Why does part of the Windows 98 Setup program look older than the rest? (2020)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Windows installer architecture and “old” setup UIs

  • Several comments compare Windows 98’s setup layering to later NT‑based installers.
  • NT4–XP/2003 used a text‑mode phase running on the NT kernel, followed by a GUI phase; Vista introduced the “modern” WinPE‑based GUI installer that still underlies 8–11.
  • Pre‑Vista NT setups often had three phases: optional DOS bootstrap, minimal NT without full Win32, then GUI setup from disk.
  • XP still relied on floppy‑supplied storage drivers; later users slipstreamed drivers into CDs.
  • Mini‑Windows‑like environments were also used for tasks such as DriveSpace compression, likely loaded into RAM to manipulate the system partition safely.

Windows 9x vs NT: performance, memory, and stability

  • 9x (95/98/ME) and NT (NT4/2000/XP) had nearly identical UIs but very different internals.
  • 9x existed because typical machines had 16–32 MB RAM; NT‑class systems often wanted 128 MB+, which was expensive at the time.
  • Windows 2000 is repeatedly described as a turning point: much more stable than 9x, with better memory handling, power management, Plug‑and‑Play, USB, FAT32, and significant mitigation of “DLL hell.”
  • Many used 2000 or Server 2003 (and XP x64) as long‑lived, extremely stable daily drivers.

UI aesthetics and “peak Windows” debate

  • A strong nostalgia current claims peak mouse‑driven GUI was Windows 98 or, more commonly, Windows 2000 (lighter gray palette, gradients, refined icons, top‑bar rendering improvements).
  • Others point to classic Mac OS, AmigaOS, or BeOS as even better WIMP UIs.
  • XP’s “Fisher‑Price” theme drew criticism but was easily disabled; some still liked its look.
  • Flat, minimal modern design in Windows 8–11 is widely criticized as less discoverable, harder to use, and visually noisy despite looking “clean.”
  • KDE and SerenityOS are cited as modern systems preserving older Windows‑style affordances and customizability.

Usability principles vs modern “engagement”

  • Older UIs are praised for:
    • Clear affordances (buttons look clickable, scrollbars informative).
    • Consistent conventions (system menu in top‑left, double‑click to close, Alt‑Space shortcuts).
    • Keyboard power features and the ability to “queue” actions while the system caught up.
  • Commenters argue 80s–90s GUIs were designed to be learned and rigorously user‑tested; today’s are often driven by branding, A/B testing, and engagement metrics, sometimes at odds with usability.

Uppercase filenames and coding style

  • Uppercase filenames in DOS/Windows derive from CP/M and earlier DEC systems; historically many systems were uppercase‑only or case‑folding.
  • Debate ensues over readability: some claim uppercase improves contrast on monochrome/low‑res displays; others cite research and typography arguing mixed case is more legible due to distinct word shapes.
  • Similar arguments appear around SQL style: many use UPPERCASE for keywords and mixed/camelCase for identifiers to visually separate language constructs from user names, particularly on monochrome or non‑highlighted displays.

Legacy UI remnants and “modernization”

  • A catalog of Windows 11 UI inconsistencies (old dialogs, tools like ODBC, regedit, winfile) is discussed.
  • Some see these as valuable, functional “good parts” and oppose visual rewrites that risk breaking automation or compatibility.
  • “Modern” is criticized as meaning merely “recently changed,” not necessarily better or less buggy; change for its own sake is viewed skeptically.

Retrocomputing and version nostalgia

  • Windows 98, XP, and even 7 are framed as unambiguously “retro” now.
  • Opinions on newer versions diverge: some tolerate 10/11 as usable, others strongly dislike telemetry, forced updates, and UI changes (taskbar behavior, Start menu advertising).
  • There is a sense that technical underpinnings improved post‑Vista, but UX coherence and respect for power users have declined.