| Author |
Message |
Guy Macon
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:44 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
Jim Thompson wrote:
| Quote: | Spend some money, , let it automatically clean your
Registry and keep backups.
|
Thanks for the tip. [ http://www.macecraft.com/ ] ($16.95 USD).
BTW, jv16 PowerTools from the same vendor includes RegSupreme
and RegSupreme Pro and only costs $29.95 USD - and it has a
*lot* of nice looking features.
I use Linux and windows, and have come up with a couple of tricks
that work well with NT and Win2k by taking advantage of the fact that
huge drives are so cheap nowdays.
[1] Keep a stock-untouched copy of Windows on C, with your working
copy on D: and another partition of the same size on E: Before you
install anything new, mirror D: to E: and then break the mirror.
If you want to go back, boot to C:, mirror E: to D: and then break
the mirror.
[2] Keep another copy of Windows on F: that you use as a sandbox.
All security updates, new installs, registry hacks, etc. get tried
in the sandbox first.
--
Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guy Macon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
classd101 wrote:
| Quote: |
Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote...
...is just one more reason to switch to Linux.
Here is a much better reason to switch to Linux:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gates+focus+interview
An even better reason is because updates will only be available for
those with legal versions :) I'm sure there'll be a work around
though.. ahem.
|
I wouldn't know. Every byte on my computer is 100% legal.
I am, however, concerned about Microsoft's announcements that
pirates will no longer be able to get updates. Buggy Microsoft
products don't just affect the end-user; the compromized computer
often becomes a spam-spewing zombie that affects us all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
classd101
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message news:<li7901tgjor9h2qbaumu38fhor8b88gshd@4ax.com>...
| Quote: | c_bielek@hotmail.com (classd101) wrote:
Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message news:<11083am549002af@corp.supernews.com>...
...is just one more reason to switch to Linux.
Here is a much better reason to switch to Linux:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gates+focus+interview
An even better reason is because updates will only be available for
those with legal versions :) I'm sure there'll be a work around
though.. ahem.
XP "style"... blech. Regardless of whether or not you like the XP
style, the fact remains it is simply a theme, and themes are simply
resource hogs, in fact it's enough of a hog that lesser computers
can't be run with it enabled, yet work more than fine without it. Even
if your computer can handle the load, you still have to wait around
for it to finish animating every little menu and ...... no.
Press windows logo key + pause (properties hotkeys), click advanced,
click on settings under performance, scroll through the window just to
see all the junk they've got enabled, then click on "adjust for best
performance" and apply it.
Thanks. Can't say I've noticed a performance hit, but then it's ages
since I last tweaked those settings. (BTW, the System Properties
hotkey is {Windows + Break}; 'Pause' is the shifted key.)
|
Nope, for instance if you want to "pause" the screen during POST, you
don't need to press shift. Here's perhaps a better argument:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?id=839573
| Quote: | Anyway, I see I had 4 of those 16 set. I've rest for 'Performance'
(all options off), and I'll see if I notice any performance change (or
miss whatever modest cosmetics I'd been getting!)
Personally I only ever leave one turned on, smooth edges of screen |
fonts. You can always go back and turn on whatever you don't want to
do without. It's the animated things that you have to wait around for
that I can't stand. I always use the show menu delay=0 reg tweak.
| Quote: | Then you can go a step further and go into services to disable themes
so that it doesn't even load at boot (start/run "services.msc" but
that probably wont' work on home edition.
Yes, it does. In fact, when I first came to look for this XP theme
yesterday, it wasn't in the drop-down menus of Display Properties. I
eventually discovered that Services>Themes wasn't started, and on
correcting that I was able to use the XP (Luna) theme.
You can still use the newer
start menu like this, and it has a plain vanilla icon! Also right
click on the start menu, properties, beside "start menu" (first one,
not the classic) click on customize. You'll then see "select an icon
size for programs" select small icon.
That's always one of the first steps I take. But, of course, it makes
no difference to the relative size of the Start icon, as shown in my
opening post:
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Misc/XP-Start.gif
Of course if you find the grey look depressing, you can still mess
with colors through desktop properties just like before.
Not sure how much scope there is there. The objective that prompted
this was to get a more obvious distinction on the active (focused) tab
in Firefox. All tabs were grey, and all their text was black. With
15-20 tabs open, it was hard to spot the active one. The OS's XP style
reached into Firefox (as to all applications) and made the distinction
very obvious (including an orange streak across any 'focused' tabs).
|
I have few other possibilities for you.
Set taskbar to auto hide, that effectively fixes the big start menu
icon and you recover a little more of your screen for your spice
software and the like.
As per the root of your problem, part of the beauty of firefox is its
configurability. The ugly fix is to add a theme to firefox. A better
fix, have a look for "Make the active tab easier to distinguish" at:
http://www.mozilla.org/support/firefox/tips#oth_rendering
Have a good look around while you're there, default firefox is slow as
hell, with a few tweaks like pipeline and page rendering (values for
which are best experimented with or you can find what worked for
others online) it will smoke what IE can do.
Funny thing is out of habbit I keep reverting to IE, it loads quicker,
and I find myself just that impatient.
Hope that's more helpful this time.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Pinnell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: OT: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
Terry Pinnell <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote:
| Quote: | After years on good 'ol Windows Classic, I'm trying the XP style. I
could conceivably grow to love rounded corners and graded colour
fills. But that enormous green START button is too much!
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Misc/XP-Start.gif
I've posted to an XP NG, but anyone here know if there's a tweak or
hack to shrink it and change its colour please?
|
Sorted! From Fred in the Customising newsgroups:
"If you want to change the start button, then a program that changes
the start button would seem reasonable. Such a program is "mySB".
Info at http://www.sayesoft.com.au/mySB/info.htm
You can edit/create the graphics to make the start button's appearance
be exactly as you want it. End of problem."
Installed that, and now have Start button a fraction of the size of
the standard version, and it's not a garish green! For time being I'll
settle for the one reasonable free option, 'small computer', but I
might even fork out USD9.95 sometime and make my own!
--
Terry, West Sussex, UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joel Kolstad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
"Guy Macon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:11083am549002af@corp.supernews.com...
I don't see anything significant? Bill's clearly getitng a little hot under
the collar, but what he's saying strikes me as arguably true -- Microsoft
doesn't sell new versions to fix bugs, they sell new versions that
(supposedly) have new features. (Although keep in mind that the interview
is from 1995, and it's probably a lot harder to add any truly worthwhile new
features to, e.g., MS Office today than it was in 1995...). I also think
Bill's absolutely correct that, in many cases, what people consider 'bugs'
are actually user errors.
When Bill says that there are 'no significant bugs that a significant number
of users want fixed,' on the surface it's hard to believe. But I've worked
for multiple companies where the executives at the top had a MUCH more 'rosy
colored glasses' view of how well the company's products worked than what
one might objectively argue. I've also seen plenty of fellow
engineers/programmers who don't think it's worth the time to fix 'uncommon'
bugs, and whether or not this attitude is allowable is determined by
management. Arguably, at some level you DO have to ship the product even if
there are some known bugs, limitations, etc. The best companies, IMO, ship
their products with a known defect (errata) list because they're confident
that, bugs and all, their products are still competitive.
BTW, there are plenty of bugs in Linux software as well...
I think you can make a much better case against Microsoft but looking at
some of their anti-competitive business practices than you can by critiquing
the quality of their software. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joel Kolstad
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
"classd101" <c_bielek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73347787.0502050102.74ec423b@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
news:<11083am549002af@corp.supernews.com>...
Here is a much better reason to switch to Linux:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gates+focus+interview
An even better reason is because updates will only be available for
those with legal versions :)
|
Let me get this straight...
-- You want to use a copy of Windows that you paid nothing for
-- You're unhappy that Microsoft will actively try to stop you from
obtaining updates/patches for this illegally obtained product
???
Yes, you definitely should switch to Linux. I'll expect that you'll soon be
unhappy that Red Hat makes so much money supporting/distributing it.
| Quote: | Regardless of whether or not you like the XP
style, the fact remains it is simply a theme, and themes are simply
resource hogs, in fact it's enough of a hog that lesser computers
can't be run with it enabled, yet work more than fine without it.
|
I've run XP on a 500MHz Pentium III and it's quite usable. I did turn off
the various animations/smooth scrolling/etc. effects, although I tend to do
that on all machines I use XP on!
| Quote: | Linux is great, but know thy enemy.
|
There used to be an argument that Linux requiretd far less computing
horsepower than Windows to run the same caliber of programs. It's
interesting that this argument is no longer common -- as far as I can tell,
many Linux GUIs such as KDE as just as 'resource intensive' if not more so
than the Windows desktop.
---Joel Kolstad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rich Grise
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:42 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 23:52:24 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:
Did you read their "Favorite Clueless Response?"
http://www.cantrip.org/clueless.html
And I wonder, why _isn't_ an article like that "front page news?"
Thanks,
Rich |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
classd101
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:40 am Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote in message news:<C6CdneWIAvgOi5jfRVn-gA@comcast.com>...
| Quote: | "classd101" <c_bielek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73347787.0502050102.74ec423b@posting.google.com...
Guy Macon <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote in message
I wouldn't know. Every byte on my computer is 100% legal.
|
Oh, mine too, mine too.
| Quote: | I am, however, concerned about Microsoft's announcements that
pirates will no longer be able to get updates. Buggy Microsoft
products don't just affect the end-user; the compromized computer
often becomes a spam-spewing zombie that affects us all.
|
Yes of course. Just look at how many of the fastest spreading worms
used old exploits that had been patched already. So on one hand in sp2
MS tries even harder to shove auto updates down everyones throat as a
fix to this kind of now common place situation, aaaaand such a short
time after.. tries to ban them from using. Brilliant Bill, brilliant.
| Quote: | news:<11083am549002af@corp.supernews.com>...
Here is a much better reason to switch to Linux:
http://www.google.com/search?q=gates+focus+interview
An even better reason is because updates will only be available for
those with legal versions :)
Let me get this straight...
-- You want to use a copy of Windows that you paid nothing for
-- You're unhappy that Microsoft will actively try to stop you from
obtaining updates/patches for this illegally obtained product
No, I simply think it's amusing in its utter stupidity. |
| Quote: | Yes, you definitely should switch to Linux. I'll expect that you'll soon be
unhappy that Red Hat makes so much money supporting/distributing it.
|
You know, paying over 200$ for a copy of RH at a college book store IS
a rip
off when you can download it for free.
But I'll stick with Debian, thanks, for the user, by the user, and
somehow it's a far better product. I suspect that's because they
aren't concerning themselves with pushing pure shit out the door just
for the sake of meeting some corporate deadline, huh?
| Quote: | I've run XP on a 500MHz Pentium III and it's quite usable. I did
turn off
the various animations/smooth scrolling/etc. effects, although I tend
to do
that on all machines I use XP on!
|
Yes, I've run it on a Pentium 2 333 with 384MB ram for two years. Far
more stable than 9X could ever hope to be, and much faster, virtually
no problems with it worth complaining about, but yeah, it needed some
serious optimizing. I as well do the same optimizing on faster
computers, I see no point in having more if it's just going to waste
on useless gimmicks.
| Quote: | There used to be an argument that Linux requiretd far less computing
horsepower than Windows to run the same caliber of programs. It's
interesting that this argument is no longer common -- as far as I can
tell,
many Linux GUIs such as KDE as just as 'resource intensive' if not
more so
than the Windows desktop.
|
I've found those arguments were typically made by those who didn't
fully understand things as they were. Linux never really had the same
caliber of programs. Probably still doesn't, but I hope it would be
constantly improving. What's nice is that there is truly no limit
other than one's own to what can be done with it, or to it. A far cry
different than what MS would have users believe computers are capable
of.
| Quote: | Microsoft
doesn't sell new versions to fix bugs, they sell new versions that
(supposedly) have new features.
|
Well that's obviously the way it should be, but in that respect,
they'd have a hard time explaining winME, hell, they'd have a hard
time explaining win98 too.. well, there is no explanation for win98.
| Quote: | I also think
Bill's absolutely correct that, in many cases, what people consider
'bugs'
are actually user errors.
|
0 please!~ Goes to show you what Bill thinks of his customers. In some
context you're right though, if you ever turned win98 on, you made a
serious error. MS likes it's users clicking on icons all day, what
they should really do is make a computer that distributes candy each
time you click the right one.
| Quote: | When Bill says that there are 'no significant bugs that a significant
number
of users want fixed,' on the surface it's hard to believe.
|
Yes, it's impossible to believe, it certainly seems like they fixed a
few things with XP, for instance.
| Quote: | I've also seen plenty of fellow
engineers/programmers who don't think it's worth the time to fix
'uncommon'
bugs, and whether or not this attitude is allowable is determined by
management
|
Yeah, you mean if the cost of the lawsuits, or lost sales, will end up
being more than they'd save by not fixing them, right? Good policy I'm
sure, that really shouts quality to me.
| Quote: | Arguably, at some level you DO have to ship the product even if
there are some known bugs, limitations, etc. The best companies,
IMO, ship
their products with a known defect (errata) list because they're
confident
that, bugs and all, their products are still competitive. BTW, there
are >plenty of bugs in Linux software as well... |
Windows always includes that as well, but it grows after initial
release as more problems become known, and often go either ignored or
disputed by microsoft, rarely fixed, even more rarely fixed right.
In the last year alone they've said alot of stupid things regarding
computer security issues and, well, I haven't the energy. Their
standing policy is clearly "whatever we can get away with". To that
I'll add that pissing off a small handfull of users by not fixing a
bug with their favored programs is alot different than stability or
security issues. That'd be more like management saying aaah screw it,
it's just a ground fault. They wouldn't let that slide by because they
know it will cost them far too much, MS somehow, does get away with it
for as long as they can, and when sales start to hurt, they turn
around and sell you an update.
Sorry if my random snipping took anything out of context it certainly
wasn't meant to.
> ---Joel Kolstad |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guy Macon
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:19 pm Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
Rich Grise wrote:
Why indeed?
It now takes over EIGHT HOURS on a 56K modem to install
the 39 critical updates patches needed after a fresh install
of Windows 2000 - and Windows 2000 is really Windows NT 6.0,
and had five years of prerelease development plus five years
postrelease bugfixing by the time 2000 came out.
The problem with that 8 hours of downloading is that your new
Windows 2000 installation becomes infected with a virus within
the first ten minutes, infected with multiple viruses and trojans
within the first hour, and often has a virus load that stops the
computer dead before the 8 hours of downloading are done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 3:49 am Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:0s0701lh06717nuisb0o9a8b0b7vellfnb@4ax.com...
| Quote: | After years on good 'ol Windows Classic, I'm trying the XP style. I
could conceivably grow to love rounded corners and graded colour
fills. But that enormous green START button is too much!
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Misc/XP-Start.gif
I've posted to an XP NG, but anyone here know if there's a tweak or
hack to shrink it and change its colour please?
--
Terry, West Sussex, UK
|
You might try:
http://sarahlane.typepad.com/sarahword/2004/06/hack_xps_start_.html
Robert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Terry Pinnell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:41 am Post subject:
Re: XP's ugly Start button |
|
|
"Robert" <Robert@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thanks, I may take a look at that 20-step procedure at some stage.
But, as per my post yesterday
news:n45a01hk1d62p8l049lq6165l52mbapsbg@4ax.com
now sorted with a much simpler approach.
--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, West Sussex, UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in