Windows 2000 was clearly the peak in this article, and (as a whole system) it did feel like it at the time. (I do wish it had included ClearType though...)
I think all the icons looked great, with minor changes, until Win10's new "Settings" --- in which it looks like they just decided to throw away decades of careful design and replace them with dumbed-down flat and bland ones. All the more infuriating that new Settings is noticeably less responsive and at the same time less functional.
Seems like the beginnings of the "flat" trend was of Jonathan Ive's making -- once Steve Jobs and Scott Forstall had gone, there was nobody who would prevent it.
Same here. One thing I also felt about Windows 2000 is that it was designed for professionals. Windows XP, in my mind, made compromises to appeal to a wider swath of consumers.
On that thread torgoguys says "I see 2000s UI as being from a time when (for the most part) they weren't trying to impress you with the gloss on the UI. They were just trying to make it clear and usable. More modern iterations of Windows has some advancements in interactions but not much in the GUI controls themselves." which is such a good observation, I think it bears repeating here. (emphasis added by me)
While I agree, Id also argue virtually every posters opinion on HN about design of the Windows CP is useless. Most of us are power users and it we are not power users we are incredibly opinionated about some UX stuff.
