|
|
|
|
|
|
by paulmd
1007 days ago
|
|
|
I know, but windows 3.1 looked like windows 3.1. Windows 98 at least looks reasonably modern, like system 7.5+ or system 8 level fit and finish or whatever. Windows 2000 definitely is 90% of the way there in terms of UX. Windows XP really looks more or less like windows 10 if you apply classicshell and turn off the theme, or whatever. one of those is 64mb to run really nicely, one is 256mb at the start and probably 2GB+ by the end, and the last one is like, you really probably want at least 16, 8 is getting to be a scant spec choice even today. Going for 2x32gb is less than $100 now! (good time to buy, flash and DRAM are glutted and this won't last forever) NT was solid enough as a UI (although iirc NT 3.5 was sort of "3.11 and a half") but by NT 4 and win2000 it had pretty much emerged into the modern UX. And Win2000 still ran on peanuts by modern standards. I never used NT but my dad generally thought highly of it afaik. I suppose there's an interesting parallel between macos trying to shed cooperative multitaking (and the legacy of the pre-32 bit ROM) with windows 6/7 and windows finally maturing in the 3.1-95 and NT-win2000 era with shedding the legacy of DOS and the low-level x86 poking. OSs seemed to hit a point in that era where it was no longer tolerable to support their legacy shit forever from the hobby-hardware era. |
|
|
There were shells even available before Windows 3 that provided a folder style desktop metaphor. HP NewWave immediately comes to mind, and it ran on very limited hardware.
> NT was solid enough as a UI (although iirc NT 3.5 was sort of "3.11 and a half")
NT predated Windows 95. If you weren't paying attention, NT 3.1 and 3.5 looked essentially identical to Windows 3.1. Just with a totally different (much better) implementation and dramatically higher system requirements. They also enabled "32-bit" code, which made it easier to access the large amounts of data needed for image and video manipulation.
The higher system requirements of NT are what motivated Microsoft to also build rudimentary 32-bit support into classic Windows. This started out as Win32s, which enabled Windows 3.1 to run 32-bit apps written to a very strict subset of the Win32 API. Win32s then evolved into the 32-bit support offered by Windows 95, but even then, Windows 95 was a 16/32-bit hybrid. This let Microsoft advertise 4MB system requirements for 95, as opposed to the 16-32 for NT.
> but by NT 4 and win2000 it had pretty much emerged into the modern UX.
NT4's big innovation was to take the new 95 UI and put it on the NT kernel. 2000 was a big step forward, but mainly stability and enterprise featurres.
> And Win2000 still ran on peanuts by modern standards.
IIRC, I ran it usefully on a 256MB P3.
> I never used NT but my dad generally thought highly of it afaik.
I used it for a while, but really only NT4 through about XP. I remember it being a dramatic improvement over 3.x/95 in terms of both features and stability.
Where the Microsoft OS's fall short IMO is that Microsoft has had the resources to pursue all sorts of various designs over the years, but have lacked the coherency of vision to make a product that really feels like it holds together as a consistent whole. The capabilities are there, and in some ways better than Unix, but it's never felt quite right, at least to me.