Make Win 7 look/act like 2k/XP?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
Is there any way to make Windows 7 look and behave like Win2k/XP? I don't like the new interface, and I don't need all of the gee-whiz-bang stuff it does with the taskbar, pinning windows, blah blah. I want the OS for its 64-bit-ness and other refinements, but I want the GUI of my 2k and XP workstations....

Thanks.
 

daship

Distinguished
Tough Luck. Time to move on and forget anything XP.

If you want XP use XP, if not spend a day or to getting used to a better OS.

If you woulda tried Vista you would already be used to 7.
 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
Just don't see the need for changing the way the user interacts with the computer every single freakin time there's a new version of the OS. Have tried Vista, hate it with a passion.

If I have to re-learn the whole OS anyway, I'll go with Debian.
 

daship

Distinguished
Well if you hate Vista you will hate 7. Same thing with a couple tweaks.

Its not like you got to relearn anything. Its basically the same thing with a flashier gui.
 

lucuis

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2008
1,048
0
19,310
CA
It is possible to make the new W7 taskbar behave like the one in vista or xp by doing the following.

1. Right-Click on the taskbar and select properties
2. Check the "Use small icons" box
3. In the "Taskbar Buttons" drop-down menu, select "Never Combine" and hit "OK"
4. Remove all of your pinned programs
5. Drag and drop the hidden system tray icons to the taskbar
6. Enjoy!

For the Quick Launch Bar.
http://mintywhite.com/tech/windows-7/windows-seven-7-restore-quick-launch-toolbar/

I haven't really found a way to make it look like XP, or 100% behave like it, but you can make it look like 98.
Right click on your desktop and click "Personalize." Then scroll down until you see windows classic theme. Click on that.

Everything other then the taskbar and the quicklaunch bar will still behave like windows 7.
 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
LOL. I despise flash. I've spent the last 9 years using Win2k's interface, and I'm used to it and efficient with it. If i have to learn Vista/7's interface, although it looks the same, from what I've seen when using it, its a far cry from the "old" and rickety Win2k/XP interface. I won't be nearly as efficient as I am now, and increasing my efficiency is the whole point of me upgrading hardware.

At this point I'd be better off with XP 64 since I need the RAM, and not much else.

I guess eye candy is important in the I-Phone age, but I prefer something a little lower-speed and not quite as bloated.
 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
Some of that customization actually worked, thanks. What I have a lot of trouble with is file management, I'm used to seeing all of my drives in a nice tree, nothing's really changed since the beta days of WinNT, and now I can't even see those. I right click Start expecting an "explore" option, and instead I get "Open Windows Explorer" which is some kind of evil abomination of a file manager, and now I can't find anything.

I see the C: drive icon and can start to tunnel down the file tree like in days of old, but holy crap, Favorites, Libraries, Homegroup, and a bunch of other useless crap is in there too, with about 3/4" of white space all around it, what a bloated waste of space!!! Gimme back the old explorer.exe interface, I couldn't change skins or make it neon or any other fancy crap, but it damn sure had simplicity!
 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
LOL!!!!!!!!!! I left a 12-year career in a "rapidly changing technology sector" and now work in an industry that is as different from IT/engineering as you can possibly get without moving to the moon.
 

lucuis

Distinguished
Apr 21, 2008
1,048
0
19,310
CA


Yeah i know i'm not a fan of the extra favorites, and library folder...i don't use them. And i'm not sure if they can be removed. I've chose to ignore them for now.
 

croc

Distinguished
Sep 14, 2005
3,028
0
20,810
US


Go live with the Amish for a year or two... Learn a REAL trade, like farming with a horse-drawn plow, harvesting by hand. In your spare time, learn to make candles. Keep your axe sharp, a dull axe blade will glance off and do your leg some serious damage.

Or, just learn to cope with Win 7... And fix your A/C.
 
I sure hear you 'bro. That's exactly the same as my reaction. But it seems that there isn't very much we can do about it.

I've spent the last few weeks using Windows 7, and I like the new task bar, dislike the new Start Menu, and have come to the conclusion that for my style of use the whole "Libraries" thing is a lot more trouble than it's worth. It's kind of like "Search" - Microsoft keeps boasting about improvements that I never use.

I used to have a very nice customized menu tree which I created by putting a hierarchy of folders and shortcuts into the "Start Menu" folder. Unfortunately, the "Start Menu" folder doesn't do anything any more, at least not that I've been able to ascertain. So I've created the equivalent folder/shortcut tree and added it as a taskbar. That seems to work well enough.

In my XP System I moved my "My Documents" folder onto the D: drive. That still left a lot of Windows-managed files on the OS drive under "Documents and Settings" folder which I could pretty much ignore. I've decided to take the same tack with Windows 7. I've created a separate root folder on my D: drive and I store all my stuff in there. I've created shortcuts to that from the "real" My Documents folder so that I can easily get to my stuff from all of the standard dialogue boxes. I'm not 100% sure that this is the right way to go yet, but it's nice to have all that unwanted cr*p out of the way and to have the files I can see in the explorer window match the files I can see at the command line.
 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
Thanks for all the replies guys. I would stay with 2K/XP except that I plan on running 12GB RAM and want to use an i7, and from what I understand, the newer OS's are better at handling the multiple cores and additional memory (certainly the 32-bit limit -- if 64-bit XP didn't get such poor reviews, I'd be considering it over everything else).


Certainly I'm not shunning progress, nor do I churn butter on the weekends in an electricity-deprived village in the woods. I've just become continually frustrated with interfaces that fundamentally change the way I interact with the computer, that's all. I shouldn't have to learn a new GUI every XX number of years. You call it progress, fine. If you've happy with the new gee/whiz/flash/bang aspects of Win7, more power to you.

I may be old fashioned (hell, I don't even have LED fans in my case or a touch screen on my cell phone, oh the calamity) but I don't look forward to changing the way I interface with my PC just because I want to upgrade to software that lets me use the latest hardware.

And I guarantee you I'm not alone in my opinion :)
 

belial2k

Distinguished
Feb 16, 2009
1,043
0
19,310
change is evil and comes from the devil. Whats with this crazy rock and roll the kids are listening to? Oh, the kids today, with the hair and the clothes!!! ...and don't get me started on that BLACK president! The very fact that you've used a magic box is an abomination. Don't make it worse by learning to use a new version of the magic box. God will smite you for sure.
 

xaira

Distinguished
yet the network the magic box uses is used more heavily than any other form of communication for the word of god to be spread, embrace the magic box, it is your friend, and if you dont want to then just die and go to heaven then ull learn that heaven is actually a computer program runing on windows xp with an i7 and 24gb of ram and that hell is a program running on windows vista ultimate running on a pentium 2 wtih 96 mb of 66mhz sdram, 32 mb in each of the 3 sd ram slots
 

mickeypowelll

Distinguished
Aug 3, 2009
11
0
18,510


why the hell would u wanna do that w7 looks amazing

can't wait till games come out using DX 11

anyways also you can make them compaitable by going into the properties of a shortcut or the exe and run it in compaitability mode of xp
 


May I suggest Windows Server 2003, then. It can be made to handle that amount of memory, it looks like XP, and isn't XP64.



Otherwise?? Well.. Although you can set the GUI to Classic mode, or make a skin and have it look like you want it to... The paths you use to navigate around in XP are different in 7 - not completely, but still different enough. And without deeper technical knowledge, you will not be able to redesign the file hierarchy to make the OS be what you want it to be. I doubt you'd be able to do that in 32 bit, and wouldn't even think about trying that in 64. There are a second set of libraries used by WOW (not the game: "Windows on Windows") to run 32 bit programs natively. So I would strongly recommend against moving things around unless you are sure of what you're doing, and have all of the pointers straight.

Not a dig against you, and please understand that I'm not taking a shot. But rather than tapdance around the point I'll just say it bluntly: Since there is a (real or perceived) "need" to go 64 bit, just order a Windows 7 book or two from Amazon once they're available, put your "new OS" learning cap on, and get on with it for what it is.


 

tucansam

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2009
63
0
18,630
Windows 7/Aero/whatever "looking amazing" has little to do with my overall computing experience. I haven't seen my desktop wallpaper in six months. My taskbar is run on the right-hand side of the screen, resized so that only the "Start" icon is visible (no text), and right now there are 46 icons on it showing running programs. I like things simple, tight, and out of the way. Wasted screen real estate ranks up there with child molsters on the "things that piss me off" list. Aero may look cool, but like I said, the gee-whiz-bang stuff isn't for me. My Solaris desktops run xfce, nice and lightweight, super fast, no frills. All I'm saying is that, after nine years of use, I've got XP dialed back to where I want it, efficiency-wise, and now I've got to start all over again because every time Microsoft releases a new version of windows, the fundamental interactivity with the system changes 180 degrees.

Thanks for the suggestions of 2003 server and XP64. Will 2003 server handle the multiple cores like Vista/Win7 will? And I've heard bad things, overall, about XP64, mostly that its a kludge at best.
 

N@n0

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
112
0
18,690
2003 server will do fine with multiple cores.

Just adding something interesting, I have a IPCop box with WUC, server 2003 x64 and XP64 uses the same updates, so that could be a reason why all the "Bad reviews" are there, simple compatibility issues, I know some applications are just not compatible with windows server.

As for the whole "im more efficient with 2k/xp", been using Vista for almost a year now, and W7 for 3 months, when you get used to it, you'll be way more efficient, and i say this because i hated Vista in the begining.

The file structure isnt that hard to figure out and to change, granted took me an hour the first time, now it takes less than 10 min to get it the way I like it.

I do use the new GUI cause classic view takes away the start and type, the search is awesum, press start and type what you want and it gives it to you almost instantly, Super caching is great too, just be patient the first 2 days. Give the OS time to learn you.

Just my 2 cents worth...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS