Pros of 98.css

• Focused solely on CSS styling, making it more lightweight and easier to integrate into existing projects
• Provides a comprehensive set of CSS classes for recreating Windows 98 UI elements
• Well-documented with examples and usage instructions

Cons of 98.css

• Limited to static styling without interactive functionality
• Lacks a complete Windows 98-like environment or application simulation
• Requires more manual HTML structure to create complex UI layouts

Code Comparison

98.css:

.window {
  box-shadow: inset -1px -1px #0a0a0a, inset 1px 1px #dfdfdf, inset -2px -2px grey, inset 2px 2px #fff;
  background: silver;
  padding: 3px;
}

98:

function paintDesktop() {
  const canvas = document.createElement("canvas");
  const ctx = canvas.getContext("2d");
  // ... (code to draw desktop background)
  document.body.appendChild(canvas);
}

The code snippets highlight the different approaches: 98.css focuses on pure CSS styling, while 98 uses JavaScript to create a more interactive environment.

Pros of Windows95

• Offers a complete Windows 95 experience, including the boot sequence and system utilities
• Provides cross-platform compatibility (Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Includes networking capabilities and internet access

Cons of Windows95

• Larger file size and resource requirements
• Less focus on web technologies and modern browser integration
• More complex setup process compared to 98

Code Comparison

Windows95:

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require('electron')
const path = require('path')
const url = require('url')

function createWindow () {
  win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 800, height: 600 })
  win.loadURL(url.format({
    pathname: path.join(__dirname, 'index.html'),
    protocol: 'file:',
    slashes: true
  }))
}

98:

const electron = require('electron');
const {app, BrowserWindow} = electron;
const path = require('path');

function createWindow() {
    win = new BrowserWindow({
        width: 800,
        height: 600,
        title: '98',
        icon: path.join(__dirname, 'images/icons/win98.png'),
    });
    win.loadURL(`file://${__dirname}/index.html`);
}

Both projects use Electron to create desktop applications, but Windows95 uses a more verbose URL formatting approach, while 98 uses a template literal for loading the HTML file.

Pros of winXP

• More comprehensive Windows XP experience with multiple applications and features
• Includes a functional start menu and taskbar
• Better visual fidelity to the original Windows XP interface

Cons of winXP

• Less focus on customization and extensibility
• May have higher resource requirements due to more complex interface

Code Comparison

winXP:

const StartMenu = ({ toggleStartMenu, showStartMenu }) => (
  <div className={`start-menu ${showStartMenu ? 'active' : ''}`}>
    <div className="start-menu-header">
      <img src={xpUserIcon} alt="user" className="start-menu-header__user-icon" />
      <span className="start-menu-header__user-name">User</span>
    </div>
    // ... more code
  </div>
);

98:

function Start() {
  return html`
    <button
      class="start-button"
      onmousedown=${e => e.preventDefault()}
      onclick=${() => start_menu.toggle()}
    >
      <img src="images/start.png" width="30" height="30" alt="Start">
      Start
    </button>
  `;
}

Both projects aim to recreate classic Windows experiences in the browser, with winXP focusing on a more complete Windows XP simulation, while 98 offers a simpler Windows 98-style interface with potential for customization. The code snippets show different approaches to implementing the Start menu, with winXP using React components and 98 using a custom HTML templating system.

Pros of XP.css

• Focuses specifically on Windows XP styling, providing a more authentic XP look
• Offers a wider range of XP-specific UI components and controls
• Easier to integrate into existing projects as a standalone CSS file

Cons of XP.css

• Limited to Windows XP aesthetics, less versatile for other Windows versions
• Lacks the interactive elements and JavaScript functionality found in 98
• Does not provide a full operating system simulation experience

Code Comparison

98:

.window {
  background: #c0c0c0;
  border: 1px solid #000000;
  box-shadow: inset -1px -1px #0a0a0a, inset 1px 1px #dfdfdf, inset -2px -2px grey, inset 2px 2px #fff;
}

XP.css:

.xp_dialog {
  background: #ECE9D8;
  border: 1px solid #003C74;
  box-shadow: inset 1px 1px 0 #ffffff, inset -1px -1px 0 #7f7f7f, 1px 1px 0 rgba(0,60,116,0.5);
}

Both projects aim to recreate classic Windows aesthetics, but 98 provides a more comprehensive Windows 98 experience with interactive elements and a simulated OS environment. XP.css, on the other hand, focuses solely on replicating the Windows XP visual style through CSS, making it more suitable for quickly adding XP-like UI elements to web projects without additional functionality.

Pros of awesome-web-desktops

• Comprehensive collection of web-based desktop environments
• Regularly updated with new additions
• Includes a wide variety of styles and implementations

Cons of awesome-web-desktops

• Not a functional desktop environment itself
• Lacks the depth and interactivity of a single, fully-developed project
• May include outdated or non-maintained projects

Code comparison

While a direct code comparison isn't relevant due to the nature of the projects, we can compare a typical entry in awesome-web-desktops to a component in 98:

awesome-web-desktops:

- [Windows 98 JS](https://github.com/1j01/98) - Windows 98 desktop recreation in JS/HTML.

98:

class WindowManager extends EventEmitter {
  constructor() {
    super();
    this.windows = [];
    this.focusedWindow = null;
  }
  // ... more code ...
}

The awesome-web-desktops project is a curated list, while 98 is a full implementation of a Windows 98-like environment. awesome-web-desktops serves as a directory of projects like 98, whereas 98 itself is a functional web-based desktop environment with interactive elements and a more complex codebase.

Pros of Monkeytype

• More active development with frequent updates and contributions
• Focused on a specific, popular use case (typing practice)
• Larger community and user base

Cons of Monkeytype

• Less nostalgic appeal compared to 98's Windows 98 emulation
• More complex codebase due to its extensive features
• Requires more resources to run effectively

Code Comparison

98:

function startMenu() {
  const startMenu = document.createElement("div");
  startMenu.classList.add("start-menu");
  // ... (simplified for brevity)
}

Monkeytype:

export function updateTestWords(
  testWords: string[],
  wordIndex: number
): void {
  // ... (simplified for brevity)
}

Summary

98 offers a nostalgic Windows 98 experience, while Monkeytype provides a modern typing practice tool. 98 has a simpler codebase focused on emulation, whereas Monkeytype has a more complex structure supporting various typing test features. Both projects serve different purposes and cater to distinct user preferences.