>The strangest thing about this is in the system configuration dialogs where they have a set of really gee whizzy modern configuration screens but you still have to go into 15 year old screens to do many common tasks
I much prefer the older screens. They are so much easier to use.
>Okay, you might argue that in earlier decades programmers also tended to have an understanding of hardware circuit design and how a CPU and memory etc. works in terms of logical gates and clocks
Lmao. Nice roast but I'm not sure I'd get a Cybertruck even if I could afford one. It's sorta cool in its own way though. I respect the Cybertruck. #CybertrucksDeserveRespect
Edit: I mean that it's cool in how it looks but yeah I would never buy Tesla because the products seem unreliable and dangerous as hell
The thing is that you were complaining about SeaMonkey due to how it looks, even though the way it looks is generally associated with an era of software design which expected much higher degree of reliability and user control than is common for "modern" software.
I don't think that's a purely contingent association, either: with software, how the UI looks and how the functionality works are deeply intertwined, and I think there may be a more direct correlation between "modern" software being unreliable, unconfigurable, and insecure, and it having haphazard UI designs that lack underlying organizing principles or adherence to well-established conventions.
So your original complaint seems to imply almost the opposite of what you are saying here -- that superficial aesthetics are more important to you, even to the point where you'd accept poor functionality and user-hostile anti-patterns as a viable tradeoff.
Im not really sure how on earth you have inferred that I think aesthetics are so important that I would compromise on functionality for that. I never said that. I am saying that both are necessary, whether you want to believe it or not. Just because you are nostalgic for the good old days where UI was more functional in your opinion, does not mean that applications have to look like they were made in 2005. What is stopping us from integrating some modern aesthetic elements into a design that is highly functional? Recognising a problem in the design of some modern apps does not necessitate us reverting to an outdated past vision. We can easily look forward and make a new alternative.
IMHO you need to step back and consider that there are more views of design, you think some newer look is "more modern" and better in itself, you say "outdated past vision". But those concepts are subjective too.
I like the Modern SeaMonkey theme. I also like the look of the classic theme (not default, but the old default, sometimes called "XPFE Classic"). Not sure if just out of nostalgia or because it looks neat to me. What I value more is that SeaMonkey's looks are customizable. I don't know if it's customizable enough to make a theme that behaves in the way you prefer, but at least there is room for customization. (I'm mentioning this because I do think this is an interesting feature to have.)
So, please consider relativizing your position, it seems you're insisting on a bias against the design just because it is not recent enough, but also wording that as an absolute.
To me that sounds like people who say some train models "look old" and "have to be replaced" just because they feature Budd-style corrugated stainless steel.
I much prefer the older screens. They are so much easier to use.