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 10 February 2009 - 08:19 AM
Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:56 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.
[Boot Windows 7 from VHD] [Multi-boot Vista/XP and other OSes with Grub Menu] [Boot XP and Vista Independently]
Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L, Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33 GHz, ASUS Radeon EAH3450 256 MB, 6 GB Corsair RAM, Maxtor 300 GB + Seagate 400 GB HDDs, Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
IBM T42 Intel Pentium M 1.7 GHz, 1.5 GB RAM, Radeon Mobility 7500, 160 GB HDD, Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit
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 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.
Posted 18 January 2014 - 02:08 PM
Vista is my choice.
Posted 11 April 2014 - 11:33 AM
"Themes" are a distinctly separate product. But the 9x themes were alright too. One could easily tell what the objects represented on those icons were meant to be.
The XP style icons (including Office 2003) lacked definition, and were legible only on ultra sharp LCDs, which at the time when XP came out the majority of people didn't have.
Beginning with XP, icons also started to grow in unreasonable size wasting precious memory. Windows 98 had the largest icons as 48*48*256 (10 kB per icon), enough to display on the XP "tile" view. A large part of XP's shell32.dll is huge icons (30 kB), and some 3rd party applications like Nero had 256 pixel true color icons (512 kB for one icon), prompting UpdatePack.NL's "lite" releases to edit them out to keep the exectutable sizes in check. This nonsense was started by Windows XP and continued by Vista, which added support for those sizes. I suppose it is impossible to have photographic icons at low resolution, but I would argue that "drawn" style is most appropriate for an icon anyway.
This XP graphical refreshment, including blurred icons and the Luna theme, was the worst addition they made to Windows NT 5 (2000), which makes me reluctant to describe XP as the best system. A footnote seems required, describing that I am really talking about NT 5.
Windows Seven icons once again regained definition through darkened borders for most shapes. I've not looked at Windows Eight (2012) much. What I saw was totally flat. The system for some reason treats the screen as if it was a printed sheet, where only simple vector shapes can be output. But it will pass. Styles will change, and Metro will be rendered obsolete and denounced. Just wait and see.
Edited by j7n, 11 April 2014 - 12:13 PM.
Posted 11 April 2014 - 11:53 AM
Windows Me has amazing sounds, but I like vista's design. The eye candy possesses me
Seeker Of Truth by E. E. Cummings Quote (Me)
- seeker of truth "If you want to reach and discover the true meaning of order; You must go through chaos first."
- follow no path
- all paths lead where
- truth is here
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users