The Vista Death Watch

[Apokalipse]

You do have to admit, though, that Vista is a lot nicer to look at than that crappy Playskool XP look.

So, get a new theme.

Yeah, I've tried changing themes, but I haven't found any that aren't cheezy.

look harder?
I've found some themes that are pretty descent.

I tried the Vista Transformation Pack, too, and it was buggier than running Vista.

Which version?
I think version 7 is pretty buggy. version 6 isn't so buggy, but I still prefer just to have another theme with a patched uxtheme.dll

And you have to pay for Windows Blinds to get transparent title bars which aren't implemented as nicely as Vista's.

Or, you could use a program called TrueTransparency, which is free.

It isn't even possible to have a Start Orb in XP without making a small app that sits on top of the Start button.

You can get themes that include the same round start button that Vista has.

I know these things are unnecessary

yes, yes they are.

but after using Linux with Compiz/Fusion I can't bear to look at XP anymore and Aero is the best Windows offering for eye-candy.

yeah, but there's more to an OS than just looking better.

The only trouble that I have had with Vista turned out to be a blown video card; it wasn't even anything to do with Vista. So I'm happy with it.

I'm sure you've noticed at least some things that XP does better.
XP is faster in most things.
If Vista actually manages to be faster in XP in a few things, it isn't by much.

 

[EricB]

I don't need the vista transformation pack.

 

[forrestcupp]

So, get a new theme.

Didn't you read my post closely?

look harder?
I've found some themes that are pretty descent.

Oh, I guess you did. I've looked pretty hard. I've gone to all of the popular free XP theme sites and looked at every theme (this was before I switched to Vista). I didn't find one that I really liked.

Which version?
I think version 7 is pretty buggy. version 6 isn't so buggy, but I still prefer just to have another theme with a patched uxtheme.dll

I think I tried it back during v.6, but I could be wrong

Or, you could use a program called TrueTransparency, which is free.

TrueTransparency is the same as every other transparency theme in Windows and Linux. It uses simple alpha blending which doesn't measure up to Vista's implementation. Vista uses hardware accelerated pixel shaders to not only get transparency, but also variable blurring.

You can get themes that include the same round start button that Vista has.

Which is what I said, but those themes don't actually change the shape of the start button. They have an app that creates a small, round, borderless window that sits over the start button that opens the start menu when clicked. This implementation is weird when a window is maximized.

yeah, but there's more to an OS than just looking better.

But to me and lots of other people, having a pleasing aesthetic experience is important. With the extensive visual advances of practically every other OS, it seems like keeping up with modern times would be important to the viability of Windows.

I'm sure you've noticed at least some things that XP does better.
XP is faster in most things.
If Vista actually manages to be faster in XP in a few things, it isn't by much.

To be honest, I was pretty hard on Vista in the beginning because it didn't run well for me. Then I opened up my case and realized it was because the electronics on my video card were blown. Since I figured that out, I haven't had any trouble at all, and I can honestly say that I haven't seen anything that XP does better than Vista. If you don't like it, that's your right. But don't try to take my experience away from me.

 

[Apokalipse]

Didn't you read my post closely?

yes.

Oh, I guess you did. I've looked pretty hard. I've gone to all of the popular free XP theme sites and looked at every theme (this was before I switched to Vista). I didn't find one that I really liked.

Which doesn't mean none are good. Whether you like them is subjective.

I think I tried it back during v.6, but I could be wrong

TrueTransparency is the same as every other transparency theme in Windows and Linux. It uses simple alpha blending which doesn't measure up to Vista's implementation. Vista uses hardware accelerated pixel shaders to not only get transparency, but also variable blurring.

and takes more resources.
Which doesn't necessarily mean it'll always look better. Of course, that is subjective.

Which is what I said, but those themes don't actually change the shape of the start button. They have an app that creates a small, round, borderless window that sits over the start button that opens the start menu when clicked. This implementation is weird when a window is maximized.

I'm not talking about themes that use the start orb program. I'm saying I've seen themes that have the same start menu Vista has, but without an app.

But to me and lots of other people, having a pleasing aesthetic experience is important. With the extensive visual advances of practically every other OS, it seems like keeping up with modern times would be important to the viability of Windows.

In other words, you like Vista because it looks better.
But making it look better is besides the point. If the OS can't run the way it's supposed to, then it looking better is not going to matter.

To be honest, I was pretty hard on Vista in the beginning because it didn't run well for me. Then I opened up my case and realized it was because the electronics on my video card were blown. Since I figured that out, I haven't had any trouble at all, and I can honestly say that I haven't seen anything that XP does better than Vista. If you don't like it, that's your right. But don't try to take my experience away from me.

On certain hardware and software configurations, Vista can run more or less properly. Which doesn't mean it runs better however.
Besides, XP can run a wider variety of programs, aside from DirectX 10, and run on a much wider variety of hardware.
And it runs faster.
And it has less bugs.

 

[krazyq]

yes.

XP can run a wider variety of programs, aside from DirectX 10, and run on a much wider variety of hardware.
And it runs faster.
And it has less bugs.

wasnt xp like that when it first came out?

 

[Apokalipse]

wasnt xp like that when it first came out?

XP actually was (and still is) better than 98 when it came out.
It was much more stable by a large margin, more secure, and I would even go so far as to say it had less bugs, even when it was first released.

Seriously, Windows 98 was buggy. And unstable.

 

[krazyq]

XP actually was (and still is) better than 98 when it came out.
It was much more stable by a large margin, more secure, and I would even go so far as to say it had less bugs, even when it was first released.

Seriously, Windows 98 was buggy. And unstable.

wasnt win 95 the best? compared to 98,2000 and me?
anyways.
im not here to argue...

Vista is aite...i like it...kinda, hah!
well if the sp1 doesnt improve much i might just go back to xp, unless dx10 is really worth it by then.

 

[Apokalipse]

wasnt win 95 the best? compared to 98,2000 and me?

more stable, but less capable.
And it was still dependent on DOS.

well if the sp1 doesnt improve much i might just go back to xp, unless dx10 is really worth it by then.

What if DirectX 10 is made to work on XP?

 

[krazyq]

What if DirectX 10 is made to work on XP?

hah..i said this before...if xp could have dx10 and look a bit more flasshy, i would stick with xp.

I was hoping xps new sp3 would do that, but i guess not

 

[Apokalipse]

hah..i said this before...if xp could have dx10 and look a bit more flasshy, i would stick with xp.

I was hoping xps new sp3 would do that, but i guess not

The only reason Microsoft isn't making DirectX 10 for XP, is because of money.