@nazokiyoubinbou @dfx I get the idea that the overall UI structure is still largely similar to modern Windows and in that sense it's "not retro" in its basic design structure. The aesthetics are a very diffeent story, though.

@glennmagusharvey @dfx Yeah, I got that, I just want to point out that it all ultimately hails way back to what Xerox created in 1973. Pretty much everyone just copied that and evolved from there, everyone copying each other back and forth along the way. So, in the sense of "the UI elements work similarly today" being used as a defining factor of deciding a thing isn't retro, you'd have to go back to some pretty ancient computing to find what you'd call retro then.

Let me come at this from a different direction. Modern audio players still use design choices meant to resemble audio players from the cassette generations (buttons, icons, etc.) Would that mean a cassette player is not retro since its design is so familiar and like modern UIs?

@nazokiyoubinbou @glennmagusharvey Thank you guys for answering!

When you compare Windows 95 to Windows 11... they do look different, but - coming from either side - you would still know how to use the other system. It's got a Start Menu, a File Explorer, a Desktop. Windows 95 is still similar enough to use it without much thinking.

When you just go back just a years more... from 1995 to 1993... You would end up using Windows 3.1 or MS-DOS and you would not have all of these familiar programs and GUI elements. No desktop, no Start Menu. MS-DOS 5 or 6 only gives you a command prompt and maybe the MS-DOS Shell, Windows 3.1 has the Program and the File Manager.

You would have to remember or learn new/old things in order to use the computer with DOS or Windows 3.x. And it would be even more different, going back to Windows 2.x or even further, where you would need to use the MS-DOS Executive. To me, that's the definition of a retro system. Windows 95 is already a modern OS, it's just outdated. But not "retro".

@dfx @glennmagusharvey I'd argue even Windows 3.x and 2.x have the same basic interfaces when you get right down to it though. This all really goes back to what Xerox did. Even other computing systems copied the same ideas. Even TUIs follow similar design principles — within their limitations of course...

As someone who made the transition from 3.1 to 95 in person I can tell you it was not a big adaptation for me at all. The start menu was the only major change interface-wise and it really wasn't that big of a change. (Program Manager ultimately still was organizing things the same way, it just presented windows instead.)

I argue if interface familiarity is all it takes, you'll have to say cassettes players are not retro since their interface is similar to a modern audio player.

@dfx @glennmagusharvey As a side note, unrelated, but I was just thinking, Program Manager really was like if you use your desktop icons to organize things and... lol, a lot of people actually do that, unwittingly not realizing they're reproducing Program Manager in their own way.

I guess those people would take to Windows pre-95 without an issue.

@nazokiyoubinbou @glennmagusharvey I'll admit you could probably adjust easily to older interfaces. Like a program manager or a physical interface like a cassette player or Walkman. But using oldschool players or GUIs also feels a lot different. Where you see this divide between retro and "just outdated" is probably a very personal question.

@dfx @glennmagusharvey Yeah, if you define it in a way such as how it feels, it's going to be pretty personal. A Walkman is definitely going to feel different from a modern audio player, but the basic interface is similar enough you'll have no trouble adapting to it. The only hard part would be the question of how you actually get data in there. Obviously sticking a cassette tape in the deck isn't the same as loading MP3s or whatever into the audio software (or configuring it to open a directory or etc etc.)

I've been trying to come up with a less subjective definition. The best I've come up with so far is two major technological changes back. One back is probably somewhat supported, but two back has issues. (Like how you can't even run 9x on systems without CSM.)

@nazokiyoubinbou @glennmagusharvey Yep... but what is a "major technological change? Something under the hood might not even concern most users. I'd say, a retro system always has some major usage incompatibles with modern everyday habits. Like you can't use MP3 files on a cassette player and you also can't use Windows 3.x to access a normal USB stick. No, you have to A) know how to use other oldschool technologies and B) you have to do without everyday standards and technologies in order to use a retro system.

Another complication is one's personal stand on modern technology. For me, I don't accept many cloud or even AI systems as being an integral part of modern computing. For me, many of these "technologies" are just stupid ideas from idiot companies. So, if someone would consider systems being retro just for using local storage space or for not using A.I.? A horrible thought.

@dfx @glennmagusharvey Yeah, I don't know if anything 100% objective can truly be defined. That's just the best I can come up with.

There are some somewhat objective ways of defining it. For example, what can still physically be supported might be one. You can't put PCI cards in a modern computer, so there's a fairly easy defining line. ISA cards are even further out there. But then VLB skews this because it was actually newer than ISA, yet has less support.

Anyway, right now that's the best I can do.

I leave cloud computing out because it's internally all working the same, just with more and more software reliance on always on connections. But if we ever transition completely to dumb terminals... I don't know...

@nazokiyoubinbou @dfx I think part of the debate also comes down to what one defines as "retro" vs. "outdated". To some people, these terms are pretty interchangeable. Also, "mental compatibility" (for lack of a better term, sorry) between UIs seems to be a continuum.

Meanwhile, on the topic of audio players, I'd like to point out how Pause and Stop are very different for a cassette and CD players but the distinction is noticeably blurrier for digital music. I can imagine a distinction based on whether the music track is loaded into RAM or something, but I have definitely seen audio player applications that just seem to either Pause or just quit altogether with no Stop option.