I think it's because the people can't get use to the new interface right away. It's the same thing when ppl are switching to Xp from 2000. They'll eventually love the Vista look later on.
Another advantage of XP look in Vista is that you can save a lot of resources by turning off the fancy user interface of Vista.
PCs that are running Vista are pretty powerful. EG, my PC is rather old, so I dare not upgrade it to Vista, so those who are running Vista won't really mind of saving their resources for an old XP look :)
ejobsvacancy.com
· 2 years ago
i think when using a window vista os .. it's effect the overall performance.. .. slow and so many process on one times.... any solution to make a vista be faster or need to upgrade something ...
KeVin
· 2 years ago
I would say, if you want to make it look like xp, why bother the upgrade.... :)
Ramon
· 2 years ago
Is Windows Vista easy to operate? Where did you get the demo copy?
Allen.H
· 2 years ago
Who doesn't like the Vista look!?
Allen.H
Mr. Bear
· 2 years ago
yeah! y bother the upgrade if u want the old looks?
gaman
· 2 years ago
count me in.. what's the point of upgrading if you want the XP interface? I know there are other features but hey this is Vista.. :)
mr.eims
· 2 years ago
the earo glass is fantastic. but it was the biggest factor in vista that slowing your pc down.
didi
· 2 years ago
To be able to run Wista, hardware have to be very up to date, such as graphic card, memory and processor.
Bob
· 2 years ago
Hey I saw you at Low Yat last weekend!
Random Good Stuff
· 2 years ago
I had post on that a while ago ..... with links all to make xp look like vista
hey it looks uber cool. but i bet it slows down performance.
Lela Iskandar
· 2 years ago
Yeah, it's totally stupid.
I'll smack the head of those who spend a few hundred bucks and upgrade their pc just to have their vista looks like an XP?
And coming from folks at CNET makes me sick. Haven't they got anything else to do?
pohyg
· 2 years ago
Bear now got an Vista that look like Win95. Vista look like XP is not helping much to release the RAM. Bear change it to win95-look-alike to release some RAM for the application.
BTW, the other Vista machine bear use to run some jobs keep requesting for restarts. Restarts and it keep asking to be restarted. Restart virus ar? Or Restart Bug on Retard Vista? bear going to format that vista machine, 1 week old. Maybe bear should extend the contract for the post retirement, XP machine for it's extensive experiences on the jobs. New vista does not have the experience yet... keep restarting.. why?
Bear
Mr. Bear
· 2 years ago
oops.. why put in wrong name for bear? Stupid IE.
Plonker Toast
· 2 years ago
What a useless OS...
tyga
· 2 years ago
Why not use the vista themes if you have upgraded?
Because the theme is a very small nonessential part of the upgrade. The actual upgrade is a kernel upgrade, the theme is only a graphical user interface change.
You do realize that the operating system is not the GUI? Right?
The operating system is the "kernel" not the appearance such as the desktop themes and icons.
The way it looks is irrelevant to the system upgrade and is entirely based on personal preferences.
Sir_Cabbage
· 2 years ago
Okay first off id like to say to all the vista fanboys, it sucks, horribly; dont kidd yourself.
Second, the whole point in downgrading vista's looks to XP is to make it not defult take away 500 megs of ram, it slows down gamers WAY too much unless you close Explorer before loading every single effing game. And who wants to do that?!
We upgrade to vista because our computers are getting old and its the only option esspecially for gamers. No linux distrubutinos have the same compatablity even if you run via WINE and mac just plane sucks. Vista is a forced upgrade for gamers due to Direct X 10 and the fact like 95/98 to 2000/XP the Vista-Xp change will mean that all games will REQUIRE vista.
Another thing, the 64 bit version of XP is still in its infancy so the only way to get a good 64 bit operating system without swapping to Linux is Vista. Personally, I dont want to be limited to only 4 gigs of ram when I could have MUCH more, as a gamer I need to think into the future.
Being forced into vista sucks, but making it like XP is good. The new vista interface sucks, I still prefer 95 to XP;
Eric
· 2 years ago
The user interface of an OS is not important!! The Kernel is!! That's true!!
GUI is entirely based on personal preferences. That's true!!
But WHY hell microsoft just gave us one alterative to the new vista GUI??
If the GUI is only based on personel beaviours, and it is, why we only have the Classic GUI choice in Vista?? Why don't we have XP style theme built in in vista? An why not more theme?? And why microsoft does not gave us more theme built in?
Ant
· 2 years ago
If you want my opinion: NEVER SWITCH FROM XP TO VISTA. It does not bring anything and it's a pain.
winfreak
· 2 years ago
see if ur hardware dam pro. if yes good for u, cos vista startup is faster and ie 7 doesn't lag as much on vista as on xp. but mi old xp desktop old n faithful. still working:) so if u don't require it dat badly, dun upgrade.
ROMO53
· 1 year ago
VISTA SUCKS. To all the #*&% holes at microsoft... thanks a whole #$%&* LOTE!!
aiden
· 1 year ago
need my desktop to look like windows xp pro
robert
· 1 year ago
don't get me wrong vista looks nice...
but i prefer XP.
vista slows my laptop down like crazy and i can't get use to interface..
now everyone is saying on her why upgrade.. what was the point in buying it.... well ppl here in the uk.. all computer laptops.. get vista on it.. its like we don't have a choice.. if i could have bought a good laptop with win XP i would have jumpted at the chance... but to buy a good 1 for what i wanted it for all had vista on it... so like u r all saying why upgrade... its not why.. we have to.. when buying a new computer/laptop.
so think theme i think i'm gonna love!... thank you who ever did it
leaveyou
· 1 year ago
you dont make vista look like xp...you make vista look like 98'
billw
· 1 year ago
i just bought a laptop , no choice but to have vista on it. vista does NOT start up or shutdaown faster than xp. my still xp desktop runs 24/7 , its restarted 2 times in 2 weeks compared to uncountable times vista has in same time. install something on xp & walk away get something else done while it installs. not on vista though. forces you to sit there while it asks you permission to install something. instead of vista, call it CIA , it wants to know everything from you before it does something simple. no choices with vista. take 2 machines & install xp on 1 , vista on the other. xp will be done first because it asks you what u want/dont want installed - unlike vista that installs everything then wastes time making you remove things not needed.
if microsoft wants a good O/S , give me an updated win 95/ NT that supports the new equipment. 95 had a lot of hidden programs that were useful. like being able to send a simple message directly to another computer on a network without installing a 100 different messengers. i still say , 95 ran on 256 meg quite nicely. imagine how fast it would be on 4 gig systems. nock off the BS , give me an updated 95
billw
· 1 year ago
how about something very simple !!!? a dual layer dvd containing both O/S s ? it would come with full Vista, but also updated XP on other side of dvd. full price would apply to the version selected.
vista would run without activation for a month without needing the activation key , so that user could see if it were worth a s***t ...
if you dont like it , then you would get option of clearing vista & installing a new instance XP on the machine, which would come with full support & updates until the next version of windows came along.
how fast do you think microsoft & other vista supporters would drop vista if given the actual choice between the 2 O/S s ???
only when this is done will we ever see another O/S that is useful out of the box without updating first.
until M/S is faced with a product not selling , will they build a better product. 95 was about 30 mb. 98 was about 1/2 a cd xp was a full cd vista is on a DVD
with blu ray set to be the standard, imagine the dislike & problems when windows is a 20 gig install !!!
i thought a 20 gig drive was big for 95. vista wont even run bare bones on a drive that small. 95 ran on less hard drive Than i have ram now... plus started faster, plus i had the same cable internet then as i have now. if all the apps require more resources these days , why are we buying newer faster computers just for the O/S ???
dont tell me linux either.its only good for typing a letter or playing card games
Jim
· 1 year ago
I agree I HATE the Vista Interface (GUI). Why not have XP classic mode then I might of given it a chance. Like I still use the classic start menu in XP. Some of us don't like to change interface just because they think its better. Owell I will stick with XP. Hopefully in the next windows release they will bring back the XP interface and I might give it a shot.
Brandon
· 1 year ago
Personally. I don't like Vista itself, sure its pretty and it can be a "stable" system with certain programs, I'll give the security a good 10, but everything else. no.
I think what would have made Vista better is a better performance tweak on operations and allowing programs to run smoother and faster on a smaller system size.
I also think had they been smart enough to put the Windows XP theme (blue) into there personalization work, more companies and people at home would find it much easier to use and if they didn't want to cover to the look at least, they wouldn't have to, yet they can still have some of the better security and speedier system processes of Vista.
PEOPLE WHO ARE SAYING "WHY BOTHER UPGRADING IF YOU CHANGE THE LOOK LATER" ARE IDOITS. I mean, what if you got Vista in a new computer that came with vista and they are out of the older ones? Dont be fool's with this!
dbithead
· 1 year ago
Most people will find they have to upgrade to support newer hardware. So wanting "Vista to look like XP" is perfectly normal and quite ok.
Personally I have always made my Windows installations look like Windows 95. Should I have stayed with Windows 95? I look forward to a thoughtless response or two.
It is easy to make Vista look like Windows 95/2K/XP. All the options are built-in to the desktop management. The issue with Vista for XP users is hardware. Either you upgrade to a decent shader-model 4 video card and a dual core processor (or better) or you remain on XP. Obviously the question remains, why are you not using a MAC or some other game-less environment if you are not gaming? Seriously though, if you only use Windows for business applications like word processing and email then stay with XP.
For users who do not need, or want, the Aero interface (and I am one of the few) you should get the Vista Home Edition Basic. This is the only edition that uses the old XP GDI interface for the desktop and is very fast compared to the other versions. Home Basic is fast because it can do nothing but run DX10 games and Windows applications like Office. It has none of the extra bells and whistles of the other versions.
Mikhail Pelshikov
· 1 year ago
I'm really starting to like the idea of purchasing a Vista Home Basic after what I've read here :) I'd have to really look at what features are cut out compared to Premium that you find on most of my friend's computers. For now I like the idea of saving both the money and the hassle :D
Are there programs, that require specific versions of vista?
aq.
· 1 year ago
where fu**ing cut copy paster properties button! on f**ing explorer!!!! windows2008ent! do not use this pieces of sh**s ill back w2003x64 idiots!! engineers!!
TehMe
· 12 months ago
Yeah thats very nice and all but doesn't really make vista look like xp it makes look more like good 'oll 98. It would be great if someone could make a transformation pack tha will change vista looks back to xp.
Mouse
· 11 months ago
My $0.02 on Vista. I don't enjoy it because:
1) I didn't want my OS to look like a Mac. If I wanted a Mac-look, I would of bought one; why is MS worried about targeting Mac users? People that can't deal with issues or challenges in life and want to feel good about themselves and be apart of a feely-good subculture tend to get Macs (in my opinion). If you have a mental breakdown with the BSoD, then get a Mac, but don't force a Mac-like OS such as Vista on your loyal PC customers... what horrible marketing that is!
2) I have no need for all the extra bells and whistles that come with Vista, and despise how Vista has rearranged all the locations of applications and everything else from drop-down menus to all the MS applications (Word & Excel 2007 etc); why should I be forced to relearn where everything is again? Talk about frustrating... Again, bad marketing. You shouldn't force that on customers and shut of producing/installing XP in new computers without fully vesting your market research in a new product such as Vista.
3) Having a 64-bit system is enticing though, but I think I'll skip the Vista broken-band wagon and wait to see if Win 7 is an actual improvement from my point of view.
All Comments
PCs that are running Vista are pretty powerful. EG, my PC is rather old, so I dare not upgrade it to Vista, so those who are running Vista won't really mind of saving their resources for an old XP look :)
Allen.H
http://www.random-good-stuff.com/index.php/2006...
but i bet it slows down performance.
I'll smack the head of those who spend a few hundred bucks and upgrade their pc just to have their vista looks like an XP?
And coming from folks at CNET makes me sick. Haven't they got anything else to do?
Vista look like XP is not helping much to release the RAM.
Bear change it to win95-look-alike to release some RAM for the application.
BTW, the other Vista machine bear use to run some jobs keep requesting for restarts. Restarts and it keep asking to be restarted. Restart virus ar? Or Restart Bug on Retard Vista? bear going to format that vista machine, 1 week old. Maybe bear should extend the contract for the post retirement, XP machine for it's extensive experiences on the jobs. New vista does not have the experience yet... keep restarting.. why?
Bear
Stupid IE.
Because the theme is a very small nonessential part of the upgrade. The actual upgrade is a kernel upgrade, the theme is only a graphical user interface change.
You do realize that the operating system is not the GUI? Right?
The operating system is the "kernel" not the appearance such as the desktop themes and icons.
The way it looks is irrelevant to the system upgrade and is entirely based on personal preferences.
Second, the whole point in downgrading vista's looks to XP is to make it not defult take away 500 megs of ram, it slows down gamers WAY too much unless you close Explorer before loading every single effing game. And who wants to do that?!
We upgrade to vista because our computers are getting old and its the only option esspecially for gamers. No linux distrubutinos have the same compatablity even if you run via WINE and mac just plane sucks. Vista is a forced upgrade for gamers due to Direct X 10 and the fact like 95/98 to 2000/XP the Vista-Xp change will mean that all games will REQUIRE vista.
Another thing, the 64 bit version of XP is still in its infancy so the only way to get a good 64 bit operating system without swapping to Linux is Vista. Personally, I dont want to be limited to only 4 gigs of ram when I could have MUCH more, as a gamer I need to think into the future.
Being forced into vista sucks, but making it like XP is good. The new vista interface sucks, I still prefer 95 to XP;
GUI is entirely based on personal preferences. That's true!!
But WHY hell microsoft just gave us one alterative to the new vista GUI??
If the GUI is only based on personel beaviours, and it is, why we only have the Classic GUI choice in Vista?? Why don't we have XP style theme built in in vista? An why not more theme?? And why microsoft does not gave us more theme built in?
It does not bring anything and it's a pain.
but i prefer XP.
vista slows my laptop down like crazy and i can't get use to interface..
now everyone is saying on her why upgrade.. what was the point in buying it.... well ppl here in the uk.. all computer laptops.. get vista on it.. its like we don't have a choice.. if i could have bought a good laptop with win XP
i would have jumpted at the chance... but to buy a good 1 for what i wanted it for all had vista on it... so like u r all saying why upgrade... its not why.. we have to.. when buying a new computer/laptop.
so think theme i think i'm gonna love!... thank you who ever did it
vista does NOT start up or shutdaown faster than xp.
my still xp desktop runs 24/7 , its restarted 2 times in 2 weeks compared to uncountable times vista has in same time.
install something on xp & walk away get something else done while it installs.
not on vista though.
forces you to sit there while it asks you permission to install something.
instead of vista, call it CIA , it wants to know everything from you before it does something simple.
no choices with vista.
take 2 machines & install xp on 1 , vista on the other.
xp will be done first because it asks you what u want/dont want installed - unlike vista that installs everything then wastes time making you remove things not needed.
if microsoft wants a good O/S , give me an updated win 95/ NT that supports the new equipment.
95 had a lot of hidden programs that were useful.
like being able to send a simple message directly to another computer on a network without installing a 100 different messengers.
i still say , 95 ran on 256 meg quite nicely.
imagine how fast it would be on 4 gig systems.
nock off the BS , give me an updated 95
a dual layer dvd containing both O/S s ?
it would come with full Vista, but also updated XP on other side of dvd. full price would apply to the version selected.
vista would run without activation for a month without needing the activation key , so that user could see if it were worth a s***t ...
if you dont like it , then you would get option of clearing vista & installing a new instance XP on the machine, which would come with full support & updates until the next version of windows came along.
how fast do you think microsoft & other vista supporters would drop vista if given the actual choice between the 2 O/S s ???
only when this is done will we ever see another O/S that is useful out of the box without updating first.
until M/S is faced with a product not selling , will they build a better product.
95 was about 30 mb.
98 was about 1/2 a cd
xp was a full cd
vista is on a DVD
with blu ray set to be the standard, imagine the dislike & problems when windows is a 20 gig install !!!
i thought a 20 gig drive was big for 95.
vista wont even run bare bones on a drive that small.
95 ran on less hard drive Than i have ram now...
plus started faster, plus i had the same cable internet then as i have now.
if all the apps require more resources these days , why are we buying newer faster computers just for the O/S ???
dont tell me linux either.its only good for typing a letter or playing card games
I think what would have made Vista better is a better performance tweak on operations and allowing programs to run smoother and faster on a smaller system size.
I also think had they been smart enough to put the Windows XP theme (blue) into there personalization work, more companies and people at home would find it much easier to use and if they didn't want to cover to the look at least, they wouldn't have to, yet they can still have some of the better security and speedier system processes of Vista.
but that's just my opinion.
http://computertrainingfree.blogspot.com/2008/0...
Personally I have always made my Windows installations look like Windows 95. Should I have stayed with Windows 95? I look forward to a thoughtless response or two.
It is easy to make Vista look like Windows 95/2K/XP. All the options are built-in to the desktop management. The issue with Vista for XP users is hardware. Either you upgrade to a decent shader-model 4 video card and a dual core processor (or better) or you remain on XP. Obviously the question remains, why are you not using a MAC or some other game-less environment if you are not gaming? Seriously though, if you only use Windows for business applications like word processing and email then stay with XP.
For users who do not need, or want, the Aero interface (and I am one of the few) you should get the Vista Home Edition Basic. This is the only edition that uses the old XP GDI interface for the desktop and is very fast compared to the other versions. Home Basic is fast because it can do nothing but run DX10 games and Windows applications like Office. It has none of the extra bells and whistles of the other versions.
I'd have to really look at what features are cut out compared to Premium that you find on most of my friend's computers. For now I like the idea of saving both the money and the hassle :D
Are there programs, that require specific versions of vista?
do not use this pieces of sh**s
ill back w2003x64
idiots!! engineers!!
1) I didn't want my OS to look like a Mac. If I wanted a Mac-look, I would of bought one; why is MS worried about targeting Mac users? People that can't deal with issues or challenges in life and want to feel good about themselves and be apart of a feely-good subculture tend to get Macs (in my opinion). If you have a mental breakdown with the BSoD, then get a Mac, but don't force a Mac-like OS such as Vista on your loyal PC customers... what horrible marketing that is!
2) I have no need for all the extra bells and whistles that come with Vista, and despise how Vista has rearranged all the locations of applications and everything else from drop-down menus to all the MS applications (Word & Excel 2007 etc); why should I be forced to relearn where everything is again? Talk about frustrating... Again, bad marketing. You shouldn't force that on customers and shut of producing/installing XP in new computers without fully vesting your market research in a new product such as Vista.
3) Having a 64-bit system is enticing though, but I think I'll skip the Vista broken-band wagon and wait to see if Win 7 is an actual improvement from my point of view.