's not a single MacOS device with a touchscreen

The Touch Bar is a touchscreen. It’s on the current 13-inch M1 MacBook Pro and many previous-gen Macs.

Biggest problem is that I can’t use it without looking at it.

https://robservatory.com/the-fundamental-problem-with-the-to...

[grishka]

Have you seen how unnecessarily huge some controls are in the latest macOS redesign?

[KptMarchewa]

I'm using Monterey daily, so which ones? The top bar/toolbar is smaller than any windows bar, dock size is fully customizable, menus are normal size I'd say.

Rest of space is used by applications, not wasted by system. Coincindetally, none of them are really native. Firefox, jetbrains IDEs, Iterm (well, this one is, but might as well not be since it's just a terminal), Spotify, Slack.

[grishka]

No, don't compare modern OSes to each other, they're all infected with the same disease so this comparison is expected to be bogus. Compare the native controls of macOS Monterey to those of Mavericks (10.9), for example. Or Windows 7.

[jcelerier]

> when just using these OSs was unintuitive to anyone but a tech enthusiast

That's very far from my experience. I know a fair amount of people who had no trouble going from DOS -> win 3.1 -> 95, 98, XP, but starting from Vista using their computer became much harder and much more external assistance started to be required. I know no one who is learning how to use computers as easily with, say, Win 10 or the latest Macs, than people 15 years ago ; when I give classes most non-CS college students are more computer illiterate than people around me when I was in junior high.

[edgyquant]

I’m not sure how old you are, so I’m inferring, but isn’t the reason because most peoples computers are phones or tablets so what you’re calling them being computer illiterate is really them just being desktop os illiterate?

Also 15 years ago (that’s 2004) the UIs weren’t that different and were no longer the beige UIs of the 90s we’re discussing here. As for using super early windows being easier than modern day I disagree if they were only doing the exact same things I don’t see how it’s harder today. The thing is people use their PCs for a ton more stuff today than they did during say windows 3.1

[jeroenhd]

I think this is because modern computers abstract as much of the underlying system away as they can. Smartphones are hiding the concept of the file system under a layer of custom selectors and UI controls to the point of confusion about where files will end up.

Another factor is that (for some mind-boggling reason) it's still acceptable in some office jobs to "not be good at computers" despite working with them 40 hours a week. Whether it's laziness, learned helplessness or something else, people seem to accept that anything beyond the most basic functionality you need for your day job is left for the IT department or techy family members. There's no incentive to even try to learn, even if learning would increase your productivity and make your life much easier, because "computer stuff" is considered too difficult.

On the other hand, a lot more people are using computers today than they did 20 years ago. If you used a computer around the 2000s, you either had an interest in them or your boss had sent you a manual or a training course with instructions on how to use them for your work. Today, almost everyone owns at least one computer, regardless of their training and interest. People are just expected to know how computers work, despite no effort being spent on that in many educational facilities, while content consumption devices get ever more dumbed down.

[linguae]

The problem with modern UI design isn't necessarily about new designs being uglier than old designs. Windows 11, macOS Monterey, GNOME 3, and KDE 5 all look nice in my opinion, and I cringe when I see old screenshots of Motif and CDE.

The problems I have with modern UI/UX design are as follows:

1. It is often tailored to the needs of mobile interfaces instead of the needs of desktop computing environments, often resulting in certain UI interactions being more complex with modern applications than with older applications that were designed for desktop users. For example, hamburger menus make sense in environments such as smartphones where room is scarce. However, I believe they are inappropriate in desktop environments, yet they are becoming more commonplace on websites (even when browsing on a desktop) and in applications. Another example is a trend in newer versions of GNOME and macOS where the title bar is fused with the toolbar. While this does save space, it makes it harder for me to rearrange windows on the desktop since I must look for empty space in the combined tool/title bar to click to drag (and sometimes not all empty space in this area drags the window), while this was never a problem for me with traditional title bars.

2. We've lost certain affordances that were present in the 1990s versions of Mac OS and Windows that aid in usability. It's harder to visually distinguish between clickable and non-clickable portions of a window in many modern applications. Scroll bars provide useful feedback while reading content that doesn't fit within the window, yet it's a common trend in modern UIs to hide the scrollbars, and when they do show up, they are often very skinny, making it harder to scroll with them (yes, trackpad gestures and scroll wheels make this less of an issue, but not everybody has nice trackpads or mice).

3. The rise of applications that refuse to adhere to platform guidelines, preferring to be "special snowflakes" for branding reasons, engagement metrics, developers' convenience, or cost reasons (it's cheaper to make an Electron app than to make separate UIs that conform to each platform's respective guidelines). The notion that applications should follow a platform's UI guidelines is increasingly fading away, and is being replaced with the attitude of, "You should be grateful that you are able to use this application." The Web, with its lack of UI guidelines and its emphasis on siloed applications instead of interoperability among applications, is taking over the desktop, with unfortunate consequences for the future of desktop computing.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of taking the substance of UIs from the 1990s and having updated color themes, icons, and fonts for them. I personally believe the pre-Yosemite Aqua interface of macOS and the Windows Vista/7 interface were great examples of modernized UIs that were desktop-tailored and retained or even enhanced affordances that were present in previous versions of these interfaces. I feel we lost a lot when the industry shifted to mobile computing and decided that desktops should look and feel more like smartphones and tablets instead of continuing to improve on the desktop computing experience.

[KptMarchewa]

> Another example is a trend in newer versions of GNOME and macOS where the title bar is fused with the toolbar.

It's not a new mac feature. It's an original mac feature: https://i1.wp.com/lowendmac.com/wp-content/uploads/about.png

[Hakashiro]

I strongly disagree. Windows XP plasticky design was pretty unappealing.

Windows 2000 and Windows Vista on the other hand... Much better in my opinion. Also Mac OS Aqua design was great when it was skeuomorphic.

[skocznymroczny]

I disagree. Currently I have a company provided Macbook Pro (butterfly keyboard) and a Thinkpad. I very much prefer to work on the Macbook. Software issues aside - Macbook is less preloaded with company snake oil crapware, also gives easy access to Unixy commandline tools. Hardware - I much prefer the Macbook. It's completely quiet 99% of the time, whereas the Thinkpad has it's fans blazing as soon as I open Chrome. The build quality feels much better on the Macbook and I love how sleek and thin it is. Meanwhile Thinkpad feels like a brick.

[edgyquant]

MacOS is beautiful and while it may be possible I do not believe anyone, except maybe a tiny percentage of tech users who used windows 9x or old school Mac as their first interface, objectively looks at it and thinks it’s ugly while the old beige UI was the last truly beautiful interface.

That is some bizarro world stuff. Even Windows 10 is actually fairly pretty in its interface even if it is super bloated.

[Toutouxc]

> congratulations to Apple for conning even IT experts

Which one is more plausible?

a) Apple actually "conning" tens of thousands of highly skilled, [mostly] intelligent, [mostly] educated people into spending money on hardware they don't actually need.

b) You not understanding some important aspect of the situation and/or having different personal preferences.

[2-718-281-828]

(a) ... when it comes to status and self-presentation people tend to ignore their intelligence and education.

[grishka]

I am a Mac user for 10 years and just can't fathom using anything else at this point so I might as well be called a "Mac fanboy". Yet, Monterey's (12.0) UI is a clear regression in comparison to Mojave (10.14). The utter lack of attention to the pixel grid, the unnecessary horizontal paddings where horizontal space is valuable like sidebars, these top bars that are way too huge and combine the title bar with the toolbar so neither fits comfortably, too much spacing between menu bar icons, the "control center" that's clearly made for touchscreens despite macOS devices having none, and this list goes on and on. This redesign was clearly done by someone who 1) prioritizes looks over function and 2) wants change for its own sake.

edit: you know you're making terribly misguided UI decisions when people build software to revert them: https://github.com/MacEnhance/MEMiniMe

[__void]

Well, windows XP was the peak of gui... only when set to classic mode (like windows millennium)! the plastic edges and colors of XP offered nothing extra to 9x-class interfaces;

the absolute peak of interfaces was mac system 9

[jayd16]

I don't know. I kind of prefer Windows XP as the many-windowed-application style died out by then. Now the only major example I can think of is Gimp.

[icelancer]

I loved Windows XP (I think most of us did) but I find the Windows NT/2000 -> Windows 7 design to be the most intuitive. I still install Start10 on every server and workstation I use and revert to the Windows 7 style. I suspect I'll do it for as long as Start10 supports their software (fortunately they already patched Windows 11, too).

[Duckton]

Can you give some examples on why you think Windows XP is better than macOS and also how macOS is crap?

[2-718-281-828]

- Finder

- Applications not actually being terminated when clicking on the close icon

- lagging / unreliable context menu opening with middle-index-finger on apps in dock bar

- the concept of installing something by moving it from an icon on the left to an icon on the right

- or when you can't start apps due to connectivity issues

- app removal is totally opaque and sometimes requires to download a custom uninstallation tool (adobe creative cloud f.x.)

[usui]

Huh? These just sound like grievances that a user used to Windows will have when moving from Windows to macOS, but at that point it's about what you're used to, not what is inherently bad about the design.

Explorer is much worse (drives? Still can't really understand Windows file systems to this day). Sending an app to Applications/wastebin for install/uninstall is (arguable) more visually intuitive for a layperson than an install/uninstall script that most people just click "Next" without reading any of the instructions. The concept of applications having multiple windows is an OS-level thing to get used to.

[pdpi]

Windows conflates windows and applications, macOS doesn’t. It’s a mental model thing, I personally like the Mac version better — closing the last window doesn’t have a special case behaviour, and it plays nicer with things like Spotify or Discord that you want running continuously and don’t want to close the whole application inadvertently.

Not sure what you mean about lagging context menu?

[Duckton]

I find finder more productive than explorer.

I love the fact that clicking the close icon of a window doesn’t terminate the application

Haven’t experienced this, not sure what you are referring to.

Also something I like. The fact that an installation is just moving an executable, is to me, superior to an entire process with regedit and what not.

As I said somewhere below, it might just come down to what one is used to and not objective facts.

[2-718-281-828]

> I love the fact that clicking the close icon of a window doesn’t terminate the application

what is the difference then between closing and minimizing?

[Duckton]

I minimise when I want to get the content, fx a VS code workspace, out of the way to retrieve it later.

Close is when I am done with that particular window/workspace.

Command+Q is when I’m done working in VS code entirely.

[kergonath]

> what is the difference then between closing and minimizing?

Closing is putting away, as in “I don’t think I’ll need it in the near future”, and minimising is putting aside as in “I’ll probably come back to this in 5 minutes”. The minimised window is not cluttering the screen but still accessible from the dock and list of open windows in its application. This is not related to the problem you claimed to have with an application being still open without having a single window.

[KptMarchewa]

>app removal is totally opaque and sometimes requires to download a custom uninstallation tool (adobe creative cloud f.x.)

I mean, maybe, but you're comparing it with Windows that never had anything other than custom uninstallers that leave garbage all over your file system. Windows is 10x worse here.

[prometheon1]

- There is a both a three-finger-click action and a "hard" click action on the touchpad, both of these can't be set to do a "middle click". You have to buy an app in order to be able to middle click with your mouse! (To open links in new tab or close tabs) - Trying to tweak small problems like the one above often leads to things that look like a great solution but 9 out of 10 are github repos that have not been updated in 10 years and don't work anymore - The recommended way of using only your external display (if you still want to use the keyboard and touchpad) is to mirror the displays and then set the screen brightness to zero

But when I was on Windows I was even more unhappy. I wish Linux had first-class support by more apps.

[jayd16]

MacOS and its applications relegate far too much functionality to hidden "power tools." Often its impossible to know what is clickable in macOS.

Windows XP features were easy to discover. Scroll bars were not hidden. Buttons looked like buttons.

[icelancer]

Command vs. ALT/CTRL bindings are vastly superior in Windows. The MacOS method of using the Command button is different for the sake of being different, not for any actual productive reason.

I had the first Macbook Retina and used it for years at a company where it made sense to do so; when I handed it in and left for my own startup life, I was open to either OS (couldn't use Linux as the daily driver since I my industry uses a lot of Windows-only programs), and Windows was just far more productive to use on a regular basis. The only thing I miss is Final Cut Pro, and Sublime Text to some degree (VS Code has been an adequate replacement).

[bitigchi]

LOL.

Not at all. Mac keyboard shortcuts are explicitly more reachable than its Windows counterparts. Try reaching alt+f4 versus command+w/q. Also macOS incorporates more keyboard shortcuts than any other OS.

You will need to elaborate more on this one.

[Wowfunhappy]

> The MacOS method of using the Command button is different for the sake of being different, not for any actual productive reason.

I’m actually pretty sure the Mac’s Command key predates ctrl being used for this purpose.

[Duckton]

It’s funny how different it can be for different people.

I switch regularly between macOS and Fedora, and have windows on a ssd for gaming. I agree on the Command vs. CTRL bindings thing. It’s annoying when switching between the two systems.

I recently wanted to pick up unity, and decided to try it on windows. I have to say, as strongly as you find macOS annoying I find windows annoying. Fx system settings, for some reason when I have to change something it takes me ages to navigate through the UI to find what I’m looking for. But maybe it’s all just personal preference and what one is used to.

[kergonath]

> Command vs. ALT/CTRL bindings are vastly superior in Windows. The MacOS method of using the Command button is different for the sake of being different, not for any actual productive reason.

Command is much more accessible as part of a shortcut than control. Also, alt is much more useful as a composition key than as a pseudo-control key. And seriously, who in their right mind believes that things like alt-F4 are a good idea? The way Windows shortcuts work is particularly idiosyncratic and makes sense only as an historical oddity from way back when DOS had to coexist with Windows.