Win98 used IE4. Anyway, there was nothing wrong with including IE as part of the shell. You are using your experience with modern browsers to retroactivly color you opinion of IE4. The web used to be lean and minimal, nothing like what it later became.
>You are using your experience with modern browsers to retroactivly color you opinion of IE4. The web used to be lean and minimal, nothing like what it later became.
IE had such a bed rep, because it was hell to make sites work for it. It always needed its own rules. This was also the main reason why jQuery was developed.
95 already had iexplore.exe for the file explorer. 95 was MS trying to pivot to the internet as it was starting to blow up. Just they didn't reach all the network stack stuff (IIRC) in time.
I enjoyed it. I was 14 in 1995. I could chat with girls from different states. I could access porn over dialup. I could play doom and the thousands of doom clones (what we called FPS back then) That’s all I needed it for.
And they'll be wrong, just like those "Windows 8 is peak" people. Windows 7 wasn't even the best. It was good sure, but XP was better in a lot of ways, and 98 was even better in some.
Just increase the DPI you fricking moronic zoomerhomosexual. God I hate larpers, it's crystal clear you never used any of these old OSes in your pathetic life
No, moron. I'm talking about modern font engines failing to render them the way they're meant to be rendered. Shit's either blurry or the kerning is fricked.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
works on my machine
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
doesn't work on my machine. When i researched the problem, the contributors said something like "yeah this is a Linux problem, Linus Torvalds hates bitmap fonts and got rid of them at the kernel level and no one ever did anything about it.".
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Funny. Some fonts render fine, so it can be done, but I guess nobody has bothered to remake Tahoma for the new engine. Notice how in picrel the article font renders correctly, but the About Firefox text is blurry.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>Linus Torvalds hates bitmap fonts and got rid of them at the kernel level
the Linux kernel has absolutely nothing to do with graphics or font rendering.
It's a good thing XP was so easy to customize as well, just patch a dll and hit any of the sites full of themes.
(Yes I know Emico was a different theme but frick it was easily one of the best options out there)
ME looked the same as 2000 except it was closer to 98 on the inside. You didn't miss anything. When ME was out, 2000 was the one everyone competent was using.
I didn't mean normies.
XP was not that good when it first came out, but it became good later, and then it became better to switch from 2000.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Literally nobody means literally nobody.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
It doesn't thoughever.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I worked at Staples from 2000-2003 and we sold exactly zero copies of Windows 2000. I know zero people who used Windows 2000 on a personal computer except for a handful of people who got used workstations from their workplace long after 2000 was relevant.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
win2k was relevant until at least 2010.
2 weeks ago
earez
Bullshit my parents are normies and I was using Windows 2000 when I was a young teen.
It's the final evolution and refinement of the 95 and 98 design langiage.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
shut up, zoom zoom
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
2000 doesn't even use the same kernel as 95 and 98. I know some people who used 2000 and regretted it because specifically for that reason, it has discarded a lot of backwards compatibility.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
don't engage with the zoomer who is propagandizing his headcanon.
Not true, the most visually ergonomic OS is a Linux distro with KDE Plasma, since you can customize it to fit your needs better than pretty much any other OS. You do know what ergonomic means, right OP?
based. but win98 was better (transparent text labels for desktop icons, window title gradient) and win2k was king (improved 9x aesthetic, plus nt stability)
Technically it's then CALMIRA with 3.11
Otherwise 2000 because they really got Explorer working well, optimized and doing what it needs to do without all the visual fluff that kills XP.
>Calmira II is a free Windows 95/NT 4 explorer clone for Windows 3.1. It attempts to recreate much of the same functionality and appearance as Windows 95/NT 4.
Damn, computing used to be so much fun.
>every single website including IQfy has been riddled with "You know, I don't hate windows 11" posts when it was recently revealed that windows 11 adoption has gone down while Windows 10 has gone up >get suspicious MS is using bots
I don't trust like that.
for me, it's Win98
yeah, because if Windows 95 needed anything it was IE6 built into the desktop and file explorer.
Win98 used IE4. Anyway, there was nothing wrong with including IE as part of the shell. You are using your experience with modern browsers to retroactivly color you opinion of IE4. The web used to be lean and minimal, nothing like what it later became.
I used 98 longer than I used XP. Active desktop was bloated shit.
>You are using your experience with modern browsers to retroactivly color you opinion of IE4. The web used to be lean and minimal, nothing like what it later became.
IE had such a bed rep, because it was hell to make sites work for it. It always needed its own rules. This was also the main reason why jQuery was developed.
95 already had iexplore.exe for the file explorer. 95 was MS trying to pivot to the internet as it was starting to blow up. Just they didn't reach all the network stack stuff (IIRC) in time.
I don't know what you mean by "visually ergonomic" but I do think its the most aesthetically pleasing OS made by Microsoft.
"ergonomic" refers to efficiency and comfort. The layout of Win95 is both easy to look at and high contrast at the same time. Truly a spectacle.
>layout
"Desktop Environment" would be a better term
Oh, in that case I agree. I always use the classic theme + classic start menu on my pc. Way more usable that way.
Ok boomer
I enjoyed it. I was 14 in 1995. I could chat with girls from different states. I could access porn over dialup. I could play doom and the thousands of doom clones (what we called FPS back then) That’s all I needed it for.
>I could chat with girls from different states.
Do you believe most of those "girls" were girls?
there wasnt perverts on the internet back then..... was there?
the big three
2000 awkward blend between 95 and XP. I would replace 2000 with 95 and your meme would be perfect.
objectively wrong opinion
99.9% of consumers never saw Windows 2000.
>The age of heroes
>The golden age
>The silver age
>the stone age
>the plastic age
>the glass age
wait another 10 years and people will be making nostalgic threads about windows 11 about how it was peak
And they'll be wrong, just like those "Windows 8 is peak" people. Windows 7 wasn't even the best. It was good sure, but XP was better in a lot of ways, and 98 was even better in some.
I'm old and Windows 2000 is the best OS overall that I rememeber
Change XP to the first
Then add server 2003 in between
redpill:
Windows 10/11 are better.
(im 40yo so don't @ me)
I always @ anons who request not to
>im 40yo so don't @ me
>don't @ me
you're not 40 years old
>using fisher price instead of classic theme on XP
At least post peak aero and not the normalhomosexual win7
>peak task-bar: windows 2000
>peak start menu: windows 2000
so much useless shit in start menu in the other two :/
the explorer icon has a 3d button effect, but nothing else in that bar does ?
>vista
task bar looks ok
looks ok
can you do quick launch icons on task bar?
looks ok
the background for the text of the icons on the desktop looks a little unusual. any option to set it to 90% opacity instead, or something ?
>the explorer icon has a 3d button effect, but nothing else in that bar does ?
I have Internet explorer open.
fair enough. i did think it might be something like that.
any option to change the indicator?
well you can do anything on LMDE but I can't seem to find an option to change that in the GUI settings.
>can you do quick launch icons on task bar?
yes
95 was fine until you had recent-ish hardware (i.e. anything released after 1996), I'm tem win98+98lite to remove IE trash
Wow lol, very ergonomic.
I don't think the idea of 4k monitors existed until the mid 2000s at least
looking good to me. maybe you should have gotten a 42" 4K monitor
Just increase the DPI you fricking moronic zoomerhomosexual. God I hate larpers, it's crystal clear you never used any of these old OSes in your pathetic life
counterpoint
>how the frick do I eject my disc?
>oh, of course, I just drag it to the trash bin
>drag to the trash bin
>deletes all the data on the cd
That was my original thought back then
ew, what are those unnecessary lines at the top of the window?
soul
Classic Mac was peak usability.
lipstick on a pig
why is it so hard to get old bitmap fonts to not look like vomit these days?
they're bitmap fonts. they always look the same, which means they always looked like shit.
No, moron. I'm talking about modern font engines failing to render them the way they're meant to be rendered. Shit's either blurry or the kerning is fricked.
works on my machine
doesn't work on my machine. When i researched the problem, the contributors said something like "yeah this is a Linux problem, Linus Torvalds hates bitmap fonts and got rid of them at the kernel level and no one ever did anything about it.".
Funny. Some fonts render fine, so it can be done, but I guess nobody has bothered to remake Tahoma for the new engine. Notice how in picrel the article font renders correctly, but the About Firefox text is blurry.
>Linus Torvalds hates bitmap fonts and got rid of them at the kernel level
the Linux kernel has absolutely nothing to do with graphics or font rendering.
Probably why he removed it.
it was never there, numbnuts
Microsoft should've stuck with the watercolor theme for XP. Luna looks like dogshit and only nostalgiagays think otherwise.
It's a good thing XP was so easy to customize as well, just patch a dll and hit any of the sites full of themes.
(Yes I know Emico was a different theme but frick it was easily one of the best options out there)
I kept that look throughout my XP and Vista days.
Win 98 was peak Windows.
But for full disclosure I gotta admit I skipped ME.
ME looked the same as 2000 except it was closer to 98 on the inside. You didn't miss anything. When ME was out, 2000 was the one everyone competent was using.
Literally nobody was using 2000. NT was a server/business product only up until Microsoft decided to market XP to consumers.
I didn't mean normies.
XP was not that good when it first came out, but it became good later, and then it became better to switch from 2000.
Literally nobody means literally nobody.
It doesn't thoughever.
I worked at Staples from 2000-2003 and we sold exactly zero copies of Windows 2000. I know zero people who used Windows 2000 on a personal computer except for a handful of people who got used workstations from their workplace long after 2000 was relevant.
win2k was relevant until at least 2010.
Bullshit my parents are normies and I was using Windows 2000 when I was a young teen.
It's the final evolution and refinement of the 95 and 98 design langiage.
shut up, zoom zoom
2000 doesn't even use the same kernel as 95 and 98. I know some people who used 2000 and regretted it because specifically for that reason, it has discarded a lot of backwards compatibility.
don't engage with the zoomer who is propagandizing his headcanon.
SOUL
Win 3.0 looked nicer
Not true, the most visually ergonomic OS is a Linux distro with KDE Plasma, since you can customize it to fit your needs better than pretty much any other OS. You do know what ergonomic means, right OP?
wrong
The trash bin looks like a metroid energy tank
that's not Gnome 2 with the clearlooks theme.
Any fellow trinity users here?
please explain what I am looking at.
Fork of old KDE.
That top tray menu looks like something from a flash website....ugh...I'm gonnaa....I'm gonna cooom.....
I love Win95
then run it on something other than a vm
c'mon anon don't be disingenuous, going full screen in a VM is good enough as long as you don't lie about running it legit.
>office toolbar
SOVL
why not both?
Program with every program is pretty good.
based. but win98 was better (transparent text labels for desktop icons, window title gradient) and win2k was king (improved 9x aesthetic, plus nt stability)
>improved 9x asthetic
I reject the idea that adding more colors does anything other than complicate the experience.
suck my wiener you autist
Why does everything have to be so bloated and complicated these days. uuuhhhhhhggggggggggggggg
Blame object oriented programing and encapsulation.
Technically it's then CALMIRA with 3.11
Otherwise 2000 because they really got Explorer working well, optimized and doing what it needs to do without all the visual fluff that kills XP.
>Calmira II is a free Windows 95/NT 4 explorer clone for Windows 3.1. It attempts to recreate much of the same functionality and appearance as Windows 95/NT 4.
Damn, computing used to be so much fun.
https://winworldpc.com/product/newshell/beta
Kugee is that you?
>light/dark mode everywhere
>no grey mode in sight
where did it all go so wrong
For me its WindowsME
For me it's Windows ME
Literally SOVL overdose
The superior desktop was always irix.
*dabs*
>every single website including IQfy has been riddled with "You know, I don't hate windows 11" posts when it was recently revealed that windows 11 adoption has gone down while Windows 10 has gone up
>get suspicious MS is using bots
I don't trust like that.
Big corpos know how to make bots out of idiots.
Let that sink in.