WB 3.x uglier than WB1.x?

[mikeymike]

I'm just wondering if I'm alone in thinking this, and perhaps it has to do with that I started on an A500 and a long time later got an A1200, but I think the default look for Workbench (say 1.2 or 1.3) looks better than WB 3.x.

For me it's the drab grey background and almost monochrome look to WB3.x by default, whereas the colour scheme picked for WB1.x looks quite cheerful.

[tone007]

The white on blue reminds me of high contast color themes for the visually impaired.

[itix]

I also like OS 1.x theme is better.

[Lockon_15]

The white on blue reminds me of high contast color themes for the visually impaired.

Yes, but that same conclusion was also valid back then in 1985.
High contrast color theme for default WB1.x setup was done intentionally, to make fonts more readable and put less stress on eye muscles.
 
Just one of nice proofs how Jay and original team were clever.
I always set my WB3.1 theme to a close match of one found in WB1.3.... that blue/white is part of original, golden era look & feel.

[whabang]

Doesn't matter if the 1.x colours were better for your eyes. They're still ugly!;)

[x303]

For me it's the drab grey background and almost monochrome look to WB3.x by default, whereas the colour scheme picked for WB1.x looks quite cheerful.

The advantage of 3.x is that you can make it as dull or as cheerfull as possible. Try that under 1.x :p

x303

[Thomas]

For me it's the drab grey background and almost monochrome look to WB3.x by default, whereas the colour scheme picked for WB1.x looks quite cheerful.

If it's only the colors, I don't see your problem. Just change them.

[Tension]

Shirley you like the look of 3.9 better than 1.x?

Interlace me till i scream.

[Karlos]

I like the WB2.x topaz 8 font when viewed in the hires non-lace modes. I wish there were an equivalent that preserved the appearence on square pixel displays

[cpfuture]

IIRC the blue and orange colour scheme of 1.x was done intentionally to look readable on the intended displays at the time, meaning televisions and monitors, both colour and black-and-white. Lots of users didn't have the luxury of a monitor back then and just used a TV set.

Personally I like both the 1.x and 2.x/3.x looks. I remember drooling over the 2.x "3D" look when I saw the first screenshots in CU Amiga and Amiga Format in the early 90's. Nowadays I tend to have a more nostalgic feeling towards the 1.x look with its cheerful colour scheme and the horizontal stripes in the bar at the top of the windows. Nostalgia...

EDIT: @Karlos, yes the 2.x Topaz font looks very nice compared to its Serif brother of 1.x. I always hated the interlaced modes. Not so much because of the flickering, but because everything looked 'squashed'.

[lsmart]

I like the WB2.x topaz 8 font when viewed in the hires non-lace modes. I wish there were an equivalent that preserved the appearence on square pixel displays

I once ran the 1.3 Topaz trough yourfonts.com to get a TrueType-Version I edited the font with fontforge to make it usable. Still it was a little funky. :afro:
However, I like the OS4 Deja-Vu font so I never tried my Retro Topaz on Workbench but I use it occasionally on Windows for source code.

http://fontforge.sourceforge.net/

http://www.yourfonts.com/

[save2600]

I'm just wondering if I'm alone in thinking this, and perhaps it has to do with that I started on an A500 and a long time later got an A1200, but I think the default look for Workbench (say 1.2 or 1.3) looks better than WB 3.x.

For me it's the drab grey background and almost monochrome look to WB3.x by default, whereas the colour scheme picked for WB1.x looks quite cheerful.

I agree for the most part that out of the box, WB1.x is nicer looking. But as others have
mentioned, you can change the colours, etc. Personally, I like the icons better also on
WB1.x. 3.1 looks and feels awfully utilitarian in comparison - but you could always change
them too I suppose.

And yes, 3.5/3.9 rocks as a desktop. My fav for sure.

Slightly off-topic, but since someone else mentioned WB2.x, I was wondering something.
I used that OS for a very brief time, but recall the stopwatch/busy pointer being animated.
Was that an add-on or a feature of the OS?

[ferix]

Well... I only want to say that I love wb 1.x looking... It's really retro

[mikeymike]

Shirley you like the look of 3.9 better than 1.x?

Interlace me till i scream.

I haven't seen >3.1 in action at all.  I've seen OS4 running for about 5 minutes in Peterborough once.

[Nostalgiac]

I'm just wondering if I'm alone in thinking this, and perhaps it has to do with that I started on an A500 and a long time later got an A1200, but I think the default look for Workbench (say 1.2 or 1.3) looks better than WB 3.x.

For me it's the drab grey background and almost monochrome look to WB3.x by default, whereas the colour scheme picked for WB1.x looks quite cheerful.

weirdos have a right to life as well ;-)

Tom UK