"nicer" is very subjective. To me it looks like a train wreck.

>"nicer" is very subjective. To me it looks like a train wreck.

This, it looks like the most generic x-windows client ever.

I suppose one could always use WindowMaker if they're looking for that experience:

https://www.windowmaker.org/

This is much nicer: https://github.com/trunkmaster/nextspace/blob/master/Documen...

Oh wow that's cool, I'm going to have to check that out. Thanks for the link!

I'm very curious to hear why you feel that way. Windows 95 always felt like more of an amalgamation of CDE and what Mac OS was doing at the time, than anything to do with NeXTSTEP.

NeXTSTEP's interface (1988–1989) used subtle shading and depth for buttons and windows, creating a dimensional appearance. Its visual design pioneered the use of shading for depth in GUIs.

Microsoft's timeline:

CTL3D.DLL: Introduced circa 1991–1992, primarily for Windows 3.1 applications (not the OS itself). It added 3D effects to dialog boxes and controls but was optional for developers.

Windows 95: Introduced native 3D controls (e.g., recessed buttons, drop shadows) as the system-wide default in 1995, eliminating the need for CTL3D.DLL

This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. A 3D appearance is 1 superficial element of a GUI. And Windows 2.0 had 3D shading in 1987 even though limited.

Was this LLM generated?

NextStep is virtually unknown outside of USA. DOS/Win clones have much bigger absolute market cap measured in eyeballs.

Another roughly contemporary point of comparison, Haiku OS: https://www.haiku-os.org/slideshows/haiku-1/

If you're referring to the window buttons especially, I can definitely see that. I did hear that Microsoft did acquire several NeXT Computer boxes in the early 90s to study the hardware and the operating system, and I'm absolutely sure it played a role in influencing Windows 95's look and feel.

Windows 95/98 has a nice grey. That grey there is fugly.

NeXTSTEP is peak programmer UI. It looks absolutely atrocious, even by early GUI standards.

Windows 95's success was in part because Microsoft put in the effort to test and write good standardised UI controls and configurations. Throwing a bunch of UI elements on a heap with pretty high-res (at the time) graphics makes for a good freeze frame in a movie but a terrible UI.

MS copied from everyone, like Apple did before them and Unix display managers did after them, but their copy was far from cheap.

As someone who hasn't used NeXTSTEP before, can you explain why it is nicer?

What do you like better about it?

NeXTSTEP was widely regarded as visually striking and innovative for its time, particularly for its clean, minimalist design and advanced graphical capabilities. Key elements contributing to its perceived beauty included:

3D chiseled widgets: Beveled buttons and controls with subtle shading created a dimensional, tactile appearance.

Full-color icons: Large, detailed icons (uncommon in late 1980s GUIs) enhanced visual clarity.

Consistent typography: System-wide use of Display PostScript enabled professional-quality fonts and anti-aliasing.

Transparency and compositing: Advanced graphics handling allowed overlapping windows and semi-transparent elements.

Current discussions still praise NeXTSTEP's design as better looking and more usable than Windows 11 and macOS.

>NeXTSTEP was widely regarded as visually striking and innovative for its time

Widely? You seem like the only one carrying the water for nextstep. I'm sure they had some advances but overall it's a very ugly UI.

It inspired Win95. It inspired the original Netscape browser's UI (toolbar etc is very NeXTSTEP-inspired, not surprising because it was developed on a NeXT box). It inspired the Mac OS X and the iPhone, although both have degraded since then. As things exist today, NeXTSTEP from 40 years ago (!) looks much nicer - and way more usable - than today's flat UIs.

Being the inspiration for a bunch of better products don't mean that it was inherently good itself.

LLM output comment

But more toolbar.