Making XP desktop look like Win98
in [Windows XP]
|
From: glee on 7 Jun 2010 22:49 "dadiOH" <dadiOH(a)invalid.com> wrote in message news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > jerome.hill(a)nospam.com wrote: >> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it >> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I >> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep >> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old >> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to >> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers. >> >> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP >> look >> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new >> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that >> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always >> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not >> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required >> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus >> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that >> junk. >> >> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98? >> >> Thanks >> >> Jerome > > Display Properties > Appearance tab > Windows and buttons > Select "Windows Classic Style" > > Right click the taskbar > Properties > Start Menu tab > Check "Classic Start menu" > > Those will clean it up pretty well. I would add one more: Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI for XP from the package. Install and then run TweakUI. Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search in Explorer" and select it. Click Apply> OK. That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the simpler Win2K search window. Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx This and other tips can be found here: http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm -- Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 A+ http://dts-l.net/
From: dadiOH on 8 Jun 2010 10:27 Robert Macy wrote: > On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Robert Macy wrote: >> >>> Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me. >> >> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many >> benefits, none the least of which is that it is impossible for an >> ill-behaved program to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive >> multi-tasking. It is impossible for one application program to lock >> down a machine completely. A more robust file system that is less >> prone to error (NTFS), virtually unlimited memory space, and >> hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR superior to Win98 in >> almost every category. >> > > 4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to > what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1 > minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it > immediately, those kinds of things, what I see. That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your FUBARed install of it. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
From: thanatoid on 8 Jun 2010 14:13 "dadiOH" <dadiOH(a)invalid.com> wrote in news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your > FUBARed install of it. While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed, ever). It boots in 35 seconds. I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc., disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not. During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it. Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it. Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW. -- Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite; in so far, I mean, as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas most people deserve none at all; and again in so far as it demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people, when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them. - Arthur Schopenhauer
From: Tim Meddick on 8 Jun 2010 15:08 The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the need to download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the link below : Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below : http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/c/a/fca6767b-9ed9-45a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe == Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) "glee" <glee29(a)spamindspring.com> wrote in message news:hukb48$pid$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > "dadiOH" <dadiOH(a)invalid.com> wrote in message > news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> jerome.hill(a)nospam.com wrote: >>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it >>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I >>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep >>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old >>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to >>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers. >>> >>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP look >>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new >>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that >>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always >>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not >>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required >>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus >>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that >>> junk. >>> >>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Jerome >> >> Display Properties >> Appearance tab >> Windows and buttons >> Select "Windows Classic Style" >> >> Right click the taskbar >> Properties >> Start Menu tab >> Check "Classic Start menu" >> >> Those will clean it up pretty well. > > > I would add one more: > Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI > for XP from the package. > Install and then run TweakUI. > Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search > in Explorer" and select it. > Click Apply> OK. > > That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the > simpler Win2K search window. > > Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx > > This and other tips can be found here: > http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm > > -- > Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009 > A+ > http://dts-l.net/ >
From: dadiOH on 8 Jun 2010 17:04
thanatoid wrote: > "dadiOH" <dadiOH(a)invalid.com> wrote in > news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > >> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your >> FUBARed install of it. > > While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited > experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with > 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or > XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than > 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed, > ever). It boots in 35 seconds. > > I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it > takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and > "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc., > disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the > identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they > should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did > not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not. > During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the > IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it. > > Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since > it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some > programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not > connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean > install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it. > > Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not > sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and > complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW. My comment was directed at the OP's complaint that even simple programs took a minute to start. That slow starting time isn't a characteristic of XP itself, just of the OP's install of XP and/or the particular program(s). As far as boot time goes, that also depends a lot on what is installed. I have two XP installs, each on a different physical drive; the one normally used - numerous programs installed - takes maybe 45 seconds to boot but once the desktop appears it continues to grind the HD for about the same period. The second XP install has very few programs on it, mostly for fixing purposes; it will boot in maybe 25 seconds or less and is pretty much finished when the desktop appears. The windows directory for the main XP is 1.96 GB; for the #2 XP it is 1.06 GB. So why is #1 so much slower to boot? No idea. Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of computer literacy. If they actually had to understand anything, how many computers do you think would be sold? And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced operating systems. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico |