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

[The_Prophecy]

watered-down kid-mental-dimension, eh? I love it when people make up phrases...

"real argument" Is unnecessary. Even the kind with with facts, reason, study of human history and personal life experience. I haven't actually argued with you yet, so aren't you getting a little ahead of yourself on this one?

I have maybe had 1 or 2 original thoughts in my life time ... maybe.

This much is certainly clear.

--------------

But thank you anyway. I am already, and will continue to enjoy Windows 7. If you are REALLY that opposed to upgrading, I'm not about to waste my breath or fingers trying to make you.

 

[Scotteq]

In summary:
=================================================
I have personally gone from the Yamaha CX5M to the Apple II GS, to a 286 PC running DOS 3.3 to Windows 1.x to Mac System 7 to Windows-whatever on hardware-whatever.

XP has been in wide-spread use for about 10 years. That represents millions of man-hours (maybe 10's of millions). While people like you and me may be power-users who can pretty much adapt to anything, we are probably in the upper 10% of computer users/programmers....
=====================================================

Sir - The simple translation of your posts, the like of which we have been dealing with for the last 5~6 years, is that you are used to/like XP, and don't want to change. Period. You are being inconvenienced over having to learn something new, you don't like that, and therefore you drag out a bunch of bullet points to justify your already~made choice to do nothing. That's all. So please pardon me for jumping over the (very repetitive, very tired, very trite, and very very old) arguments to go straight to the conclusion, but we've already dealt with hundreds if not thousands of posts along these lines: We already understand there is nothing we can say that will change your mind. But if it's cathartic to dump a bunch of disjointed thoughts onto an internet forum, then so be it. Just understand that, unlike some sites, there is no dogmatic view of the world here. Individuals? Oh Yeah! But as a site? No. Not at all.

OTOH, if we seem/are dismissive... well... it's because we are. Why? Because most of us have been using the OS for some time (I started with the release candidate just over a year ago). And in the eyes of the people who actually use the OS on a daily basis, all of these terrible terrible things which are sure to ruin the IT world and flush our precious millions of man hours down Redmond's toilet amount to a bunch of whiney excuses. It's not that hard. It's not that different. It works fine. How do we know this? Why do we think this way? Because we're looking at it.

The bottom line here is "If you dont' like it, don't use it". Nobody is shoving it down your throat. And there are plenty of alternatives. Feel free to partake in your OS of choice. It's your computer. Knock yourself out. But if you're looking for a sympathetic response, I'd like to point out that there is an XP forum here, and the individuals there are much more likely to provide.




Regarding the power user argument: You appear to be forgetting that most "normal" users have very little interaction with the OS itself. They turn the computer on, start the program they want to use, and get on with their duties. I showed my 65 year old mother how to use Windows 7 in 10 minutes. She was upset that her eMail program is different (newer version), but never batted so much as an eyelash at the OS itself except to say it's pretty. It's Power Users who get upset over renamed features, or because the OS's creators saw fit to move something.

You may be a programmer, sir, but you clearly have a disconnect with the way normal people use an operating system. It is merely the means by which their programs run. That is all.

 

[KillaStone]

Well, Scott, I do agree with you on some these points.

And you're right, no one's twisting my arm to use Win 7. Or any other software product.

And I may have gotten a bit carried away.

But certain things I still disagree with you on.

There are certain conventions that people many have learned and become accustomed to and which work exceedingly well. At the risk of appearing disjointed yet again, there's such a thing as the Common User Access standard for GUIs of which Mac & Windows were early implementers. IBM Common User Access

Back in the early 90's part of my job was to support green-screen mainframe applications. Though many of these apps ran on the same piece of "big-iron", they might each implement their F-Keys differently. {F1}, as just one example, could perform a recalculation in one program while {F1} in another program might move you back to the previous screen. I had already been using both Mac & PC for a few years and I wasn't a particular fan-boy of either one. The Mac vs. PC debate raged even back then, but I appreciated them both. My point is, for both Mac & PC, {F1} firmly and reliably assigned that key to "Help." Those OSs, as well as MS Office, also implemented much of the other CUA principles. File>Exit, Edit>Copy, and on and on. To back out of a screen was usually {ESC}. Even MS-DOS apps often conformed to CUA principles. All of this convention introduced a lot of order, predictability and usability out of the chaos.

People take this kind of thing for granted these days. Open up 10 different programs on your PC (not games). If you press {ALT+F} the File menu will drop down. Magic. Back in the early days of Windows {Ctl+Insert} = Copy and {Shift+Insert} = Paste. And even though these Hot-keys have been augmented with {Ctl+C} and {Ctl+V}, the old ones still work -- 20 years on.

And .. this might sound like I'm jumping here .. but bear with me. Office 2007 is a case in point where MS Office introduced the Ribbon menu system, completely abandoning most CUA conformance. This would have been fine if MS had given legacy users the option of enabling the familiar CUA style menus. The Ribbon control was presumably the result of millions of dollars spent on usability and "discover-ability." Oddly, they left Outlook 2007 with the CUA interface (thankfully as far as I was concerned) and made the rest of Office 2007 Ribbon-based. I'm still far more efficient with 2003 than 2007. But who was in the test group, new users only? I don't know.

Interestingly, in Office 2010, the File menu is back and the round Office button is gone. I wonder why that is. Are there enough legacy users to justify moving it back? What about the people who've become used to the round Office button? I guess those people will either have to stick with 2007 or adjust to 2010.

No offense intended, but I'm not sure your mom is the best example for "normal" user. How many hours a day does she use the computer? I'm guessing a "normal" user probably spends a lot more time each day of the week interacting with his/her system, and perhaps has orders of magnitude more time invested. (I'm just guessing). And she appears to only use email or perform some other light-duty activities. I might suggest the "normal" user is someone whose livelihood depends upon his/her efficiency in the work place. And even if the "normal" user only cares about starting his/her program, the "normal" users depend upon the power users to help them out when they're in a bind.

Me, personally, I still wish the whole GUI loaded optionally like in the olden days, and that it was truly a shell. Then perhaps none of us would be having this conversation. Some 3rd party developer could sell us the XP interface, call it "OS 2000" as in "Old Skool", while all the people who love the Vista/7 interface could trot merrily along. Not like we'll get that option any time soon.

Anyhow .. enough of this .. thanks for taking the time to reply and forgive me for bordering on the impolite earlier. That was unnecessary of me. And in future, I'll try to find an appropriate thread, but in all honesty I didn't know I was bending the rules of etiquette by responding to a thread which already seemed to be going strong.

Merry Xmas to you all.

Cheers,

:~]

 

[godbrother]

I don't understand why people are bashing tucansam so bad. Just becuase he dosn't like the new interface, I don't know why people look at him as some sort of outsider. If Windows 8 came with a Dildo... Would you still buy it? No not really... You would be like WTF!?

Well in this case, the interface itself just sucks. It's like the new BMW 5 series, the ones with the rear lights that we call "Asian Eyes"... Do I have to upgrade to the new model just because its there? No I love my 2002 model, and becuase I don't like the new shapes, it dosn't mean I don't like to "adapt." Yes, the engine is updated. Yes the engine is more faster and yes, it is more Eco which helps do more MPG which is all the things I need BUT at the end of the day... It looks f-ugly.

I think this is what tucansam is trying to say, and I agree with him 100%. I'm not saying I don't want the advantages of Windows 7 because I do... All I wanna do is carry on using the same layout. I get lost in the new interface. It's like switching over from Windows to Mac for the first time... It's crazy because everything is different and you start loosing files because you have no idea how or where they are or how an earth to get to the locations.

That doesn’t make me old fashioned, or medieval. I just want simplicity. - I personally don't think the new interface Windows chose was for Power-users but more for the average Joe that wanted something that looked like the Mac OS. "hip & cool."

People that say change is good, I agree with 100%… If only it’s a change for the better. Now, I’m not hating Windows 7, I infact love it. But I just hate its design, that simple. I love moving onto new things, but why should I if it looks butt-ugly? If BMW offered its newer engines, for the older shapes, without hesitation I would order one… Why? Because I get to keep my nice looking BMW shape, but have a fully updated engine. This is what I’m trying to get at. If Micrsoft made an SP4 for XP with all the advantages of Windows 7 and even charged a fee for it, I would without a doubt purchase it.

So the sum up what I said,

Just my 2c's.

is that you are used to/like XP, and don't want to change. Period. You are being inconvenienced over having to learn something new, you don't like that,

The bottom line here is "If you dont' like it, don't use it". Nobody is shoving it down your throat.

No, I do want change. I want all the things windows 7 has, as its perfect. This is one thing you keep getting mixed up big time, you bash on about how we don't want to move on. I just don't want the interface becuase it was only designed to apeal to the average end user. ("Mac"-like design.) And yes really... Someone is shoving it down other our throats. In order to take advantage, you need to put up with the new interface. Again, the point out the things above, I'm don't have anything against Windows 7, its perfect in all ways but one. That simple.

 

[godbrother]

Somthing to point out is, there was really nothing wrong with the XP interface... Was there? I mean... Seriously think about it. It was simple, and that was good. It's not like it was ugly and hard to handle, and that I'm refusing to use somthing easier and simpler... No, its the other way around, admit that much.

 

[KillaStone]

Somthing to point out is, there was really nothing wrong with the XP interface... Was there? I mean... Seriously think about it. It was simple, and that was good. It's not like it was ugly and hard to handle, and that I'm refusing to use somthing easier and simpler... No, its the other way around, admit that much.

Yeah God, this is all I've been saying. People have been giving me a lot of static likewise.

Two specific examples. In the Win XP explorer I had a toolbar that I customize with buttons that worked for me, like the delete X. I could scoop up 1 file or a whole lot and click the X. Now, I either have to right-click and scroll down the pop-up menu or take my hand off the mouse and hit the {DELETE} key.

And example 2: Since the Start Menu doesn't present all my programs with cascading menus (in the XP way), I find myself again leaving my mouse to the keyboard to use the wonderful new Search function in the Start Menu. Yes, the Win 7 Start Menu cascades to a degree, but it doesn't fly out and it accommodates long names by scrolling left and right.

This is a lot of unnecessary switching back and forth from the keyboard to the mouse and back.

Moving the Show Desktop to the far right with no option to simply move it next to the Start Menu, adds more inefficiency. If this is an "advanced OS", why do I have to keep adapting to it? That's not a step forward. It might be a step sideways, but not forward.

I'm just glad I don't have to use Microsoft Clutch, Microsoft Stickshift, Microsoft Brakes or Microsoft Steering Wheel in my car. I've gotten pretty used to those quaint little pieces of technology. I definitely wouldn't want to be riding Microsoft Sportbike through the canyons. And I don't think I'd ask the cops to be to adopt Microsoft Handgun 2010.

And like I said before, MSFT has come out with some great things -- I make my living developing software from MSFT products. I've been just saying that Win 7 was supposed to be a refinement of Vista and many people held off on Vista due to its many many problems. Under the hood, the functionality of NT-based Windows is still the same. Therefore accessing that functionality should not involve these kinds of unnecessary hindrances. We all have enough to do. More could have been done to accommodate the XP user and XP expert alike.

 

[sminlal]

Office 2007 is a case in point where MS Office introduced the Ribbon menu system, completely abandoning most CUA conformance.

I hear you loud and clear about this one! I've been using Office 2007 for about a year now, and I still have difficulty finding things. For example, I have to resort to using help just about every time I want to insert a field because it's hidden behind a ribbon item called "Quick Parts". And the ribbon takes up about 2-3 times more screen real estate than the old toolbars did. It's a good thing I upgraded my monitor about the same time I started using Office 2007...

Coming from XP, there are a lot of things that annoy me about Windows 7. My biggest gripe is that I can no longer create my own trees of items in the start menu by putting subfolders and shortcuts into my "Start Menu" folder. I used that very heavily in XP, and I've had to resort to using a collapsed toolbar on the start menu to simulate it.

Another one is the fact that Explorer windows no longer have the folder name in the title bar - it means I have to expose about 3X as much space between cascaded multiple Explorer windows to see what the folder names are. And Explorer no longer shows the total space of selected files in the status bar. Heaven knows why not - there's plenty of room down there now since even when set to the smallest size it still uses up 3X as much space as the old status bar. Stupid.

But there are some things I really like about Windows 7 too - the taskbar is terrific. The native support for SSDs is a must-have. Being able to pin items to the start menu and be able to directly access the recently opened documents for each one is also really nice. And there are a lot of cool new built-in utilities such as the resource monitor and the snipping tool.

All in all I'm satisfied with Windows 7. In general, I prefer substance over style, and much of Windows 7 is style - but there's enough function in there to make me happy.

 

[Zoron]

Another one is the fact that Explorer windows no longer have the folder name in the title bar - it means I have to expose about 3X as much space between cascaded multiple Explorer windows to see what the folder names are. And Explorer no longer shows the total space of selected files in the status bar. Heaven knows why not - there's plenty of room down there now since even when set to the smallest size it still uses up 3X as much space as the old status bar. Stupid.

You can still use this feature if you enable the Classic theme.

I've been using computers since the DOS days. I used Windows XP since the second release candidate, so I was also quite used to it. Do I miss it? No. Doesn't necessarily mean I think it was bad... I just prefer the newer interface. Nor am I saying that everyone should absolutely love the new interface... I know that there are a few people that hate change... whether it be for the better or worse.

Like death and taxes, however.... change is inevitable. Everything constantly changes; nothing ever remains constant. People have struggled with change since the beginning of time. You can complain until you're blue in the face, but you'll never be able to stop it.

 

[lucuis]

I love the whole spiel about the qwerty keyboard. I swapped me keyboard layout a little over a month ago to Dvorak. It's been an interesting learning experience. Anyone with a spare keyboard should try it for a day or two, gag your friends

As for the windows 7 thing...if everyone put the amount of effort they have done complaining about it into using it, chances are you wouldn't have a problem. Except, maybe, the fact there would be no 'fun' threads on this topic

 

[sminlal]

> You can still use this feature if you enable the Classic theme.
Unfortunately that turns a lot of the toolbar features that I like.

> I know that there are a few people that hate change... whether it be for the better or worse.
I accept change - but I hate change for the worse, as in when they remove functionality (using the Start Menu folder for customization) or use up more screen real estate to do the same thing (Explorer title bar and status bar).

 

[godbrother]

I do actually have a question about XP. Does anyone here ACTUALLY use XP64? If so, what is all the talk about driver support? By drivers... What type of drivers are we talking here?

Just something I'm curious about.

 

[sminlal]

I don't have XP64, but what I've heard is that because a lot less people use XP64 than 64-bit Vista or Win7 (because it was released in the days when a lot fewer people had 4GB+ of memory) there are a lot fewer drivers available for it. By "drivers", I mean the special software that's required to run add-on hardware like video cards, scanners, network adapters, etc.

Today the adoption rate for 64-bit systems is very high, and so hardware manufacturers that don't release 64-bit drivers are basically cutting themselves out of a sizable piece of the market.

 

[Biglet]

I'm new here but it sums it up I'm here because I'm stuck with a problem on Win7 and don't even know where to look to fix it.

Stop and think for a moment - what is a GUI-driven OS in the first place? Why is Windows so popular?

The primary reason is you only have to learn Windows, then all your software works the same way, near enough. F1 for help, little X in the corner to close it, scroll bars, all that. Stuff we become familar with, making it vastly easier to use various software apps.

So yes, investing time in learning the OS is worthwhile - but that does indeed make it all the more infuriating when MS goes and alters stuff. The basics still work - a scroll bar is still a scroll bar for example, yet in many respects they've moved some of the most useful bits to... lord knows where.

I like my mouse clicks slow for example, so tried to adjust my mouse. Easy, control panel... WTF?

OK... hardware.. "View devices and printers". Right.. Aha, there's my mouse.. "General/Hardware". Buggery.

Nothing under "General". Hardware? Well it's got 'properties'... Aha! "Change settings".

"General/Driver/Details/Power Management"

So where TF is a simple means of adjusting the double-click speed?

Now if you were to ask me how you do it in XP I dunno, jus' go to control panel, click on the mouse, poke about a bit and adjust, without having to think.

By sheer chance I ran a search of some kind, somewhere, where finally the option appeared, and have since managed to adjust it. However when you have to run a search to find what should be a basic adjustment, that's no improvement.

The main reason I'm replying though is to defend the op and chastise some of you peeps. Reading all the "you must be like this stereotype.." stuff was quite disgusting.

I've been using PCs since Win 3.11, Win95 was a dog. Win98 was a big improvement, Win XP was basically 98 but prettier and more stable. Than came another dog, Vista.

I figured Win 7 was to vista was 98 was to 95, ie what it was meant to be. I bypassed Vista altogether and specified my last 2 new PCs as XP. Screw Vista.

Finally, have taken the plunge with Win 7.

Is it an improvement? Maybe, some of the features may grow on me - but why on Earth change such basics as 'Control Panel'?

One thing I've learnt since my old 'DX2' and Win 3.11 - every time PCs get a major boost in performance, the operating system gets do damn bloated you don't see any improvement whatoever. Just prettier.

From booting up to shutting down, opening a Word file or anything else, is no faster on this i5 quad core with gigabytes of RAM, than is the old Win98 thing I gave my mother, which is still working. In fact for some things it's slower.

What would be nice would be if they just made XP faster and more stable, instead of adding ever more bloat and utterly wasting the extra memory and power.

No, the OP is NOT alone, in feeling they're going backwards with this OS.

More to the point, why leap on the poor guy like he's some kind of heretic?

 

[The_Prophecy]

Ok... time to close this one out. I think we've all beat this horse enough to kill it twice.