Transform Windows Vista into Windows VXP — the hybrid
-
I happen to like Vista over XP but I know that some of you prefer XP. Here is an article that will help you dumb down Vista so you can have a reasonable facsimile of XP. Transform Windows Vista into Windows VXP — the hybrid[^]
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesI was hoping to get the XP theme. It's much better than Aero.
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. - Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes)(The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes, p105-3)
-
I was hoping to get the XP theme. It's much better than Aero.
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. - Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes)(The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes, p105-3)
The Dogcow Farmer wrote:
I was hoping to get the XP theme. It's much better than Aero.
then you wouldn't be interested in this[^] ;P
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
can we choose? or is the choice an illusion? over time hardware manufacturers have stopped making XP drivers. The same "bug" as Vista when it is released is now a "bug" of XP currently! Since Vista is now faster than XP in most situations, and more secure, XP is already "buggy". Oh sure, we have a choice. We can choose Windows 98 and DOS if you want. Microsoft has stopped supporting them, and industry has stopped supporting them because they are much older and harder to support. Windows 7 is not a variant of XP, it is a variant of Vista. It uses Vista kernel, and Vista drivers, for a reason.... XP is now buggier than Vista because XP is no longer supported as "well" as Vista is now. As time goes on Vista will continue to improve as XP improved, and XP will continue to decline. Already complaints are coming in on XP because it no longer gets the attention from industry to Microsoft. It is irrelevant because the choice is an illusion. Waiting for Windows 7 is a marketing illusion that almost every idiot not switched over has fallen fore. "Windows 7 will save the day." "I am waiting for Windows 7" Windows 7 is a marketing ploy that works simply because it is NOT Vista. You hate Vista and Vista is now the current OS, so gee... build a new OS, charge everyone more money and call it Windows 7, and we win all over again.... Wow, they actually fell for it. Microsoft must be tickled pink with all the people who demand to pay again for the OS some of them already have and refuse to use. Great for MS. But WE demanded it.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Well the industry is probably well aware that the majority of computers is still running XP.. Vista is not faster in most situations, only in very rare ones such as when compressing a file with winrar and other rare things (maybe some DX10 games, but they're rare anyway). It may be more secure, but that does not make XP more buggy than it used to be.. XP is still better supported than Vista, except maybe by MicroSoft. Audio drivers, anyone? And how about that ancient printer that still works but Vista refuses to work with it? But the worst thing of Vista, IMO, is it's support of HDCP. It ought to be illegal. It's going to generate lawsuits so MicroSoft would do well to remove it before it's used.
-
Well the industry is probably well aware that the majority of computers is still running XP.. Vista is not faster in most situations, only in very rare ones such as when compressing a file with winrar and other rare things (maybe some DX10 games, but they're rare anyway). It may be more secure, but that does not make XP more buggy than it used to be.. XP is still better supported than Vista, except maybe by MicroSoft. Audio drivers, anyone? And how about that ancient printer that still works but Vista refuses to work with it? But the worst thing of Vista, IMO, is it's support of HDCP. It ought to be illegal. It's going to generate lawsuits so MicroSoft would do well to remove it before it's used.
harold aptroot wrote:
only in very rare ones such as when compressing a file with winrar and other rare things
not true. Another myth from the pre-SP and post Alpha crowd. :) perpetuated because of a misunderstanding of design. Not that anyone here CARES about design, we're only programmers, we don't do designs.... Anyhow. Vista does more, therefore it is slower on older hardware sets. However, it scales far better than XP, so on faster and 64bit hardware it far exceeds XP on the same hardware. At work we get some of the best hardware, and not surprisingly we get little to no improvement in the last year from hardware advances... because XP will not scale up. Vista however, scales well and improves performance in almost everything except network. And that is now equal after service packs and hotfixes. of course myths are great. bugs from 2 years ago in alpha are still touted as being part of Vista. We're supposed to be the more intelligent of the population. Personally, lately, I think we should all do better off calling a phone psychic than Vista Vs. XP thread.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
harold aptroot wrote:
only in very rare ones such as when compressing a file with winrar and other rare things
not true. Another myth from the pre-SP and post Alpha crowd. :) perpetuated because of a misunderstanding of design. Not that anyone here CARES about design, we're only programmers, we don't do designs.... Anyhow. Vista does more, therefore it is slower on older hardware sets. However, it scales far better than XP, so on faster and 64bit hardware it far exceeds XP on the same hardware. At work we get some of the best hardware, and not surprisingly we get little to no improvement in the last year from hardware advances... because XP will not scale up. Vista however, scales well and improves performance in almost everything except network. And that is now equal after service packs and hotfixes. of course myths are great. bugs from 2 years ago in alpha are still touted as being part of Vista. We're supposed to be the more intelligent of the population. Personally, lately, I think we should all do better off calling a phone psychic than Vista Vs. XP thread.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Hm well, maybe I should try the post-beta some day.. Except last time I did that, it failed to install correctly (first time it got to the desktop it died a horrible dead from which it was not relivable, and the install DVD took about 30 minutes doing nothing before it came into action) But if that is so, why is there even a 32 bit version of Vista? Just for fun? It can't even handle enough RAM to get fast..
-
Damn - I was hoping they'd have a tip about how to put the old Windows Explorer into Vista...
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001I hope they never do. Once I got use to the new Explorer, I found it to be much more productive. The only problem I ever had was the view settings changing to music type, but there is a fix for that.
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: More Fog Today! Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
The Dogcow Farmer wrote:
I was hoping to get the XP theme. It's much better than Aero.
then you wouldn't be interested in this[^] ;P
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesThat's reversed. I wanted Vista with Royale or Luna.
People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world. - Calvin (from Calvin and Hobbes)(The Indispensable Calvin and Hobbes, p105-3)
-
I have almost 2TB of hard drive space (scattered across four drives), and I know what and where pretty much everything is.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I have almost 2TB of hard drive space
:wtf: OK. So I understand that 1 TB is for your porn collection, but whats the other TB for? :-D Best Wishes, -David Delaune
Hey David, I know you got a few TB of musclebound chick porn, so you don't got much room to talk. :P
-
Hm well, maybe I should try the post-beta some day.. Except last time I did that, it failed to install correctly (first time it got to the desktop it died a horrible dead from which it was not relivable, and the install DVD took about 30 minutes doing nothing before it came into action) But if that is so, why is there even a 32 bit version of Vista? Just for fun? It can't even handle enough RAM to get fast..
harold aptroot wrote:
But if that is so, why is there even a 32 bit version of Vista? Just for fun? It can't even handle enough RAM to get fast..
not that you care, since you OBVIOUSLY made up your mind you ignore the fact that all the indexing and caching that Vista is doing requires memory, that is returned when you actually need it. When you re not using it, the memory is used to improve performance... but then, like I said, this thread has no reason to desire truth, no Vista vs. XP thread ever does. It is about everyone trying to justify why they hate Vista, and pat each other on the back for liking XP over Vista. And why Microsoft should listen to everyone and keep up with XP. When someone says, "I am having performance problems with Visual Studio." What happens? people attempt to find out why, diagnose the problem, and offer suggestions. Occasionally someone even learns something new from the discussion. But when a discussion of Vista comes up, no one wants to learn anything, they will harass anyone who desires to, and tease them about trying, complain about MS, Vista, repeat problems that are one, or even two years old to justify their stance and tell the person to reformat with XP. It would be equivalent to walking into the Visual studio forums and telling everyone to uninstall Visual studio 2005/2008 and install 2003 or Visual studio 6.0. That would be a strange stance in ANY thread other than a Vista vs. XP. Anyone trying to get information, or solve a problem is automatically told they should remove Vista and install XP. No help, no desire to help....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Hey David, I know you got a few TB of musclebound chick porn, so you don't got much room to talk. :P
-
harold aptroot wrote:
But if that is so, why is there even a 32 bit version of Vista? Just for fun? It can't even handle enough RAM to get fast..
not that you care, since you OBVIOUSLY made up your mind you ignore the fact that all the indexing and caching that Vista is doing requires memory, that is returned when you actually need it. When you re not using it, the memory is used to improve performance... but then, like I said, this thread has no reason to desire truth, no Vista vs. XP thread ever does. It is about everyone trying to justify why they hate Vista, and pat each other on the back for liking XP over Vista. And why Microsoft should listen to everyone and keep up with XP. When someone says, "I am having performance problems with Visual Studio." What happens? people attempt to find out why, diagnose the problem, and offer suggestions. Occasionally someone even learns something new from the discussion. But when a discussion of Vista comes up, no one wants to learn anything, they will harass anyone who desires to, and tease them about trying, complain about MS, Vista, repeat problems that are one, or even two years old to justify their stance and tell the person to reformat with XP. It would be equivalent to walking into the Visual studio forums and telling everyone to uninstall Visual studio 2005/2008 and install 2003 or Visual studio 6.0. That would be a strange stance in ANY thread other than a Vista vs. XP. Anyone trying to get information, or solve a problem is automatically told they should remove Vista and install XP. No help, no desire to help....
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Oh come on you as much as admit that I'm right, and then decide that I'm wrong by default because it's a XP vs Vista case. 32 bit vista can not handle enough RAM to make indexing and caching and whatever the heck else it does to speed things up effectively. Effectively as in, it won't be thrown away when you run any program (and throwing your cache away makes it useless, obviously)
-
Oh come on you as much as admit that I'm right, and then decide that I'm wrong by default because it's a XP vs Vista case. 32 bit vista can not handle enough RAM to make indexing and caching and whatever the heck else it does to speed things up effectively. Effectively as in, it won't be thrown away when you run any program (and throwing your cache away makes it useless, obviously)
Let me try to explain to you how technology works. I will try not to be condescending, but you are making it exceedingly difficult. First there is lifespan. When you market a product you market for the middle of the lifespan of a product. This prevents a product from being outdated. XP when it was released was dog-slow because it was designed for the middle of its lifespan, as was 98, 2000, 95, 3.1, 3.0, and even several of the DOS products. Each introduce a level of technology consistent with the upcoming change in technology. The primary reason is that the largest seller of operating systems is the new computer market, not the upgrade licensing. This is encouraged/supported by the HARDWARE market because it sells more computers. There were several problems with Vista that were well documented. A few were Microsoft's, and many others the primary fault lies elsewhere. The hardware/software market is an environment that works best when one of the supporting branches doesn't swing out of wack. That branch is US. Vista was designed for multi-core computing. This was known to come to pass by everyone except OUR branch. We knew, oh sure, but we refused to believe, refused to follow along. Set your way-back machine to hyperthread days just before the cores split. There were threads here, and other programming boards basically declaring the world was going to end because multi-threaded programming was impossible to learn, creates disasters, will stain the wife's drapes and eat our donuts. :rolleyes: We refused to play along. We refused steadfastly, and there are still a few of us who refuse. WE created a deadlock of issues that did not allow half the software industry to spread out to multi-core. We're still a problem in this with 8 cores per die showing up next year. In this respect we are idiots, and we still haven't learned. The second problem was a graphics change at the last minute led by myself and a number of other groups across the nation to allow OpenGL on Windows desktops. This required a fundamental change in the core drawing infrastructure and delayed the release of graphics drivers from 3rd party vendors especially ATI and nVidia the market leaders. This was solved within 6 months. I worked with others here to diagnose problems and lead them to drivers when they were ready. The third problem, partly related to us, hardware vendor driver programmers... refused to write drivers, especially 64bit drivers. That was the fault of programmers like us, and their employers, not Microsoft. Another
-
Dude I've been trying to get ahold of you for AGES! Don and I are interested in the Illusia Source. I've been trying to email you using the email on this site, but you probably never check it! Get back to me about Illusia, we've been talking about this for over a year and TRYING to find you lol. you can email me at zelionthunder@yahoo.com
modified on Monday, December 22, 2008 3:15 AM
-
Let me try to explain to you how technology works. I will try not to be condescending, but you are making it exceedingly difficult. First there is lifespan. When you market a product you market for the middle of the lifespan of a product. This prevents a product from being outdated. XP when it was released was dog-slow because it was designed for the middle of its lifespan, as was 98, 2000, 95, 3.1, 3.0, and even several of the DOS products. Each introduce a level of technology consistent with the upcoming change in technology. The primary reason is that the largest seller of operating systems is the new computer market, not the upgrade licensing. This is encouraged/supported by the HARDWARE market because it sells more computers. There were several problems with Vista that were well documented. A few were Microsoft's, and many others the primary fault lies elsewhere. The hardware/software market is an environment that works best when one of the supporting branches doesn't swing out of wack. That branch is US. Vista was designed for multi-core computing. This was known to come to pass by everyone except OUR branch. We knew, oh sure, but we refused to believe, refused to follow along. Set your way-back machine to hyperthread days just before the cores split. There were threads here, and other programming boards basically declaring the world was going to end because multi-threaded programming was impossible to learn, creates disasters, will stain the wife's drapes and eat our donuts. :rolleyes: We refused to play along. We refused steadfastly, and there are still a few of us who refuse. WE created a deadlock of issues that did not allow half the software industry to spread out to multi-core. We're still a problem in this with 8 cores per die showing up next year. In this respect we are idiots, and we still haven't learned. The second problem was a graphics change at the last minute led by myself and a number of other groups across the nation to allow OpenGL on Windows desktops. This required a fundamental change in the core drawing infrastructure and delayed the release of graphics drivers from 3rd party vendors especially ATI and nVidia the market leaders. This was solved within 6 months. I worked with others here to diagnose problems and lead them to drivers when they were ready. The third problem, partly related to us, hardware vendor driver programmers... refused to write drivers, especially 64bit drivers. That was the fault of programmers like us, and their employers, not Microsoft. Another
Ok so what you are saying now is that the reason Vista x64 wasn't fast on my computer (QX6850 @ 3.3GHz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2, GTX260, some random 320GB hdd) was that I didn't tweak it enough.. And also because programmers around the world are too lazy to use multiple threads (ok, we are, since it usually creates more problems than it solves) I suppose that makes sense (even XP is still a disaster unless properly tweaked), but then every non-techie in the field (as you say, 95%) will still have a slow Vista computer until mainstream computers start to ship with Core i7's and 6GB of ram or more (and maybe not even then, who knows? but of course there will be a day..) because they don't have a clue how to tweak it. Why don't they just ship it pre-tweaked? What's the harm? People who need crazy resource hogging features could look up how to turn them on, there won't be many such people though.. The only driver I "needed" that wasn't available for 64bit was for a Logitech Quickcam. No big deal.
-
Ok so what you are saying now is that the reason Vista x64 wasn't fast on my computer (QX6850 @ 3.3GHz, 4GB 800MHz DDR2, GTX260, some random 320GB hdd) was that I didn't tweak it enough.. And also because programmers around the world are too lazy to use multiple threads (ok, we are, since it usually creates more problems than it solves) I suppose that makes sense (even XP is still a disaster unless properly tweaked), but then every non-techie in the field (as you say, 95%) will still have a slow Vista computer until mainstream computers start to ship with Core i7's and 6GB of ram or more (and maybe not even then, who knows? but of course there will be a day..) because they don't have a clue how to tweak it. Why don't they just ship it pre-tweaked? What's the harm? People who need crazy resource hogging features could look up how to turn them on, there won't be many such people though.. The only driver I "needed" that wasn't available for 64bit was for a Logitech Quickcam. No big deal.
Microsoft DOES ship the OS pre-tweaked. For their target audience of the majority of their users. As programmers we will NEVER be a majority. I have explained this dozens of times and programmers refuse to accept the fact that Microsoft will never tweak an OS that benefits US and hurts their target audience. Nor will they refuse to put in a change that benefits 95% of their users and hurts only 5%. We will always be the minority. They put in tuning capabily so that "advanced users" can tune the OS to their specific needs. It seems the overestimated who is advanced.... No matter how often we gripe and moan Microsoft will not write an OS designed for the smallest minority of their users. and how in the world we can piss and moan over memory when it is $20 a gig is beyond me. I have fans that cost more than memory now.... I don't know why your system was slow. Mine is fine. also running VistaU64. Mine also boots twice as fast as XP and benches twice as fast as our new dual quads at work. Now I do have intimate knowledge of how Vista is designed because of my involvement in the OpenGL fiasco. So I did hand pick components, and I tweaked with knowledge behind it rather than the usual recommendation here at CP: "turn everything you see off" which of course is followed by "Vista doesn't F****** work its all MS's fault" :duh: you turned everything off you ninny! Some things should be off for programmers. Vista is not designed to index 10000000 lines of source code. It is and always will be designed (as will all future OS's) for the average home user. Documents, home accounting, some games, etc. The documents are what was getting to them. My wife has hundreds off them. Vista indexing does exactly what it should. after the initial index build (CP is down for a day during an index build too) she can find any document with phrases or names rapidly. It was designed for her, not me. However, realizing this I can make careful changes so that it works for me and my work. It is still confusing to her why I cannot search.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
-
Microsoft DOES ship the OS pre-tweaked. For their target audience of the majority of their users. As programmers we will NEVER be a majority. I have explained this dozens of times and programmers refuse to accept the fact that Microsoft will never tweak an OS that benefits US and hurts their target audience. Nor will they refuse to put in a change that benefits 95% of their users and hurts only 5%. We will always be the minority. They put in tuning capabily so that "advanced users" can tune the OS to their specific needs. It seems the overestimated who is advanced.... No matter how often we gripe and moan Microsoft will not write an OS designed for the smallest minority of their users. and how in the world we can piss and moan over memory when it is $20 a gig is beyond me. I have fans that cost more than memory now.... I don't know why your system was slow. Mine is fine. also running VistaU64. Mine also boots twice as fast as XP and benches twice as fast as our new dual quads at work. Now I do have intimate knowledge of how Vista is designed because of my involvement in the OpenGL fiasco. So I did hand pick components, and I tweaked with knowledge behind it rather than the usual recommendation here at CP: "turn everything you see off" which of course is followed by "Vista doesn't F****** work its all MS's fault" :duh: you turned everything off you ninny! Some things should be off for programmers. Vista is not designed to index 10000000 lines of source code. It is and always will be designed (as will all future OS's) for the average home user. Documents, home accounting, some games, etc. The documents are what was getting to them. My wife has hundreds off them. Vista indexing does exactly what it should. after the initial index build (CP is down for a day during an index build too) she can find any document with phrases or names rapidly. It was designed for her, not me. However, realizing this I can make careful changes so that it works for me and my work. It is still confusing to her why I cannot search.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb) John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
I can't say I agree with the pre-tweaking, I know many home users who find Vista to be a complete disaster.. so if it's pre-tweaked at all, I'd say it has been done poorly.
El Corazon wrote:
and how in the world we can piss and moan over memory when it is $20 a gig is beyond me. I have fans that cost more than memory now....
I just don't like to put in more than 4GB of ram just because the OS likes to use waste it, and many mobo's have a hard limit that is quite low: 8GB for mine. Why pay extra for that RAM while you still have your old XP cd gathering dust? For some eye candy and a promise that it should be faster without any proof, but proof to the contrary instead? Proof that is outdated, but hey, who cares about that? First impressions are important to most people.. On a quick test in virtual box, to see whether it has improved since half a year ago; 1536MB ram, 128MB video ram How do you disable blurry anti-aliasing of text in menu's etc? It looks like I need glasses.. and why does it use an average of 20% CPU when the only real program it's running is taskmgr? It manages to use 4% (steady) and 16% (randomly changing, going to 96% at times) is coming from so-far unidentified services.. it can't be anything important, it wasn't needed on XP either. Why does it have to rattle my harddisk all the time? Amount of free RAM: 0. Ok fine, but it had better stop using a page file when it's also caching files in RAM. These two tricks negate each other. Unless there are files that are more in use than some things in RAM - but there are no programs running other than taskmgr. Ok that's just on a VM, but if that was my first encounter with Vista it might very well turn me away. XP behaves very nicely in a VM, after some tweaks it only needs less than 128MB of ram. When I first tried Vista, it took quite a while to install (ok, I can accept that), when it first booted it crashed after about 1 second (not acceptable, it was a fresh install!) then it told me bootmgr was compressed or [something I forgot] and that it couldn't possibly fix it. After inserting the DVD I had to wait between 20 and 30 minutes between it showed the splash screen and it showed an actual screen. During that time nothing was going on - DVD drive and hdd were quiet (there is no excuse for doing that - if it was important, at least show a progress bar). So yes, I was angry. With a first encounter like that, one might expect that I'd never try it again, but I dared to test it once aga