| ▲ | bluedino 4 hours ago | |||||||
Was this peak Windows UI? I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move. Fisher-price came next, with Windows XP. At least you could easily switch back to classic. And then Windows 8, we won't even talk about that. | ||||||||
| ▲ | rib3ye 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Maybe more importantly, Win2k was the first windows version actually WORKED in a predictable way after years of unstable post-Win3.1 (Win95 and onward) production releases. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | cake-rusk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Windows Vista / 7 was peak UI for me. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Telaneo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
> I would say so, but the Active Dekstop stuff wasn't the right move. Even so, you could completely ignore it if you wanted to! | ||||||||
| ▲ | petilon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
The title bar of windows in Windows XP was Fisher-Price. But I thought the rest was OK. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | Dwedit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
I think Windows XP looks very nice if you install the Royale theme. It's a shiny and glassy version of the default XP style. | ||||||||
| ▲ | kreddor 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
I really liked the luna silver and olive green themes. They were not too bad to look at. | ||||||||
| ▲ | madaxe_again 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
Almost. The NT5 RCs, which became windows 2000, were better IMO - not massive differences but it hadn’t been slobbered upon by marketing yet. | ||||||||