Login to Account Create an Account
Windows version with best icon/graphic style
Posted 08 February 2009 - 04:02 PM
I just noticed that there was a separate subforum for polls. Please move!
Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:30 PM
Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:19 AM
Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:56 PM
Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:01 PM
Posted 11 February 2009 - 11:07 AM
Edited by finebbs, 11 February 2009 - 11:14 AM.
Posted 11 February 2009 - 12:49 PM
Edited by spacesurfer, 11 February 2009 - 12:50 PM.
Posted 11 February 2009 - 01:19 PM
Posted 11 February 2009 - 05:35 PM
Posted 01 July 2009 - 11:13 PM
vista & 7 for xp
Edited by pm*, 02 July 2009 - 02:02 AM.
Posted 02 July 2009 - 01:53 AM
Posted 08 October 2009 - 08:45 AM
My favourite icon style is from Windows NT 4.0 (with the high colour icons enabled) .... these icons also appeared on Windows 95 if you install the Plus Pack and are in COOL.DLL from Windows 95 with Plus Pack or SHELL32.DLL from Windows NT 4.0
If I HAVE to chose something from that list, it'll be the ME/2000 icons, as I like the look of them far better than the 98 ones.
To be honest, the above choices need to be change from Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000 to Windows 98 and Windows ME/2000 as ME/200 had the same graphical style throughout (right from the Web view in Explorer down to the icons)
Edited by woody.cool, 08 October 2009 - 08:47 AM.
Posted 19 November 2013 - 07:52 PM
I loved the silver/blue feel to both Windows ME and Windows 2000.
Posted 19 November 2013 - 09:21 PM
Posted 24 November 2013 - 03:19 PM
I won't slam Windows ME, but I don't know how you could say Windows 2000 Professional was junk by comparison. It was probably THE MOST STABLE version of Microsoft Windows ever produced. SP3 onwars was quite mature and worked VERY WELL. Whereas, I had lots of stability issues with ME on more than one machine. I had good luck with it, but it's plain denial to say Windows ME was without serious issues.
Edited by JodyThornton, 24 November 2013 - 03:25 PM.
Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:16 PM
Posted 24 November 2013 - 04:42 PM
Uh, I was trying to be friendly and definitely I'm not adheriong to mob mentality. But are you saying that you'd even ignore Micorosoft's own admission that ME had problems? I'm not saying don't be happy using it, but you seem really cheesed that other users had legitimate issues with the OS. That's not the users' faults, is it?
Posted 24 November 2013 - 05:09 PM
Posted 26 November 2013 - 04:57 AM
You're points are correct. I shouldn't dismiss other folks legitimate grievances with Windows ME. Oh well... nothing I can do about that now.
I feel lost on newer stuff. I used "some" version of Office at a printing shop while doing a resume... couldn't figure out what the hieroglyphics did. I thought Word 6 on Windows 3.1 was sufficient. Maybe I'm behind the times.
Posted 27 November 2013 - 08:35 AM
Oh I get the gripes with Office. See, I detest the ribbon interface, so I don't ever want to upgrade past my current Office 2003 installation. Office 2007/2010/2013 leave me cold. And the Office365 initiative is not attractive to me at all.
In fact, I would stay with Office 2003 if it weren't for security issues not being patched or maintained past April 2014. I have a REALLY nice system right now 7 GB of RAM, XP x64 Edition and Office/Outlook 2003. It works flawlessly.
You made me think of Word v6 with fond memories. When I first used Windows 95, I ran Office v4.3 (16-bit) and used LFNs Now! to get long filenames to work with the old apps. I miss those simple days.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users