cross-posted from: https://lemmy.capebreton.social/post/347724

Windows 95 is a consumer-oriented operating system developed by Microsoft as part of its Windows 9x family of operating systems. The first operating system in the 9x family, it is the successor to Windows 3.1x, and was released to manufacturing on July 14, 1995, and generally to retail on August 24, 1995, almost three months after the release of Windows NT 3.51.

Windows 95 is the first version of Microsoft Windows to include taskbar, start button, and accessing the internet. Windows 95 merged Microsoft’s formerly separate MS-DOS and Microsoft Windows products, and featured significant improvements over its predecessor, most notably in the graphical user interface (GUI) and in its simplified “plug-and-play” features. There were also major changes made to the core components of the operating system, such as moving from a mainly cooperatively multitasked 16-bit architecture to a 32-bit preemptive multitasking architecture, at least when running only 32-bit protected mode applications.

Accompanied by an extensive marketing campaign,Windows 95 introduced numerous functions and features that were featured in later Windows versions, and continue in modern variations to this day, such as the taskbar, notification area, and the “Start” button. It is considered to be one of the biggest and most important products in the personal computing industry.

  • @irdc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1210 months ago

    Mac OS (…) was okay, but reliant on the global menu and weird drop-downs.

    See Fitt’s law for why the Mac’s menu bar is the way it is.

    • @mindbleach@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1010 months ago

      Thoroughly familiar with it; don’t care. The global menu has always been goofy because of the invisible relation to some open window. Usually a small window floating out in middle of the desktop, because Mac OS took forever to adopt any concept of “maximize.” I’m still not sure they do it right.

      • @irdc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        410 months ago

        Nowadays macOS maximises like Windows does. Whether that’s “doing it right” is something else entirely.

          • stankmut
            link
            fedilink
            English
            210 months ago

            If you hold down one of the modifier keys, either Options/Alt or Cmd I don’t quite remember which, and then click the maximize button it does the normal Windows style maximize.

            • @ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If you hold down one of the modifier keys

              Lol this is my biggest beef with MacOS: the extent to which you have to memorize a bunch of utterly non-intuitive key combinations just to do basic tasks. Like taking a screenshot, which remains an absurd nightmare.

              • stankmut
                link
                fedilink
                English
                210 months ago

                It usually maximizes it Windows style as well. I feel like I’ve had more inconsistency in behavior from that (like it would sometimes just fill the width but not the height), but nothing I can reproduce right now.

                • @mindbleach@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  110 months ago

                  Googling around suggests it’s a global setting. Having recently used an Xfce version that didn’t want to super+arrow, maximize-vertical is an okay tool, but outside of super-duper-widescreen, it’s not what I’d ever want by default.

    • @ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      9
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      In its basic form, Fitts’s law says that targets a user has to hit should be as big as possible.

      Dear god, my biggest beef with using a smart phone is that UI designers 1) love to have tiny buttons for shit, and 2) the tappable areas for those buttons are almost never made larger than their tiny graphics, so it’s a bitch to actually tap them.

      I used to be a mobile app developer, and when I wrote apps by myself I would always expand the tappable areas so they were easy to hit with fat fingers. My last job was working for a huge cable company (maybe the name rhymes with “bombast”) and whenever I expanded the tappable area of a tiny button the UI designers would pitch a fit and insist that that not be done. Management would agree with them on the grounds that expanding the tappable area would require too much time to implement - and then they’d order me to spend even more time un-implementing it.

      • Captain Aggravated
        link
        fedilink
        English
        510 months ago

        Something that irritates me in desktop design is, there’s a clickable icon. There’s no box around it to represent a button, just the icon on a blank background. You move your mouse towards the icon. When you get close to the icon, a box appears around it. You take this to mean “this object will be interacted with when you click the mouse.” You click the mouse. Nothing is achieved. You have to move the mouse into the actual borders of the icon, it’s just that now icons get visibly excited that you might pick them.

        • @mindbleach@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          Windows 95 legitimately had better UI than that “Material” bullshit, via relief shading conveyed through four fucking colors. The hierarchy of elements is instantly visible. Buttons even popped in and out when clicked. There’s just no excuse for how minimalism fetishists have taken over user experience.