What's this obsession with "classic" Windows?

[Harley Duke]

I picked up Vista, and was discouraged to see that thanks to all the flashy window borders and fading/disappearing windows when I scroll over anything, and also that damned sidebar that I can't for the life of me find a good reason to use, the system idle process took up 2 gigs of RAM. In order to just sit there and do literally nothing, my computer needed to use that much memory simply because it needed to look really, really pretty while it was doing so.

So, I head to the ol' control panel, turn off User Account Control settings (HA! Eat shit, Vista!), crank all the dials back a bit and make my interface look like Windows 98. Two more tweaks in an elevated command prompt, and my laptop is now a Vista machine that is tuned so well, I sometimes forget I'm using Vista. System idle process is down to 24 K.

Which means I can put my 4 gigs of RAM to better use, such as oh I don't know, maybe a game or two?

 

[Antari]

Especially on older systems, fancy themes used to slow things down. Habit of conserving power for where its needed. I could care less what Windows looks like as long as it works, and works within a reasonable amount of time.

 

[MikailCaboose]

I just don't like rounded designs that much. If I could have a half-way between the two (i.e XP), then I would use that. But I usually end up going to 2000 simply because I just like the simple view.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Also wtf, why the hell can't I get a "classic" view for the control panel? The only option is limited categories or alphabetical rows? Fuck Microsoft up the keister for trying to ruin my OS experience.

Just change the setting on that one from "Categories" to "Large Icons," which looks exactly like the control panel always has. If I remember correctly, you had to make the same sort of change to get it to look like that in XP, so that at least isn't really a new problem. Otherwise, yes, in a user interface, function is much more important than form. If a developer can make it look nice without impairing functionality, more power to them, but pretty menus, more often than not, make for a bad user experience. That said, I like 7 a lot, it's the best OS Microsoft has put out since Windows 95 -- which whatever else you may say about it, was perfectly suited to the sorts of job it had to do back in 1995.

What part of "alphabetical rows" do you not understand? Not only is it not intuitive that the Large/Small Icons options change the layout, it is not the same as classic view. In XP you usually had to click Classic View from the info pane, but at least it was still there.

If the user interface is so annoying, I don't see what makes Win7 so great other than letting me use DirectX 10/11, which is the main reason for Microsoft doing that shit in the first place.

Okay, I'm really not sure where you're coming from on the whole classic view thing. I just compared XP in classic view to 7 on Large Icons, and the only difference that I could tell is 7 has about twice as many icons -- which is a result of the OS having new features, not a result of the control panel being messed up. As for the annoying interface, the basic OS stuff in 7 is pretty much XP with a new coat of paint; the only confusing thing is the change from a start button to a windows icon. The problems with Word 2007 exist no matter what OS you use -- 7 is a definite example of making the interface look good without impairing functionality.

As for why you should upgrade: I'm not going to tell you to do it, but I am going to say the important changes were all under the hood. 7 actually does a good job at managing background processes, and as a result starts up quickly and stays quick even after installing tons of programs. That's why I like 7.

 

[Korolev]

Because it uses less CPU power if you turn off the fancy settings. PC enthusiasts don't want to waste system resources making the OS appear "nice" and would rather those resources go towards something else, like a folding program.

Simply put, Aero uses up resources, turning it off frees up those resources.

 

[Fraught]

Ugh, I hate the 'it's trying too much to be a mac!' criticism.

Maybe it does. ...So? What in crickey's fuck does it matter?

Okay, this may just be my opinion that XP is ugly as sin, but...like a mac?
I mean, really?

And seriously, if you don't want any improvement on things that 'ain't broke' (aka 'working on the most basic level'), then why don't you go back a few OSs before XP, then?

 

[Macgyvercas]

I avoided Vista and stuck with XP until I could afford a new PC. Now I have 7 and freaking love it.

 

[Judgement101]

Ugh, I hate the 'it's trying too much to be a mac!' criticism.

Maybe it does. ...So? What in crickey's fuck does it matter?

Okay, this may just be my opinion that XP is ugly as sin, but...like a mac?
I mean, really?

And seriously, if you don't want any improvement on things that 'ain't broke' (aka 'working on the most basic level'), then why don't you go back a few OSs before XP, then?

I hate when people say that also, seriously Mac owners, if that is the way it is then we basically just payed $500 less for a computer that has more games and a friendlier set up then your over priced Macs

 

[FallenTraveler]

I have 7, and it's awesome, some minor annoyances here and there, but other than that I love it.

I guess I would like having all the features of 7, but with some of the interface from xp...

but when I really start thinking about it... its not much different except for the amount of RAM I have, only 6 gigs... but it gets me by

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Ugh, I hate the 'it's trying too much to be a mac!' criticism.

Maybe it does. ...So? What in crickey's fuck does it matter?

Because if I wanted a Mac I would have bought a Mac...

 

[Brandon237]

XP is awesome.

Period.

Also, people who know one system are typically loathe to change.

Yes and yes.

With XP it is like I have an extra gig of ram just floating around, with simpler hardware I can run the same stuff because my OS doesn't chow my power!

And trying to use 7 on other computers does not work for me...

 

[mew4ever23]

I also do not wish to derail your point, but Vista was garbage. And the OS sticker? You realize that it's just a sticker, and in the grand scheme of things means absolutely nothing. My laptop has a sticker for the OS I abandoned when 7 launched, Vista. Most businesses look at the sticker, and promptly put a disk to make the computer exactly what they want it to be.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

They're not upgrading because there's not a good enough reason for them to upgrade to the new OS when all it has to offer is drivers they can get for XP anyway and pointless bells and whistles that tries to pass itself off as a Mac.

That's right, ignore the jump in system requirements. You need to understand that a fair number of PCs that currently run XP, do so because they can't handle Windows 7.

The fact is that some most shoppers are dumb enough to take form over function, which leads them ignore the features of Windows and pick a Mac because they like the look of the Mac desktop. This is why Microsoft is changing each version of Windows to have a more user friendly interface.

 

[WOPR]

I remember when Vista and 7 came out, many were complaining how they hated the look of it and wish they could opt for a W2k look.

I've also seen many businesses (such as schools, post offices, and grocery stores) with brand new computer decorated with a "Windows Vista/7" sticker, yet the OS itself looks at least a decade old.

Why would you want your brand new something to look like that old something you have marked for $5 or best offer at a garage sale? I don't get it. When 2000 hit, were people trying to make their technology look like 1990?

For me, I could care less. Yes I have XP but the reason is, well- it's not broken, so why should I upgrade?

Plus I don't want to screw up and have to reinstall everything. *shrugs*

But I kinda liked vista when I tried it on my friends computer; I liked XP better (because of vista constantly trying to erase my memory stick)

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

The reason we never upgraded is that we like the layout of XP and are used to it.

If we ever feel 7 is good enough to upgrade to, we will.

 

[Wicky_42]

I love 7. Step forward in every way, really. It took a little adjustment, but I like libraries now, and particularly like the rationalisation of the taskbar.

Despise 98's interface, can't understand why people keep using that skin. Of course, everyone gets their own aesthetic choices.

 

[Fraught]

Ugh, I hate the 'it's trying too much to be a mac!' criticism.

Maybe it does. ...So? What in crickey's fuck does it matter?

Because if I wanted a Mac I would have bought a Mac...

Heh, you're not helping, really.

Why would you? They're much more expensive and they can't play many games.

And thinking about it, I don't really understand in what ways is it similar to a Mac, besides maybe "being over-stylized" (and the word 'over' here is unneccessary anyway).

 

[omega 616]

I know how to use XP a damn site better than 7, it has all these beeps going off at me and I don't know how to turn them off, I hate the start menu of 7 (much prefer the classic, the onle XP let you choose), it takes my computer twice aslong to load up and shut down with 7 than XP, I only had to click the tab on the toolbar next to windows button on XP, on 7 I have to click the tab on the tool bar then click the tab I want to open.

Everything is just so damn complicated on 7 and takes longer to work than XP.

 

[Daffy F]

I remember when Vista and 7 came out, many were complaining how they hated the look of it and wish they could opt for a W2k look.

I've also seen many businesses (such as schools, post offices, and grocery stores) with brand new computer decorated with a "Windows Vista/7" sticker, yet the OS itself looks at least a decade old.

Why would you want your brand new something to look like that old something you have marked for $5 or best offer at a garage sale? I don't get it. When 2000 hit, were people trying to make their technology look like 1990?

Thing is, for a long while windows has looked this way. I know it did from windows 95-XP (Possibly even before that, correct me if I'm wrong) it's looked similar if not the same. Personally, I like square edges on my computer, which is why I use windows XP. It's an aesthetic thing, and I don't really know why you're complaining. If you like it, you like it. If you don't, you don't. Simple.

 

[Dexiro]

Well XP is cheaper and doesn't have too many bells and whistles taking up all your ram. Not to mention a lot of people are just more used to the interface of XP and don't want to go through the fuss of learning their way around another OS.