Vista annoyances...

Message

mattbiernat · #1 Post by **mattbiernat** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:45 pm

I've been trying vista for the past 2 months. I am really trying to get used to the new OS.... but I just can't! The new graphic interferance is really annyoing the heck out of me. I am mostly annyoed with the new explorer. I think it is very much user unfriendly with the lack of some menus and positioning of others. I also can't stand the new flashy graphics that still reside even after Windows is chosen to be in the classic/standard themes. I wonder if there is a theme somewhere which would convert Vista into TRUE classic Windows mode.

#2 Post by **jdhurst** » Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:00 pm

Yes you can revert to true classic mode. I did it with several betas and the release candidate, but I no longer have them and have forgotten how. But I did have the classic interface.

Windows Explorer is a different matter. The classic windows explorer is explorer.scf. There is no counterpart in Vista. Windows Explorer in Vista is essentially useless. I own a license for Total Commander and will use that. ... JDH

arni · #3 Post by **arni** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 4:14 am

There is no option for what you call classic mode in vista. You can only change the visual styles as you aready did.

Explorer got a complete overhaul and there's no option to make it look like under xp.

Melvyn · #4 Post by **Melvyn** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:48 pm

A lot of people use classic mode, even in WinXP, so the machine looks like Win2k or 98.

Microsoft forgot 2 things in vista:

1) A **REAL** classic theme, to look like classic windows (95, 98, NT, 2000)
2) A "Windows XP" theme to look like Windows XP.

A lot of things changed from place, maybe too much. Get acustomed to that take time and a people working don't have that time to waste.

I read somewhere that "some studies reveals that transparence make more productive", so we know what we can expect.

snife · #5 Post by **snife** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:22 pm

I've never been a fan of classic mode - i know it gives better performance but i like my bells and whistles.

I did think it was odd they didn't have a Windows XP theme in Vista, I would have thought this would be an easy feature and welcome by many for the transition.

Re: Windows Explorer - I think the trouble is what you are used to, Vista is much better organised, quicker to navigate and more intuative than Windows XP (its what Windows XP should have been imho), however, you need to forget about the way you used to do things and just give into Vistas way.

Melvyn · #6 Post by **Melvyn** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:28 pm

snife wrote:however, you need to forget about the way you used to do things and just give into Vistas way.

More clear than water. Nobody can't say it better.

snife · #7 Post by **snife** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 5:57 pm

Melvyn wrote:
snife wrote:however, you need to forget about the way you used to do things and just give into Vistas way.
More clear than water. Nobody can't say it better.

I know....sorry....but its hard to describe what I mean, I just mean that if I had never used windows, the way I would intuatively want to do something, seems to be the way its done in Vista, but if you try and look for the XP way of doing things then its much more difficult.

SHoTTa35 · #8 Post by **SHoTTa35** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 6:32 pm

what most users do is learn how the operating system does something in order to interact with it. The goal of most OSes is to do what the user want not to teach people how to use it. People get locked into one way of doing something because that's the way it has worked for them in the past but usually there's more than one command to get anything done on the PC.

I've always read how people hate when Microsoft changes something in Windows. Yet some time later they can't imagine doing it any other way. Vista's instant search feature wasn't anything new to Vista, lots of OSes can do that or could have done that since 19whatever. I just checked my friends XP machine and was trying to find remote desktop, i know exactly where it is but yikes it took a while to get there. With so many apps and his system not fully optimized loading those menus took more than a second sometimes. I showed him the samething on Vista and he was blown away. After just typing "re" in the search it was already there.

thedogwarrior · #9 Post by **thedogwarrior** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 7:26 pm

Right-click on the desktop, and select Personalize. Then click the top option, Windows Color and Appearance. There should be Theme options for Windows Standard and Classic modes. These resemble very highly the respective interfaces of Windows 98 through Win2000.

#10 Post by **tomh009** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:16 pm

Melvyn wrote:Microsoft forgot 2 things in vista:

1) A **REAL** classic theme, to look like classic windows (95, 98, NT, 2000)
2) A "Windows XP" theme to look like Windows XP.

What about Program Manager and File Manager? Shouldn't we have a Windows/NT 3.x theme for those, too? And maybe even an MS-DOS theme? After all, many people got used to DOS, and it takes them time to learn Vista, maybe too much time!

Melvyn · #11 Post by **Melvyn** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 8:58 pm

tomh009 wrote:What about Program Manager and File Manager? Shouldn't we have a Windows/NT 3.x theme for those, too? And maybe even an MS-DOS theme? After all, many people got used to DOS, and it takes them time to learn Vista, maybe too much time!

I understand the irony. Anyways, the change from a day to another is not so easy for a lot of people. I spend all my day in front of several machines. I'm used to them.

When I got a contract to install a new system, I see people asking all time, while they get customized to the new way. Have you worked as system integrator?

Don't think that everybody have the knowledge that you have and I have.

mattbiernat · #12 Post by **mattbiernat** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:18 pm

IMO Vista should have provided option for people to have it fully customized. Whether you like XP, Classic or DOS. I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't believe that their customers like to personalize things.... What is wrong with them? I am soon rolling back to my XP. It will serve me well for the next few years or until newer version of Windows comes out.

PS and i am not in any hurry to buy waste(wide)screen thinkpad with pre-installed Vista any time soon. sorry for the complaining but I am really bitter with the new changes.

#13 Post by **tomh009** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:34 pm

mattbiernat wrote:IMO Vista should have provided option for people to have it fully customized. Whether you like XP, Classic or DOS. I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't believe that their customers like to personalize things.... What is wrong with them?

Can you configure OS X to act like System 8? Can you customize Photoshop CS3 to look like Photoshop 6? Is there an option to make Lotus Notes 8 act like version 3? Does a Treo 700 offer a Palm Vx theme?

There is a huge amount of personalization/customization capability built into Vista (as well as into XP, for that matter). But there is little logic for a software company -- for any software company -- to support legacy user interfaces on new products. Customers want better products, and usually better also means having to accept some change in the user interface.

#14 Post by **tomh009** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:38 pm

Melvyn wrote:When I got a contract to install a new system, I see people asking all time, while they get customized to the new way. Have you worked as system integrator?

I work for a software company, and we have to make those kinds of choice every day for our products. But progress comes at some cost -- short-term pain for long-term gain (to quote John Crosbie, should anyone here know/remember him). If we did not change any products, people would spend less time learning -- but we would still all be using {pick your favourite set of obsolete OS and applications here}.

And there wouldn't be much work for system integrators.

#15 Post by **bill bolton** » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:52 pm

tomh009 wrote:but we would still all be using {pick your favourite set of obsolete OS and applications here}.

CP/M and Wordstar... ah, those were the days!

Cheers,

Bill B.

#16 Post by **jdhurst** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 6:11 am

tomh009 wrote:<snip>
There is a huge amount of personalization/customization capability built into Vista (as well as into XP, for that matter). But there is little logic for a software company -- for any software company -- to support legacy user interfaces on new products. Customers want better products, and usually better also means having to accept some change in the user interface.

As a customer having to adapt to these changes, I am not so sure. Microsoft has for years adopted a plan of removing working applications and interfaces in favour of things that don't work as well.

1. Explorer.scf is gone. Others may not use it - I do.
2. The Office Shortcut bar is gone - I have to load in the one from Office XP. Others may not use it - I do.
3. I have used three interfaces since 1981: DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. I have never shifted from Windows 95; I neither need nor want a glass interface; I have never seen anyone using "cool" interfaces work faster than me with standard interfaces. There is no practical need to take away my interface - why do it?
4. IE 7 first hid (very well) the tool bar, and when I got it back, I had to apply a registry patch to put it in the right place (the *same* place as all other applications"

5. UAC (in Vista, and on the surface) is little more than a bunch of prompts to annoy people into not installing stuff. I have seen little or no progress on letting a restricted user machine update itself with patches. I know SUS servers can be used, but in a small business, there may not be resources for extra servers.
6. Vendor applications are implementing interface changes without employing skin technology to allow me to keep an older interface. Rounded corners may look cool but they waste desktop space.

I have patiently spend money (hundreds and hundreds of dollars) upgrading applications to work with new OS's and buying new applications because old ones have gone by the board.

Sigh! The linux writers do the same thing.

... JDH

#17 Post by **tomh009** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:06 am

jdhurst wrote:Microsoft has for years adopted a plan of removing working applications and interfaces in favour of things that don't work as well.

... that don't work as well for you. But as Melvyn pointed out earlier in this thread, we are not typical.

jdhurst wrote:3. I have used three interfaces since 1981: DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. I have never shifted from Windows 95; I neither need nor want a glass interface; I have never seen anyone using "cool" interfaces work faster than me with standard interfaces.

Since 1981 ... that's a long time. I can fit in mainframes (VM/CMS, VM/SP, TOPS-20), VMS, a plethora of UNIX flavours with and without X (from BSD4.1 and Xenix through FreeBSD and Linux), DOS, Mac System 1/2/3/4/5/6/7, Windows 2.11, Windows/386, OS/2, Windows 3.0/3.1, Windows NT 3.1/3.5/3.51, Windows 95, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 ... and soon Windows Vista.

Change happens. I adapt. It's not always a happy thing at first, but generally it's for the better -- at least for the general user population.

#18 Post by **carbon_unit** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 7:10 am

Unfortunately most programmers, project leaders, visionaries, whatever are more concerned with eye candy and features than squashing bugs.
The quivering, translucent jello like button with a reflection of your face on it that flexes when you press it is so cool you won't notice that it doesn't even function properly.

I prefer function over useless eye candy. When I have a window open I am looking at the contents, not the semi transparent border around the window.

Yes, I know that I am in the minority.

Melvyn · #19 Post by **Melvyn** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:00 am

jdhurst wrote: As a customer having to adapt to these changes, I am not so sure. Microsoft has for years adopted a plan of removing working applications and interfaces in favour of things that don't work as well.

I support the remaining of JDH's post.

I've missed a lot the Office shortcut bar. It was one of the better things. In the same navy: while the new office 2007 ribbon is nice, they gave me a dirty strike, because I wasn't an "click-icon user" and when office 2007 came out, I was like in from of a Boeing 707 panel. They were able to let customer the old and the new, at least in a release.

UAC control is stupid. They ask for everything and people will get used to click always "continue" without knowledge of what they're doing.

The most important part of UAC (give silent acces to administrative tsk) only can be done only by registry or advanced group policy.

And, for final quote: since 1990 when I got my first machine, I've used MS-DOS, win 3.11, win nt, as/400 (first job), Unix AIX, Red Hat, Suse, Mac OSX win 2000, win me, win xp, win vista.

I'm not the one with notalgy, I'm the one of usability and performance.

frshakl · #20 Post by **frshakl** » Sun Jul 29, 2007 10:16 am

I like the classic desktop better then the vista desktop but you can get the menus displayed if you go into control pannel/folder options. I have not been using vista long enough to determine if the menus are useful.

Vista annoyances...

Vista annoyances...

Menus on explorer

Who is online