# Just went from XP to 7



## hellrazor (Mar 15, 2011)

And as I did my usual "CHANGE F***ING EVERYTHING" I noticed that everything is retarded. Like, the control panel is a lot more confusing and things have completely unintuitive and retardedly long names like "Performance Information and Tools" when "Performance" would be a lot better... especially as I feel kind of stupid (like I'm light headed or so). It also seems it's more intent on looking good than working good. /rant

Anywho, I've got a few questions (that have probably been answered before, but I'm lazy and my brain seems on the fritz, and I don't feel like reading and searching and researching):
I'm a little confused on disabling the theme (ZOMGBBQ it makes me puke on the guy that designed it), does that go back to having to keep a copy of video RAM in the physical RAM?

How do you change Explorers folder pane to just show my physical drives and not all this crap I never use?

I changed the taskbar to small icons, but they're still retardedly wide for some reason....

I tried CSMenu, but it was still chocked full of crap I never use, and retardedly gigantic (even though I disabled them in the taskbar properties)... So I uninstalled it and now the menu is still huge and unintuitive, but practically empty.

How do I change all this crap in the notifications?

Is there a guide to what all the new/renamed services are/do? It seems to suffer from the new control panel idea (examples: Desktop Window Manager Session Manager, Problem Reports and Solutions Control Panel Support, KtmRm for Distributed Transaction Coordinator. WTF is this shit? What happened to short and sweet?)?

How do I murder the Indexing service once and for all? How do I kill the Task Scheduler service? How do I destroy the Event Log service? Why is Windows so intent on not letting me stop things that I really would prefer to be stopped?

EDIT:
It just did that "you've seen all the threads and now you won't know what threads you've actually read" thing, so I know it isn't Firefox.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> Anywho, I've got a few questions (that have probably been answered before, but I'm lazy and my brain seems on the fritz, and I don't feel like reading and searching and researching):
> I'm a little confused on disabling the theme (ZOMGBBQ it makes me puke on the guy that designed it), does that go back to having to keep a copy of video RAM in the physical RAM?



If you mean choosing the classic theme instead of Aero, don't bother.  The classic theme is just another Aero skin, there is no advantage to using it anymore like in previous versions of windows.



hellrazor said:


> How do you change Explorers folder pane to just show my physical drives and not all this crap I never use?



http://www.askvg.com/how-to-disable-libraries-feature-in-windows-7/

That is a start, though the network/favorites sections will still be there.



hellrazor said:


> I changed the taskbar to small icons, but they're still retardedly wide for some reason....



That is just how they are, personally I switch back to the "Combine when taskbar is full" option so it displays the names of the windows like XP/Vista did.



> I tried CSMenu, but it was still chocked full of crap I never use, and retardedly gigantic (even though I disabled them in the taskbar properties)... So I uninstalled it and now the menu is still huge and unintuitive, but practically empty.



You might try Classic Shell: http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134200

It is a great little program to get back some of the features, including a very good classic start menu, that were removed from Win7/Vista.



hellrazor said:


> How do I change all this crap in the notifications?



Go to taskbar properties, there is a button for customizing the notification area.  It is intuative from there.



hellrazor said:


> Is there a guide to what all the new/renamed services are/do? It seems to suffer from the new control panel idea (examples: Desktop Window Manager Session Manager, Problem Reports and Solutions Control Panel Support, KtmRm for Distributed Transaction Coordinator. WTF is this shit? What happened to short and sweet?)?
> 
> How do I murder the Indexing service once and for all? How do I kill the Task Scheduler service? How do I destroy the Event Log service? Why is Windows so intent on not letting me stop things that I really would prefer to be stopped?



Go visit Black Viper's guide, he tells you all of this.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 15, 2011)

For control panel open it up and at the top right corner you will see view by and it should say Category. This was featured in Vista and also in 7 to make it look more clean. All you have to do is click on Category and choose Large Icons or Small Icons. Should go back to the way XP looks. 

Are you wanting to go back to a solid looking bar instead of it being Aero (see through glass)?

Im not sure i fully understand what you mean for the explorers folder pane. 

AFAIK, you cannot go back to the old Windows 98/2000 like windows start menu within Windows itself.

For notifications do you mean the balloons that tell you stuff or do you mean all the programs that sit there by the clock?

Only thing I can tell you for services you dont know what they are/do is to google the names and see what you can find out. 

For the indexing service, go to Start>Control Panel>Programs and Features>Turn Windows features on or off>Uncheck Indexing Service. 

To kill the task scheduler, go to msconfig and search for task scheduler, and uncheck it. Hit OK, reboot.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Mar 15, 2011)

Why don't you just go back to Windows 98.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2011)

I'm with hellrazor.  Vista and 7 "fixed" everything in Windows XP that wasn't broke.  They should have focused on improving compatibility and updating the packaged software (like MS Paint--that was a welcome upgrade).

Virtually everyone coming from XP or older to Windows 6.# hate the changes they made to the GUI.  Modding to be more like XP is silly when Microsoft shouldn't have done it in the first place.  The only reason Windows 7 hasn't failed is because XP is getting too long in the tooth (limited support of SATA and Bluetooth, no support for DX10, etc.).


Windows 98 has long been EOL (End of Life).  Not to mention, being Windows 9x based, it BSODs all the time.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 15, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I'm with hellrazor.  Vista and 7 "fixed" everything in Windows XP that wasn't broke.  They should have focused on improving compatibility and updating the packaged software (like MS Paint--that was a welcome upgrade).
> 
> 
> Windows 98 has long been EOL (End of Life).  Not to mention, being Windows 9x based, it BSODs all the time.



Vista had the option to go back to windows 98/2000 like visual styles for the taskbar and the start menu but 7 got rid of the start menu. IMO, its a welcome change. Old stuff gets boring after a while. People get all pissy about new things because they dont want to learn.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2011)

Windows 6.# still has the "start menu," it just isn't labeled "Start."  It's a Windows logo instead.  That's besides the point though.  They went from a highly customizable, simple interface to something uncustomizable and complex.

I've had Windows 7 for probably over a year now and I still hate it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 15, 2011)

I don't see how you consider the WinXP interface any more customizable than Win7.  Can you give me some examples?


----------



## Red_Machine (Mar 15, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> does that go back to having to keep a copy of video RAM in the physical RAM?



No, that stupid feature was removed in Vista.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 15, 2011)

I personally love 7. I usually dont have anything bad to say about next gen OS's that keeps me from using it over the previous gen. I usually use the next gen and never go back to the old. Windows 8 might change that though if they keep cloud computing as the next big thing but thats for another thread (that ive made in the past).


----------



## trickson (Mar 15, 2011)

Seems like you do not like windows 7 ?. Well go back to XP . I love it it is far better than XP and by far fast faster and more stable as well ! You kind seem frustrated at the windows and it seems you just want a place to bitch about it . Calling things retarded is really not what one should be doing , Why not just take a chill pill and LEARN how it works first then post your grips in an intelligent manner ? P.S. My step son is retarded it would be nice if you could refrain from using that word . As it is a legitimate disability and you are using it to degrade and bitch .


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 15, 2011)

trickson said:


> Seems like you do not like windows 7 ?. Well go back to XP .



64-bit was a big seller to me, as was my MP3 player working with it (I think, haven't tried it yet, but it should), and DX 10/11. Another nice thing was that it didn't take as long to install than XP (which crapped out on me this morning, why I changed in the first place).



trickson said:


> Why not just take a chill pill and LEARN how it works first then post your grips in an intelligent manner ?



What was the problem with how it worked in the first place? I'm in college, busy learning everything else, I don't exactly have a lot of time seeing as how this is finals week.

I compare it to the switch to digital TV, but nobody made converter boxes and decided to TOTALLY f*** over how you switch channels and change the volume and countless other things that were fine the way they were.



trickson said:


> P.S. My step son is retarded it would be nice if you could refrain from using that word . As it is a legitimate disability and you are using it to degrade and bitch .



I'm open to suggestions on what word I should be using.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 15, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't see how you consider the WinXP interface any more customizable than Win7.  Can you give me some examples?


Namely, it can occupy a lot less space and virtually everything in it could be removed with little effort.  It really only serves one purpose: start a process be it opening an application or beginning the shutdown process.  It doesn't need to be that big, have a user-selected picture, show a user name, nor have all these links most poeple never use.

Not to mention the addition of a unified "Documents" directory.  It pisses me off because it hides things I often browse so I end up having to go through My Computer when "My Documents" worked 99% of the time in XP.

Oh, and virtually everyone I know turns Aero off in 7 because the title of the window is more useful than a picture and that's the only way to make it return to text.

The only thing they did right with Windows 6.# is making ctrl+alt+del bring up a fullscreen window so that it overrides anything that is currently running (allows escaping out of locked up games).




hellrazor said:


> Another nice thing was that it didn't take as long to install than XP (which crapped out on me this morning, why I changed in the first place).


XP is CD(s), Vista and 7 are DVDs.  If XP were on a DVD, it would take far less time to install XP than Vista/7 simply because XP has a smaller HDD footprint.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 15, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I'm open to suggestions on what word I should be using.



If youre in college, Im sure you can figure it out.


----------



## trickson (Mar 15, 2011)

Things change that is the way of the world get over it or just keep what you have . Some times we all have to learn different things . Being college you should know this . It is not hard what is it you do not like any way ? I mean it is far more intuitive than XP was . But change is always hard . 
maybe use a word like dumb ? Hell your the college guy figure it out man .


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

It just takes a few weeks to get used to. Give it time. You'll work out where everything is and see its true power. Win 7 is great.


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2011)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> If youre in college, Im sure you can figure it out.


This



l33tGaMeR said:


> It just takes a few weeks to get used to. Give it time. You'll work out where everything is and see its true power. Win 7 is great.


and this.

If you're going to have an aneurism over it, just switch back to XP for your health. How can you expect it to be the same? Is it really a good idea to get angry over things you don't understand? Just mess around with it, learn it and get over it.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Mar 16, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I'm open to suggestions on what word I should be using.



ridiculous, stupid, dumb, absurd, etc


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> This
> 
> 
> and this.
> ...



Was this directed at me or the thread maker?

It took me a while to get used to Win 7 and where everything was. I was like. "What the hell have they done?" Google was a good friend during this time.


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Was this directed at me or the thread maker?
> 
> It took me a while to get used to Win 7 and where everything was. I was like. "What the hell have they done?" Google was a good friend during this time.



If it was directed at you, I would of quoted you. Since I didn't it was towards the OP. Now if you're getting angry over the same things, perhaps take my advice, but it looks like you got through it. I'm not giving my advice to be an ass or anything, it's to help.


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Was this directed at me or the thread maker?
> 
> It took me a while to get used to Win 7 and where everything was. I was like. "What the hell have they done?" Google was a good friend during this time.



LOL I think the OP . 
UMM college don't seem to make you smarter , I have no college at all and I know you can go to the book store and get windows 7 for dummies !  Man maybe you should ask for your money back seems college makes one dumber ? Like I said in time you will learn it if you haven't the time to learn then I suggest you go back to XP and focus on your school work as it would seem that you need to do that more than you need learn a new OS .


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> If it was directed at you, I would of quoted you. Since I didn't it was towards the OP. Now if you're getting angry over the same things, perhaps take my advice. I'm not giving my advice to be an ass or anything, it's to help.



What the fudge man. I was just saying that it takes a while to get used to Win 7 moving from XP.

Sorry for all my forum "trolling" and random useless posts, but I think differently. Im just different. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome

I have it. Sorry I don't go posting it around everywhere making me look like a retard.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

trickson said:


> LOL I think the OP .
> UMM college don't seem to make you smarter , I have no college at all and I know you can go to the book store and get windows 7 for dummies !  Man maybe you should ask for your money back seems college makes one dumber ? Like I said in time you will learn it if you haven't the time to learn then I suggest you go back to XP and focus on your school work as it would seem that you need to do that more than you need learn a new OS .



Read my last post. I have trouble understanding where the situation is at.

And I'm still trying to figure out why everyone is flaming my post. What the hell did I do this time? I just put my opinion in reading from the first post.


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> What the fudge man. I was just saying that it takes a while to get used to Win 7 moving from XP.
> 
> Sorry for all my forum "trolling" and random useless posts, but I think differently. Im just different.
> 
> ...



OK come on calm down and that is really not called for . GOD why is it people have to use that word ?


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> What the fudge man. I was just saying that it takes a while to get used to Win 7 moving from XP.
> 
> Sorry for all my forum "trolling" and random useless posts, but I think differently. Im just different.
> 
> ...



I wasn't thinking any of that. I don't really think ill of anyone and I appreciate those who do think differently. I just wanted to let hellrazor know that it's not healthy getting upset over learning something new. Nobody is flaming your post.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

trickson said:


> OK come on calm down and that is really not called for . GOD why is it people have to use that word ?



Because it's what I feel like everytime I get flamed for being an idiot.


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Read my last post. I have trouble understanding where the situation is at.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out why everyone is flaming my post. What the hell did I do this time? I just put my opinion in reading from the first post.



I am sorry I was not trying to flame you at all . NO my comment was directed at the OP I was quoting you and erocker is all . Trying to clear up the misunderstanding is all I can see it funny you 2 are not seeing it though . LOL OH and you are not an idiot ! Far from that I would say you are very smart ! 99.9% of the TPU users are very smart !


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

erocker said:


> I wasn't thinking any of that. I don't really think ill of anyone and I appreciate those who do think differently. I just wanted to let hellrazor know that it's not healthy getting upset over learning something new. Nobody is flaming your post.



And there's a perfect example. I couldn't work out whether the flame was at me or not? I'm now confused as hell, and then I'll end up making a stupid reply post like this one.


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> And there's a perfect example. I couldn't work out whether the flame was at me or not? I'm now confused as hell, and then I'll end up making a stupid reply post like this one.



Heh, it's allright man, nothing to worry about at all. We're all different people from different corners of the planet, there's going to be confusion once in a while.


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Read my last post. I have trouble understanding where the situation is at.
> 
> And I'm still trying to figure out why everyone is flaming my post. What the hell did I do this time? I just put my opinion in reading from the first post.





l33tGaMeR said:


> And there's a perfect example. I couldn't work out whether the flame was at me or not? I'm now confused as hell, and then I'll end up making a stupid reply post like this one.



LOL but it is just getting funny now ! We went from some one bitching and whining about windows 7 to this !


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

Ive gone back and carefully read through your sentence and worked out that the post was not directed at me. It just you didn't use any names when opening the post and I ended up thinking it was for me. Because I'm going to college too right now.

/sigh Back on topic?


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Ive gone back and carefully read through your sentence and worked out that the post was not directed at me. It just you didn't use any names when opening the post and I ended up thinking it was for me. Because I'm going to college too right now.



OH man . You college people have me rolling on the FLOOR ! I for got what the hell this thread was about ! What is it again ? windows 7 or some thing like that


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

trickson said:


> LOL but it is just getting funny now ! We went from some one bitching and whining about windows 7 to this !



/popcorn????


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

trickson said:


> OH man . You college people have me rolling on the FLOOR ! I for got what the hell this thread was about ! What is it again ? windows 7 or some thing like that



Yo man before u blame College, whenever reading social text in a thread like this I tend to miss stuff because of Aspergers, if I want to get something cleared up I either have to read it carefully and slowly and work it out for myself or have someone explain it to me.


----------



## trickson (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Yo man before u blame College, whenever reading social text in a thread like this I tend to miss stuff because of Aspergers, if I want to get something cleared up I either have to read it carefully and slowly and work it out for myself or have someone explain it to me.



I meant no harm and no ill-intentions were directed at you or college people . I know college is hard on you guys ( My son is in college ) . I hope we can get back on topic soon though . 

Windows 7 it a totally remade revamped OS it has tons of NEW and improved thing in it and it is far faster and far more user friendly than all the other OS's Microsoft has put out . 
Yes it will take some time to get used to it and to learn all the good things it offers but hey why not ? It is fun and exciting !


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

i'll just share one piece of advice: the more you change in the OS to get it like XP, the less you will like it. its not made to be another XP, its a new layout and design.

its also fairly intuitive if you look around in there, for example the start menu changed a lot - but the stuff worth changing (programs merging into one icon in taskbar, etc) are all very easy to change that behaviour.


most of it, i suggest you learn to get used to, instead of trying to change things. or else you'll just go through this same crap next OS change as well.


----------



## qubit (Mar 16, 2011)

@hellrazor, just read your OP rant, it made me laugh. 

Sure, the interface is dumbed down in a few ways and it's frustrating, I know what you mean. However, the OS is a lot better in many ways, a lot of them under the skin. Stability is the one that stands out for me and general smoothness.

I thought XP was stable until I started using 7 and there is a tangible difference between them.

To bring back some of the interface niceties that they took off XP when making Vista/7, you'll want this little gem, the freeware Classic Shell, available from Sourceforge: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net

It adds back things like the Up button (yes, the Up button!) and showing the size of the Recycle Bin, among many others. Why they removed this stuff, is beyond me. It also adds UI features that Windows never had before.

I've attached the settings I use for my desktop, which should be a good starting point for you.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Namely, it can occupy a lot less space and virtually everything in it could be removed with little effort.  It really only serves one purpose: start a process be it opening an application or beginning the shutdown process.  It doesn't need to be that big, have a user-selected picture, show a user name, nor have all these links most poeple never use.
> 
> Not to mention the addition of a unified "Documents" directory.  It pisses me off because it hides things I often browse so I end up having to go through My Computer when "My Documents" worked 99% of the time in XP.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, the grips you do have, actually can be customized to eliminate the problem.  The start menu can be customized(all be it via a 3rd party app that is free) to eliminate what you feel isn't necessary.  However, what does it matter if it has a little extra eye candy fluff that makes it take up a little more space?  Unless you're running 1024x768, I don't see the problem.

Unified documents can be disabled by disabling libraries if you want, though the one on the start menu does lead to the single documents folder, not the unified one, assuming you are openning the one that comes up when you hover over your username.  Again, this can be customized.

As for turning off Aero to get titles back on windows, that is only explorer Windows, all other windows display a title with Aero(unless the software itself doesn't have this feature).  Explorer windows don't really need a title since the title is in the address bar.  Of course you can again use a 3rd party application(classis shell again) to customize this if you wish.

But again, your complains aren't about customization.  They are things that changed, and you might not like, but nothing about how WinXP was more customizable than Win7.  If anything Win7 is more customizable.  It allows for the entire shell to easily be replaced, WinXP was a hassle.  Win7 allows for a custom background on the logon screen natively, WinXP a pain in the ass.  Trust me, I have my problems with Win7/Vista compared to WinXP(removal of up arrow and easy access to network connections), and I think there was a lot of things they changed that I don't like as much as XP, but being less customizable isn't one of them.


----------



## qubit (Mar 16, 2011)

@newtekie1

Re the Up arrow/button. Dunno if you saw my post previous to yours, but with Classic Shell, you can bring it back. This was one of the things I missed most from XP.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> @newtekie1
> 
> Re the Up arrow/button. Dunno if you saw my post previous to yours, but with Classic Shell, you can bring it back. This was one of the things I missed most from XP.



Yeah, I posted a link to my Classic Shell thread in my first responce to the thread.  I know how to get the up arrow back, I was just agreeing with Ford that there are definitely some things that were changed in Windows that were rather stupid.  There really wasn't a reason to remove the up arrow.  It is a little annoying, even if you can customize it with a 3rd party program to get it back.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Oddly enough, the grips you do have, actually can be customized to eliminate the problem.  The start menu can be customized(all be it via a 3rd party app that is free) to eliminate what you feel isn't necessary.  However, what does it matter if it has a little extra eye candy fluff that makes it take up a little more space?  Unless you're running 1024x768, I don't see the problem.


Simple, really.  I hate "eye candy."  I love functionality.  The faster I can get something done, the happier I am.  If "pretty" gets in the way, I get annoyed, fast.




newtekie1 said:


> As for turning off Aero to get titles back on windows, that is only explorer Windows, all other windows display a title with Aero(unless the software itself doesn't have this feature).  Explorer windows don't really need a title since the title is in the address bar.  Of course you can again use a 3rd party application(classis shell again) to customize this if you wish.


I often have 10+ browsers/applications open at once and the title tells me exactly why I have each one open without having to studying a microscopic image to figure it out.

I don't use any 3rd party applications specifically designed to modify the functionality of Windows.  This is stuff Windows did in the past that it no longer does--a downgrade.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Simple, really.  I hate "eye candy."  I love functionality.  The faster I can get something done, the happier I am.  If "pretty" gets in the way, I get annoyed, fast.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, but none of that has anything to do with how customizable the OS is, I don't disagree with you that there are some things that have changed that are annoying.  Where I disagree is what this has to do with the customizability of the OS.  You said Win7 is less customizable, but listing a bunch of features that have changed that have nothing to do with customization isn't explaining that statement.

If you don't like eye candy, running without Aero shouldn't matter to you.  I personally like eye candy, and so do the majority of users.

I'm not sure what you are referencing when you are talking about studying the little icon though.  Are you talking about the Taskbar, or the actual titles in the Windows?  Because the titles on the acutal windows are still there with Aero enabled, and there is an option for the titles to be displayed in the taskbar, so I'm a little confused  here.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 16, 2011)

Eye candy is part of the reason i dont use Linux. Im sure you can customize it to get it the way you want, but it takes a helluva lot more effort to make it look pretty than it is to downgrade windows to look like ubuntu.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

The applications I use every day (Hex Workshop, Visual Studio, EditPlus, ArtMoney, etc.) don't run on Linux.

I wish I could kill some Themes service like Windows XP and have it fall back to a Server 2000'esque apperance like XP and Server 2003 did.


Windows 7 start menu = 411x477 pixels
Server 2003 R2 x64 Edition start menu = 177x277 pixels

I added "Microsoft Update" to Server 2003, otherwise it is stock.
Windows 7, I removed Documents and all the pinned ones, added "Run..."  It does less and it wastes a ton more space.

If that wasn't bad enough, Windows 7 has "Small Icons" enabled and Server 2003 does not.


Don't get me started on "pinning" (all gone, replaced by ye old quick launch bar).  In the space it took Windows 7 to display one icon, I have 4.


----------



## skline00 (Mar 16, 2011)

Dual Boot with XP & 7


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

qubit said:


> @newtekie1
> 
> Re the Up arrow/button. Dunno if you saw my post previous to yours, but with Classic Shell, you can bring it back. This was one of the things I missed most from XP.



its useless. it was replaced by the ability to click on the folder








in that, you can click on 'computer' C: or windows, and it takes you to that folder. why click up repeatedly, when you can click directly to the folder you want to go to?


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> its useless. it was replaced by the ability to click on the folder
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110315/Capture368.jpg
> 
> ...



Except when the folder name is so long, or the windows is so small, that only the name of the current folder is displayed...



FordGT90Concept said:


> I wish I could kill some Themes service like Windows XP and have it fall back to a Server 2000'esque apperance like XP and Server 2003 did.



It is called Themes in the services list, and it does just that.  However, it doesn't change the start menu, but it didn't do that in XP/2003 either.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Windows 7 start menu = 411x477 pixels
> Server 2003 R2 x64 Edition start menu = 177x277 pixels
> 
> I added "Microsoft Update" to Server 2003, otherwise it is stock.
> ...



Win7 also has a useful search box that 2003 doesn't have.  But you are talking about the difference between the classic start menu and the modern one, and the modern one is definitely more userful.  Yes, the modern one is bigger, but unless you have the smallest monitor on earth, it won't matter.  And it isn't any less functional.

As for pinning, I prefer it, but understand that others perfer quicklaunch instead.  Luckily you can customize this in Win7.  Where is the option for Pinning/Superbar in Windows XP/2003?


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Except when the folder name is so long, or the windows is so small, that only the name of the current folder is displayed...



Getting a bigger screen solves this.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Getting a bigger screen solves this.



No it doesn't.  A higher resolution might, but even with a 1080p monitor I still run into the ocassional folder with a name long enough to take up the entire address bar.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No it doesn't.  A higher resolution might, but even with a 1080p monitor I still run into the ocassional folder with a name long enough to take up the entire address bar.



Smaller file paths then?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> No it doesn't.  A higher resolution might, but even with a 1080p monitor I still run into the ocassional folder with a name long enough to take up the entire address bar.



yes you may run into the occasional one... but you have a back and forward button on your mouse that do the same as the button did in windows. and if you mention a laptop, alt-arrow key does it there.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 16, 2011)

I personally prefer the up button. Even in XP I still always had the folders pane, but I used the up button a lot more.

Anywho the rest of the points are tl;forgot, so I'm gonna hit the hay.


----------



## Goodman (Mar 16, 2011)

It just take some times to get use/know to a new OS , be patient & google what ever you don't know yet...

For me i liked Win7 from the start (i always like to try something new anyways) the only thing i miss from XP was the Copy to/Move to , which i like better then draging files here & there...

The good thing is you can get the Copy to/Move to on Win7 or Vista by installing this little "hack" ---> http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-copy-to-move-to-on-windows-vista-right-click-menu/  Enjoy!


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> It just take some times to get use/know to a new OS , be patient & google what ever you don't know yet...
> 
> For me i liked Win7 from the start (i always like to try something new anyways) the only thing i miss from XP was the Copy to/Move to , which i like better then draging files here & there...
> 
> The good thing is you can get the Copy to/Move to on Win7 or Vista by installing this little "hack" ---> http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/add-copy-to-move-to-on-windows-vista-right-click-menu/  Enjoy!



Called copy and paste. Ctrl+C+ Ctrl+V. Stop being so lazy 

Edit: I can see why u liked it though


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 16, 2011)

Anyone else use right-click extender? Saves alot of time and is perfect for lazy people like myself


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> Anyone else use right-click extender? Saves alot of time and is perfect for lazy people like myself



Extender? What in the world does it do?


----------



## Goodman (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Called copy and paste.



No! copy & paste *doesn't move* the files/folders...

Copying a file from C: to D: will get you 2 of the same files on 2 partitions than you have to go back on C: to delete the file you just copy (twice the click)

Moving a file from partition to another one is all you need to do...


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> No! copy & paste doesn't move the files/folders...
> 
> Copying a file from C: to D: will get you 2 of the same files on 2 partitions than you have to go back on C: to delete the file you just copy (twice the click)
> 
> Moving a file from partition to another one is all you need to do...



Uhhhh. Cut and paste?


----------



## slyfox2151 (Mar 16, 2011)

so Cut and paste then? CTRL X - CTRL V.....


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

I said something stupid again didn't I?


----------



## Goodman (Mar 16, 2011)

slyfox2151 said:


> so Cut and paste then? CTRL X - CTRL V.....



Don't like to use the Keyboard for this just one hand & a mouse much easier...


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Mar 16, 2011)

This thread about win7 maybe of help if you are interested.


----------



## Aceman.au (Mar 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Don't like to use the Keyboard for this just one hand & a mouse much easier...



One hand? What are you doing with the other?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> One hand? What are you doing with the other?



eating!


----------



## Goodman (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> One hand? What are you doing with the other?



Funny guy lol!

You know what i mean windows is to be use with a mouse not a keyboard except for games & texts , don't like to use short-cut key on the keyboard which can take longer than using the mouse , windows make me lazy...


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

Goodman said:


> Funny guy lol!
> 
> You know what i mean windows is to be use with a mouse not a keyboard except for games & texts , don't like to use short-cut key on the keyboard which can take longer than using the mouse



thats... quite odd. using the keyboard shortcuts is a ton faster than using a mouse.


select the files you want to cut, ctrl-X, click other window, ctrl-v

if you move the mouse cursor to window 2 (Without clicking) while hitting ctrl-X, the overall time it takes to do this operation is probably less than it took you to navigate with the mouse in the first menu, let alone the second.

especially so if selecting multiple items (ctrl-clicking, shift clicking or just ctrl-a)


----------



## Goodman (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> thats... quite odd. using the keyboard shortcuts is a ton faster than using a mouse.
> 
> 
> select the files you want to cut, ctrl-X, click other window, ctrl-v
> ...



That seams to me more trouble than just using the mouse & right click , i always liked to easy way on anything...lol! well almost anything...

Never bother learning the short-cut key & don't want to , my mouse is just fine...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Win7 also has a useful search box that 2003 doesn't have.


I have yet to find a use for it.  I know where everything is on my computer and on the rare occassion I dont, I hit F3.  Windows 7 search function hasn't worked very well for me in situations where XP/Server 2003 worked as expected, however.




newtekie1 said:


> Yes, the modern one is bigger, but unless you have the smallest monitor on earth, it won't matter.


24" 1920x1200 monitor and it still annoys the hell out of me.




newtekie1 said:


> Where is the option for Pinning/Superbar in Windows XP/2003?


Doesn't need it.  All the icons and minimized windows are small so "pinning" really serves no purpose quick launch/custom toolbars can't.  Pinning was an attempt to clone the massive icons/apperance of Mac OS X--no more, no less.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 16, 2011)

l33tGaMeR said:


> Extender? What in the world does it do?









I love God Mode


----------



## micropage7 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> thats... quite odd. using the keyboard shortcuts is a ton faster than using a mouse.
> 
> 
> select the files you want to cut, ctrl-X, click other window, ctrl-v
> ...



even you rare using that it would be useful, like when you have 40 pages you just ctrl+a. ctrl+c then paste it and it works on most apps so i guess it could be called a standard tools when you using computer


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 16, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> http://img.techpowerup.org/110316/Right Click Extender.jpg
> 
> I love God Mode



Must have hack for PC restart and shutdown for right click context menu...


----------



## Brandenburg (Mar 16, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> What was the problem with how it worked in the first place? I'm in college, busy learning everything else, I don't exactly have a lot of time seeing as how this is finals week.




hmmm..  an New OS change close too or on the week of finals... Not the brightest thing in the world you could of done...In the immortal words of Peter Griffin " I didnt quite think this one through"  LMAO


I love Win7 and I was a diehard XP use for years.. Its fast,stable and overall.. it greatly surprised me that I would actually like it..The compatibility feature ACTUALLY works about 75% of the time.. 


In order to get comfortable with a new OS..Thats why I'm baffled you decided to do a change close to finals...  I was in school not too long ago and during the week of finals.. NO tinkering with the PC was allowed..  Had to fight the urge many a time ...I know computers and even something I have done 100's of times is likely to fail when I need it the most

you must actually put the time in, and USE the new OS..... Took me like a week to get used to it and find the options i wanted to change to make it feel "right"


Ok.. Im done.. Carry on


----------



## cyriene (Mar 16, 2011)

Whenever I use XP I feel as if I went back into time. So old, stale and crappy feeling. Hell, I'd rather use Vista than XP.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

cyriene said:


> Whenever I use XP I feel as if I went back into time. So old, stale and crappy feeling. Hell, I'd rather use Vista than XP.



agreed. now that i'm used to 7, i can do so much more in less time. XP just feels clunky.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> agreed. now that i'm used to 7, i can do so much more in less time. XP just feels clunky.



I believe with the release of SP3 for XP, it made it bulkier and sluggish IMO. I have XP SP2 on my Acer Ferrari and it runs better compaired to my wifes newer laptop with SP3


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

Mussels said:


> yes you may run into the occasional one... but you have a back and forward button on your mouse that do the same as the button did in windows. and if you mention a laptop, alt-arrow key does it there.



Back doesn't always work either.  The last folder I was in isn't always the folder directly above the one I'm currently in.



FordGT90Concept said:


> I have yet to find a use for it.  I know where everything is on my computer and on the rare occassion I dont, I hit F3.  Windows 7 search function hasn't worked very well for me in situations where XP/Server 2003 worked as expected, however.



You push F3, I push the start button.  The only difference is that the start button one is faster at doing its job if you just installed a piece of software and have no idea what random program folder it went in because.





FordGT90Concept said:


> 24" 1920x1200 monitor and it still annoys the hell out of me.



Then I don't know what to tell you, it isn't any functionally worse, it is actually better, so I don't know what the problem is.  So it takes up a little more room for the few seconds you have it open?  It doesn't matter.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Doesn't need it.  All the icons and minimized windows are small so "pinning" really serves no purpose quick launch/custom toolbars can't.  Pinning was an attempt to clone the massive icons/apperance of Mac OS X--no more, no less.



Pinning has nothing to do with cloning the massive icons/apperance of Mac OS X.  Pinning is a replacement for the quicklaunch bar(and pin to start menu was an easy way to get your favorite programs at the top of the start menu).  What is good about pinning is that, unlike the quicklaunch toolbar, when you open a program, the icon goes away and the window is openned in its place, a great space saver.  But again, if you don't like the feature, you don't have to use it, they left the quicklaunch in, so customize it the way you want and don't complain about new features that others wanted.

You haven't explained to me how Windows XP/2003 is more customizable than Win7.  So far all I've seen is points where Win7 is more customizable.  Like giving the option to use either the quicklaunch bar or the superbar, that is more customizable than WinXP/2003.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 16, 2011)

Protip for vista/seven.

Don't both using control panels or anything like that, all the windows programs/apps will automatically be cached to the search bar.

So just hit windows key and start typing for what you want.

It's rate fast. And it's demi intelligent, will adapt to what you search for/run etc.


----------



## MLG The Canadian (Mar 16, 2011)

What is task scheduler?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 16, 2011)

pantherx12 said:


> Protip for vista/seven.
> 
> Don't both using control panels or anything like that, all the windows programs/apps will automatically be cached to the search bar.
> 
> ...



heres a good example of it. yes, theres some random results - but what i wanted (control panel sound) was there.








MLG The Canadian said:


> What is task scheduler?



thats been in there since well before XP.


----------



## MLG The Canadian (Mar 16, 2011)

Does it slow down your computer? Is it one of those unnecessary Windows tasks that annoys everybody and should be disabled is more or less what I'm getting at.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 16, 2011)

MLG The Canadian said:


> Does it slow down your computer? Is it one of those unnecessary Windows tasks that annoys everybody and should be disabled is more or less what I'm getting at.



I don't know about others here, but I don't find any of the windows processes slow down my rig one bit.

Sure they use a bit of ram but they seem to only use CPU cycles when your not using them your self.


----------



## MLG The Canadian (Mar 16, 2011)

Yeah, I just read about all of these small fixes and registry hacks people will do to make Windows run better, I thought maybe it was one of those things.


----------



## Maelstrom (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Back doesn't always work either.  The last folder I was in isn't always the folder directly above the one I'm currently in.



Did you try this?




Just click on the << button. I went computer > c: > program files (x86) > M. A V. C > drivers, and when I clicked the << button, it had the hidden folders like program files (x86), c:, and computer.

Also you can click on the little arrow next to the folder name like so and have all the folders within that folder appear.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

Maelstrom said:


> Did you try this?
> http://img.techpowerup.org/110316/Untitled.png
> Just click on the << button. I went computer > c: > program files (x86) > M. A V. C > drivers, and when I clicked the << button, it had the hidden folders like program files (x86), c:, and computer.
> 
> ...



Yes, but then that is multiple clicks, the up arrow is a single click that takes me to the folder directly above the one I'm currently in.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> The only difference is that the start button one is faster at doing its job if you just installed a piece of software and have no idea what random program folder it went in because.


The fastest way to find installed software is to look at the Target path in the shortcut.  If the shortcut works, it will always take you straight to it.


I agree that ".." (up directory) is superior to the back/forward buttons in Windows Vista/7.  The back and forward buttons mostly piss me off so I never use them.  Hell, that whole thing pisses me off so I usually end up opening one Explorer per directory I am working in.  If there is a lot of work to be done, I'll move all the folders to the desktop.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The fastest way to find installed software is to look at the Target path in the shortcut.  If the shortcut works, it will always take you straight to it.



Yes, and that is my point, I don't put shortcuts on me desktop.  So to find the shortcut in the start menu, I sometime find using the search box is quicker than scrolling through all the folders trying to figure out which one belongs to the software I just installed.

F3 will let me search for the shortcut, but it has to search through all the other shit too.  The search box in the start menu starts by searching the start menu.  It doesn't search through every file in my computer.  In fact, with F3, if I'm at the desktop when I press it, it only searchs the desktop, which is useless since it is empty.  I have to select where to search first, then tell it to search.  With the search box in the start menu, I just press the windows key, start typing and it instantly starts pulling up programs that match what I'm typing.  I don't even have to finish the word, or take my hands off the keyboard to move the mouse to tell it where to search.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (Mar 16, 2011)

Windows 7 is a really talented wild horse and you need to break it.  One of the ways you can break it is to put it in a circle and let it run itself to death.  My personal opinion is it's best to hop on and attempt to ride it out, though occasionally I come crashing down and break my spleen.  If you're following that analogy, you probably made a connection with XP as well.

Some people are satisfied with only a partial (or complete lack) of taming the OS.  None of those people are power users so their opinions aren't of much utility to me.

Everything that's wrong with Windows 7 I summarized in this picture.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

There was very little transition time between Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  All you had to do was right click on the Task Bar, select Properties, and change the Start Menu to "Classic."  There were some changes in the advanced options (especially in regards to where networking settings were located) between Windows 95 and 98 but you could find it within a minute.  In Vista/7, something as simple as configuing wireless networks can take 5 minutes to find because it buried under menu, after menu, after menu.  In my experience, everything they had right with Windows XP and down, they broke in Windows Vista/7.

I don't care if you spend 10 years on the OS, they'll never be as easy to reach as they were previously without extensive modding that was completely unnecessary previously.  Microsoft screwed up by dumbing the OS down when it was already fairly dumbed down.  That's the primary reason people hate Vista and 7 is only met with any success because XP is almost a decade old and most OEMs only offer Windows 7.


Oh, and Windows Media Player 12 is a complete failure when it comes to networking.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Mar 16, 2011)

I've got w2k3 as a workstation on my main rig. Love it.

I received W7 starter on my netbook. I tried and tried with it. Horrible. I now run w2k3 on the netbook. It runs faster too!

Pet hates about W7
1 - nasty interface for old skool users. Might be ok for a *new* PC user to learn, but the changes didn't add value or productivity to people who knew the old system inside out. They ended up further DOWN the learning curve. Getting back up takes time and energy, and once mastered, you dont really get any productivity benefits at all = fail in my book
2 - terrible reordering of control panel that alphabetical order goes across not down.  This is so frustrating to scan by eye
3 - "starter" is so handicapped it is silly.  MS should have realised that most people buying laptops and netbooks getting "starter" incl. in the package are EXISTING customers.  It is stupid to give them something more crippled than what 99% of them were working with before. Own goal.
4 - I find w7 slow, a bigger resource hog than w2k3.  I thought MS had a whole development team working on refacturing and streamlining Windows. IMO W7 should be lighter and faster and simpler... Apple seems to be good in this area
5 - I strongly believe that the next iteration of Windows WILL be a major improvement/streamlining and will wait until W8 is released before leaving W2k3

But I would like to thank everyone who has offered "how to fix" suggestions for W7.  We should have a section on TPU about "builds" where we recommend how to set up Windows and "fix" all the features. (More fixes are needed in W7 than XP/2K3


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There was very little transition time between Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows NT, and Windows 2000 to Windows XP.  All you had to do was right click on the Task Bar, select Properties, and change the Start Menu to "Classic."  There were some changes in the advanced options (especially in regards to where networking settings were located) between Windows 95 and 98 but you could find it within a minute.  In Vista/7, something as simple as configuing wireless networks can take 5 minutes to find because it buried under menu, after menu, after menu.  In my experience, everything they had right with Windows XP and down, they broke in Windows Vista/7.
> 
> I don't care if you spend 10 years on the OS, they'll never be as easy to reach as they were previously without extensive modding that was completely unnecessary previously.  Microsoft screwed up by dumbing the OS down when it was already fairly dumbed down.  That's the primary reason people hate Vista and 7 is only met with any success because XP is almost a decade old and most OEMs only offer Windows 7.
> 
> ...



For the general user configuring a wireless network is far easier than it was in XP.  It is as simple as clicking on the network icon in the tray, selecting the network you want to connect to, and entering the password.

Same thing with changing or deleting or adding a wireless network that isn't seen.  

With XP it was:

Right click network icon in system tray.
Select Status.
Click on Properties Button.
Go to Wireless Tab.
Then you got to deal with a tiny unintuative little box.


With 7 it is:

Click network icon in system tray.
Select Network and Sharing Center.
Click Manage Wireless Network.
Now you get a nice big intuative Window.

It doesn't take 5 minutes to find in Win7, it is actually quicker to get to than it was in XP.



Completely Bonkers said:


> I've got w2k3 as a workstation on my main rig. Love it.
> 
> I received W7 starter on my netbook. I tried and tried with it. Horrible. I now run w2k3 on the netbook. It runs faster too!
> 
> ...



1.) Old schoolers need to STFU already and deal with the fact that things change and they need to learn.  No it doesn't put them lower on the learning curve, it puts them right at the same spot on the learning curve as everyone else.  The only difference is that some people like to bitch about how terrible it is that they changes something, while others are learning how to use it.
2.) That is annoying, but it is also why I make the Control Panel a menu from the State Menu, so that everything is in alpha order from top to bottom.
3.) Have you ever used XP Starter Edition?  I have, and if you go from XP Starter Edition to Win7 Starter Edition, you would jump up and down with joy.  Because XP Starter Edition was utter crap.  But what do you really expect for free?  Yes, Microsoft essentially gives this OS away to OEMs for netbooks/ULCPCs for free.
4.) Win7 is a lot faster on every PC I've installed it on, including my netbook.  Yes, it does use more resources than XP, but it uses them more efficiently.  And the Superfetch feature, which makes it appear to use even more memory when it really isn't, makes it even faster.


----------



## LifeOnMars (Mar 16, 2011)

Be sure to use Ford's game explorer utility. As Windows 7's in house game explorer is a bit ropey to say the least.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

LifeOnMars said:


> Be sure to use Ford's game explorer utility. As Windows 7's in house game explorer is a bit ropey to say the least.



Yeah, it's shit.  Ford's game explorer utility is a life saver!


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 16, 2011)

Completely Bonkers said:


> 2 - terrible reordering of control panel that alphabetical order goes across not down.  This is so frustrating to scan by eye



I now present to you, the quote of the year. I know it's only March, but it's downright impossible to beat this.



On another fantastic coincidence, the wireless kicked the bucket and I _really do_ need to get into the settings for the wireless card, any help would be appreciated.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Right click network icon in system tray.
> Select Status.
> Click on Properties Button.
> Go to Wireless Tab.
> Then you got to deal with a tiny unintuative little box.


No:
1. Double click on the Wireless Network icon in the system tray (alternatively, right-click and select "View Available Wireless Networks").  This opens "Wireless Network Connection" window.
2. Click on "Change advanced settings" on the left.

Bam, there's your list of preferred networks.  Don't have to search at all for it.  Everything is exactly where you expect it to be.




hellrazor said:


> On another fantastic coincidence, the wireless kicked the bucket and I _really do_ need to get into the settings for the wireless card, any help would be appreciated.


All I can say is good luck and try not to get pissed off.  Prepare to run in circles.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 16, 2011)

Oh, and I'm on my dad's computer and it just did that "I've decided you've read every thread, so you don't know what's new and what's old" so I know it isn't my computer.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No:
> 1. Double click on the Wireless Network icon in the system tray (alternatively, right-click and select "View Available Wireless Networks"). This opens "Wireless Network Connection" window.
> 2. Click on "Change advanced settings" on the left.
> 
> Bam, there's your list of preferred networks. Don't have to search at all for it. Everything is exactly where you expect it to be.



And this is so much quicker and more intuative than clicking on the network icon, clicking again on "Network and Sharing Center", and then clicking "Manage Wireless Networks"?  It is certainly less intuative, as I would expect "Manage Wireless Networks" to be where I go to manage the wireless networks and not "Change advanced settings", but I don't think it is any quicker.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 16, 2011)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of these points.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 16, 2011)

A few suggestions that may have been posted already..
Control Panel....If you want CLASSIC VIEW change "View By" to Large or small ICONS to get classic View....

I forgot what else I was gonna post if it comes to me I'll edit


----------



## Frick (Mar 16, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> A few suggestions that may have been posted already..
> Control Panel....If you want CLASSIC VIEW change "View By" to Large or small ICONS to get classic View....
> 
> I forgot what else I was gonna post if it comes to me I'll edit



I do like newtekie, display it as a menu in the start menu.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 16, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree on most of these points.



That sounds good.  Don't get me wrong, obviously there are some things I don't like about Win7 also.


----------



## Drone (Mar 17, 2011)

> How do I murder the Indexing service once and for all?


start -> run -> services.msc or can just right click on your disk and choose turn off indexing. 

As for your rant ... You could stay on xp. But Win7 is more stable and secure than xp, it has ahci driver support and many other things which weren't around when xp got released. At the end of the day windows 7 ain't something super duper innovative or ground breaking, it's rather kinda overrated, just like everything else today. Just another os by MS with improvements and all. But it's definitely better than vista. Win8 ain't that far, several milestones are already made.


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 17, 2011)

Why would someone want to switch of the indexing service by the by?

The built in search ( that uses indexing) has the be one of the more useful features of win seven/vista.

I've not opened a folder since build beta 7100 XD ( unless it's a file with a stupid file name I have to manually look for)

Essentially makes productivity only limited by the speed you can hit windows and then type.

Sure it can take a while to start scoring the results you wanted, but if it doesn't come up in the start menu hit the more results button and run what you want from within that window, the indexing service will remember for next time you use the search within start menu.


----------



## alexsubri (Mar 17, 2011)

Damn this thread still open? Forget Windows, life runs well on Linux


----------



## Drone (Mar 17, 2011)

I know that I will never need indexing and I speak for myself. I never search for files. I perfectly know where the files I need are. Doing one or two clicks in Total Commander is easier for me than typing a word


----------



## pantherx12 (Mar 17, 2011)

I bust out 90 WPM so typing for me is faster than moving the mouse, each to their own though!

:cheers:

( also very bad organisational skills XD my downloads folder would make most TPU user sad)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Mar 17, 2011)

alexsubri said:


> Damn this thread still open? Forget Windows, life runs well on Linux



Games dont. (without hassle and i dont want that)

I seem to be having some lag with the RC as well.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Mar 17, 2011)

I was looking into my crystal ball... and there was a message from the future





> Let W7 die


----------



## Frick (Mar 17, 2011)

I went from XP to Win7 when on release day and I've never looked back. XP now feels clunky to use. Also things have to change sooner or later. It would be pretty nice to have the ability to completely customize the UI built in, but I can't see that happen in Windows any time soon.


----------



## HookeyStreet (Mar 17, 2011)

Windows 7 was my idea!


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 17, 2011)

OK, so I found the settings for the wireless and whatnot, messed around for a bit and it still doesn't work. I also installed the (32-bit) drivers for it, and they told me that the card isn't plugged in (maybe it's because they're 32-bit?). I'm going to go look for 64-bit drivers and if they don't exist (or don't work) I'mma take a trip down to Fry's.

If you want to suggest a good wi-fi card (preferably one with long range and works well with Linux, I'm thinking ~$50), now would be the time to do it.


----------



## qubit (Mar 17, 2011)

You can't install 32-bit drivers on 64-bit Windows and vice versa. It doesn't work and the installer should give you an immediate error message about this when you run it.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 18, 2011)

32 bit programs will work, 32 bit drivers will not.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 18, 2011)

Yeah, that's what I figured. Well, $60 later and I can even use my old really long-ass antennae, and from what I can tell it has hints of neither Broadcom or Netgear so I might try to get it to work with Linux.

And all the townspeople rejoiced


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 20, 2011)

OK, here's a new problem. I am (have been) trying to install SP1 using Windows Update, but it (pretends to?) start and stays at 0% complete and 0KB downloaded.

I've messed with services and whatnot, but (as far as I'm aware) I haven't messed with the Windows Update service or anything else that sounds like it has anything to do with updates. I also think a bad side effect of this is that when I shut down it says it's configuring Windows, FOREVER. I've waited like 1/2 an hour before and it doesn't change at all.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> OK, here's a new problem. I am (have been) trying to install SP1 using Windows Update, but it (pretends to?) start and stays at 0% complete and 0KB downloaded.
> 
> I've messed with services and whatnot, but (as far as I'm aware) I haven't messed with the Windows Update service or anything else that sounds like it has anything to do with updates. I also think a bad side effect of this is that when I shut down it says it's configuring Windows, FOREVER. I've waited like 1/2 an hour before and it doesn't change at all.



i love to say i told you so, so i'll remind you earlier in the thread how i said 'dont F with it, learn to use it as is'


disabling services worked in XP, it doesnt in vista/7. it breaks shit.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> disabling services worked in XP, it doesnt in vista/7. it breaks shit.



I love how Microsoft has a standard policy of having a good idea and then a) Executing it in such a horribly bad way as to make it better to simply not have it at all, or b) Getting it to work good so we become comfortable with it then *BAM* f***ing it up so bad that it's useless.

Anyways, does anybody know what this TrustedInstaller service/thing is that up and decides it lays claim to half my processor at random times? I'm currently looking here to see how to fix it.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I love how Microsoft has a standard policy of having a good idea and then a) Executing it in such a horribly bad way as to make it better to simply not have it at all, or b) Getting it to work good so we become comfortable with it then *BAM* f***ing it up so bad that it's useless.
> 
> Anyways, does anybody know what this TrustedInstaller service/thing is that up and decides it lays claim to half my processor at random times? I'm currently looking here to see how to fix it.



the problem is that some users start doing shit MS never thought they'd do, and then get unhappy when those users try and do it on a different OS.

You get a new car, you dont try and run it exactly like the old one. they handle differently. they require different maintenance, and the quirks are different.


as to the trusted installer, i'd bet money that its tied into your fecked up SP1 installations. if i was you, i'd be reinstalling windows and not tweaking anything, so that you actually have a solid, stable OS this time around.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> disabling services worked in XP, it doesnt in vista/7. it breaks shit.



I've never had a problem as long as I followed Black Viper's safe quide.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> I've never had a problem as long as I followed Black Viper's safe quide.



many many moons ago, i followed his guides - and it caused me the well known (now) shit with halo 2. he updates the guides as time goes on, but that definitely doesnt rule out the fact that more problems will still crop up in the future.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> many many moons ago, i followed his guides - and it caused me the well known (now) shit with halo 2. he updates the guides as time goes on, but that definitely doesnt rule out the fact that more problems will still crop up in the future.



Well yeah, that is true, but at least if I follow his guide, I can easily reverse everything by following his guide in reverse.

Of course, I also actually research what each service is(in the rare instance I don't already know what the service is already) before I actually disable it and don't just blindly follow the guide.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Well yeah, that is true, but at least if I follow his guide, I can easily reverse everything by following his guide in reverse.



that is also a valid point. i thought of that, and decided fuck it. my systems do not need tweaking - they perform just fine. some people just have an OCD about wanting every last MB of ram free and unused and no wasted CPU cycles... but the effort you spend for negligible gains isnt worth it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Mar 20, 2011)

Mussels said:


> that is also a valid point. i thought of that, and decided fuck it. my systems do not need tweaking - they perform just fine. some people just have an OCD about wanting every last MB of ram free and unused and no wasted CPU cycles... but the effort you spend for negligible gains isnt worth it.



Yeah, I don't really both with it on any of my systems anymore(I did it more when I was still using Vista, not so much since moving to 7).


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 20, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> OK, here's a new problem. I am (have been) trying to install SP1 using Windows Update, but it (pretends to?) start and stays at 0% complete and 0KB downloaded.
> 
> I've messed with services and whatnot, but (as far as I'm aware) I haven't messed with the Windows Update service or anything else that sounds like it has anything to do with updates. I also think a bad side effect of this is that when I shut down it says it's configuring Windows, FOREVER. I've waited like 1/2 an hour before and it doesn't change at all.



Don't use Windows update just download it


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 20, 2011)

Thanks, but during the fake downloading of SP1 I managed to download/install the drivers for the new wireless card (or update them, or whatever the shit is) and it has officially disappeared. So now I'm stuck on Linux.

Will somebody please 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 for me? The card worked perfectly when I stuck it in and didn't do a damn thing, and I go through Winblows Update and actually download whatever it is and it disappears?






EDIT @Tekie and Mussels:
So you are saying that Win7 *is* less customizable than XP?


----------



## Mussels (Mar 20, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> EDIT @Tekie and Mussels:
> So you are saying that Win7 *is* less customizable than XP?



you can customise it MORE.


the point is YOU DONT NEED TO. performance tweaking is pointless, this is not a bloated OS, and you do not have a weak ass netbook without enough power to run the OS without being tweaked.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 20, 2011)

EVERY WIRELESS DRIVER EVER MADE


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 20, 2011)

OK, I'm going to reinstall it without tweaking it, and if it so much as looks like it's about to do something it shouldn't (or not do something it should) I'm gonna start chucking shit at Microsoft like a diarrhetic chimpanzee.

There's a nice mental image.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Mar 20, 2011)

Once you get 7 you get it....
Here is a little advice..
1) stop thinking about it....7 manages a lot of things Xp didn't so if it isn't a problem leave it alone.

2) Again don't give it any thought just point and click.

3) If you want to disable unwanted services use AMD's Fusion as it's easily undone

4) If you do start thinking about something ask here or google it....


----------



## qubit (Mar 20, 2011)

These services that load up by default on XP don't seem to take any processing resources, just a bit of memory, which was insignificant.

I tried disabling some of them when I used XP and never noticed any difference, so I don't bother now. I've never even tried on Windows 7.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 21, 2011)

jmcslob said:


> 1) stop thinking about it....7 manages a lot of things Xp didn't so if it isn't a problem leave it alone.



That's the problem. I'm a great fan of thinking, and it's my unprofessional opinion that nobody does it any more, they just expect something else to do it for them.

Exhibit A) Dumbass buys a *shudder* manufactured computer, gets a virus, f***s up Windows, buys a new *shudder* manufactured computer.

Exhibit B) Bumbass has a computer for a while, doesn't maintain anything, it slows down to the rate of molasses through a coffee filter, wonders how he ever got anything done on it. And, of course, buys a new computer.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 21, 2011)

i lold at bumdass


the thing is, vista and 7 are designed to prevent those slowdowns.

 by default, they automatically defrag your files, optimise your boot times, use prefetch caches, superfetch cache, and load as much into ram as possible to prevent HDD choking. hell it even indexes your files so searches are faster.

yes, sometimes they go wrong (indexer wasnt meant for massive amounts of files like some users have, and chokes for a while) but overall its an OS that takes a lot less maintenance.


----------



## Frick (Mar 21, 2011)

I always recommend manufactured computers to people I know.


----------



## hellrazor (Mar 21, 2011)

Mussels said:


> i lold at bumdass



I just read it and laughed at bumbass, I don't know what you read.

Anyways, I think I just came up with a word, so I'm keeping it in there.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 21, 2011)

hellrazor said:


> I just read it and laughed at bumbass, I don't know what you read.
> 
> Anyways, I think I just came up with a word, so I'm keeping it in there.



i reject your reality and substi.... ooh look, shiny!


----------

