> everyone praises Windows 3.1 but to me it's just eye-searing
Windows 3.1 is better than earlier Windows, but I haven't seen a claim that it's better than Win95?
I don't really think 3.1 is eye-searing, but I think the basic design is pulled forward from 3.0 which ran on mostly any video card, but feels designed around 16 colors. Wikipedia says 3.1 requires vga, but they didn't make things pretty by default until 95.
In hindsight, I think I mixed up 3.1 and 95 (they’re both before my time). So I guess my actual controversial opinion is that I’m very glad UIs don’t look like Windows 95 anymore :-P
Of course, all this is a matter of personal preference—I just think that nostalgia plays an underappreciated role in these discussions.
Windows 3.1 is better than earlier Windows, but I haven't seen a claim that it's better than Win95?
I don't really think 3.1 is eye-searing, but I think the basic design is pulled forward from 3.0 which ran on mostly any video card, but feels designed around 16 colors. Wikipedia says 3.1 requires vga, but they didn't make things pretty by default until 95.