Windows XP (and Vista) shiney look and feel

I was tempted to moderatly hijack the Windows Vista thread but decided that this topic was different enough to warrant its own thread.

I noticed at least one person comment that they hated the WinXP default. e.g. The rounded windows, cartoony schemes and animated menus and whatnot.

I hate it too. I hate it a lot. Having just recently reformatted from XP Home to a clean install of XP Pro, the very first thing I did was turn off all the irritating fading menus, default start menu, and other pointless pyrotechnics. I rate this more important than such things as installing a sound driver, a real internet browser, or even *gasp* my compiler.

So my question; Who actually enjoys this cartoon style interface? And if so, why? I find the default start menu to be so horribly cluttered and poorly organised that its difficult to navigate. I find applications using the default themed concept of rounded buttons, graphics, etc, and faded doodads, to be harder to intuitivly use. The classic "theme" may be less pretty, but I find them far far easier to interface with visually.

As a side discussion; Its too bad about basically every feature I was looking forward too in Vista being cut out. Looks like I'll have to wait till 2012 for Blackcomb. Especially sad since I've been so consitantly impressed by XP... Aside from a few bumps, such as my recent clean install seems to have done something rather horrible with some of the files on my secondary data HD. They're still there, but some are randomly corrupted in some way.

If I ever get XP or Vista that new GUI is going. We have to use it at school and it is horrible. The machines are slow enough without that crap added on.

It's nice for a personal computer. I think it makes it very easy to use for simple tasks, but if I'm doing any serious computing I'll take the extra power.

I have to say that, honestly, Vista's interface looks like windows XP with StyleXP added on to it (StyleXP being software you can use to customize the interface). I really don't understand how or why it's taking them so long to design a duplicate of windows when it's just a few different graphics.

*double sigh*

Another thing though, if they truly are reworking the code from scratch...isn't that just going to introduce more problems than it fixes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jverkoey

I have to say that, honestly, Vista's interface looks like windows XP with StyleXP added on to it (...). I really don't understand how or why it's taking them so long to design a duplicate of windows when it's just a few different graphics.

---

I was wondering that myself. Especially since there apear to be essentially no new features. What exactly has been going on in the OS department of MS since XP was released? Why do we have to wait almost ten years between new features? (From XP to Blackcomb.)

Although I am rather curious what DX10 will bring us. Since the development of Vista is so closely integrated with the development of DX, I forsee some useful advances in that area.

P.S. With my new format of XP, I've installed Netscape 8 (Firefox) instead of Mozilla. Takes a little getting used to but the options for customization alone make it far more agreable. I'm very pleased so far. Just wish I could get the search bar off of my "Navigation Toolbar" and the "Close Tab" button off each tab and a single one back on the far right of the toolbar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jverkoey

Another thing though, if they truly are reworking the code from scratch...isn't that just going to introduce more problems than it fixes?

---

I think it will too, but it's what you'd expect.
I think we should start a poll: How many service packs do you think Vista will reach? :D

I like XP's blue theme.

I use windows classic with high contrast white. Q: Does the XP interface really slow down the computer at all? From a programming aspect, I can't see why it would have any difference at all, and if it did, it would be negligible.

You're going to get a biased result since programmers generally prefer functionality to looks.

I actually like the default style a lot better than the classic look. I've been working at the community college here this summer, so I work on computers that have both styles, and I really don't mind working on either, but I think that the default just looks better. (and actually, most of the computers are set up with the classic look)

For the control panel, though, classic is definitely better. Having ten categories only makes it more difficult to find what you want.

Edit: On a side note, it's pretty dumb that there's only 3 XP themes (or is this only on Home edition?) With all the graphical stuff you should be able to customize it a lot more

I was another that turned all the gimmicks off as soon as I installed XP. I run with the classic windows shape using the "Desert" colour scheme as I find it less contrasty which tends to make my eyes ache.

I'm a fan of the curved edges and "cartoony" feel. Using the classic look makes me feel like I'm using 98, and I'm happy for a change. Granted, I turned off the animation in the menus, but I think the look is fine. I also love the XP start menu. You can do SO much more with it than the classic POS.

And honestly, if you really think turning the extra stuff off gives you a boost, you should consider upgrading some hardware.

I run with the XP Silver style, but I've turned the control panel and start menu things back to their old styles. I knew where everything was before, and I don't feel like searching for i again.

Oh, I guess I should add that I did revert back to the old control panel. The new one is just %*&^ing stupid.

EVERYTHING get's turned back to old school(win2k) style... i aint no fairy...

Yeah, because leaving the default automatically makes you gay and turns your boxers into tutus.

:rolleyes: x 4 bajillion

yep... that's exactly what happened to a friend of mine... he is like super gay now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

You're going to get a biased result since programmers generally prefer functionality to looks.

---

I cannot see how the blue theme would be any less functional than 2000's theme. It is only a matter of looks, not looks vs. functionality.

The functionality I refer to comes from the blended/smoothed look of the interface. Although an older application is "uglier", it is usually immediately obvious which parts of the window you can interface with (i.e. click, drag, whatever). I can't find a better word than blended to describe the GUI of many new applications. Somethings that appear to be buttons are actually sprites, and vice versa. Its minor, buts its still an annoyance that I don't need.

And I never mentioned anything about system performance in relation to the animated features, I merely meant that even waiting 1/2 second for my menu to fade in is precisely one half second longer than it should take. My menus used to take 1/2 second to "fade in" on my 286 laptop running Windows 3.1. And I'll just clarify that I don't feel a single bit of nostalgia on that aspect of those days gone by. :)

As far as default theme go (someone asked), XP Pro has only 3, same as the Home version.

Everyone is talking about 2000's theme. I've just realised that I've never even sat at a 2000 box once. I jumped straight from 98 to XP seeing as how I disdained everything ME and 2000 had to offer. I'm assuming it had the same style as 98 then?

Quote:

---

Yeah, because leaving the default automatically makes you gay and turns your boxers into tutus.

---

I hate when that happens. It's sooo hard to explain to the girlfriend.

Quote:

---

I was another that turned all the gimmicks off as soon as I installed XP. I run with the classic windows shape using the "Desert" colour scheme as I find it less contrasty which tends to make my eyes ache.

---

I should try that as I do occasionally have the same problem. The biggest relief for me was switching my monitor to an LCD screen. So much nicer on the eyes, I'll never ever go back to anything else.

I'll have to admit I use XP's default theme. No classic look here. Reminds me too much of those dreaded BSOD's. :mad:

I use XP's theme with the silver instead of blue, I hate the classic theme.

Surprisingly, the XP theme isn't as slow as I thought it would be. I find it quite nice compared to the Classic look, now that I can use it at a responsive rate.

I got Beta 1 for Vista in the mail the other day :)

Wow lucky (not that you got Vista, but that you can run it). You must write a review for it :)

vista is a lot more than just a new interface, but they surely haven't done a lot of work on the microkernel.

I can't stand the windows xp look, I patch my uxtheme and use neotheme to install new themes. Before I did that though, I always used 2k style, the xp stuff just looks really, really stupid. I also turn off all the extra junk on the left side such as create new folder etc. Gives me more room for useful info like timestamp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sang-drax

I cannot see how the blue theme would be any less functional than 2000's theme. It is only a matter of looks, not looks vs. functionality.

---

Well the blue theme requires for the themes service to be running. I don't know about you but I'm not a fan of unecessary background processes.