Why Windows Vista doesn't suck

[xpclient]

I much, much prefer the Vista Start Menu which stays at a discreet size no matter how many levels deep I go into the All Programs listings. This keeps in view whatever is displayed on the screen, which is especially useful when trying to follow unfamiliar instructions on the screen. The XP menu, on the other hand, can fly out to cover half the screen, obscuring the instructions I'm trying to follow. In that regard, it serves a (hindering) function similar to the Windows 8 start screen. As far as I'm concerned, the nested menu listings were a stroke of genius.

The XP Start Menu can be made to "Scroll programs" then it won't occupy multiple columns, at least the column with the full list of programs. Are you aware of that setting? When that is checked, the Programs column will overlap the right column of the main menu only (Documents, Pictures, Music etc), It won't go beyond that although if you expand program folders further, they do take screen space horizontally. It still manages to show more programs than the nested "All Programs" treeview which is too cramped and requires too many clicks to get to the program. (In the XP menu, just hovering was enough).

 

I agree about Windows Update. It is much improved in Vista. The text can be tuned using ClearType Tuning PowerToy but the visuals are no match for the beautiful Windows Vista. Vista's DirectX is obviously also much more capable.

Edited September 4, 2014 by xpclient

[vinifera]

letters are different coz of font type and cleartype thingy

otherwise letters are same (that was bad comparison there)

 

as of look, I always used WindowBlinds on XP and never default XP look, the OS looked better than vista and 7

[JorgeA]

Very well said. I agree completely.

 

Thank you!

 

--JorgeA

[JorgeA]

 

I much, much prefer the Vista Start Menu which stays at a discreet size no matter how many levels deep I go into the All Programs listings. This keeps in view whatever is displayed on the screen, which is especially useful when trying to follow unfamiliar instructions on the screen. The XP menu, on the other hand, can fly out to cover half the screen, obscuring the instructions I'm trying to follow. In that regard, it serves a (hindering) function similar to the Windows 8 start screen. As far as I'm concerned, the nested menu listings were a stroke of genius.

The XP Start Menu can be made to "Scroll programs" then it won't occupy multiple columns. Are you aware of that setting? When that is checked, the Programs column will overlap the right column of the main menu only (Documents, Pictures, Music etc), It won't go beyond that. It still manages to show more programs than the nested "All Programs" treeview which is too cramped and requires too many clicks to get to the program. (In the XP menu, just hovering was enough).

 

I agree about Windows Update. It is much improved in Vista. The text can be tuned using ClearType Tuning PowerToy but the visuals are no match for the beautiful Windows Vista. Vista's DirectX is obviously also much more capable.

 

 

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen.

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

--JorgeA

[xpclient]

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen.

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

No idea. Your Start Menu is broken lol. It's a setting available since Windows 98.

[WinClient5270]

 

I tried changing the XP Start Menu setting to scroll the programs, and hit Apply. Didn't make a difference, they're still flying out halfway across the screen.

 

Is a reboot necessary, in addition to Apply?

 

No idea. Your Start Menu is broken lol. It's a setting available since Windows 98.

 

No no, I did the same thing. And it changed nothing. and i used a real, legit copy of Windows XP Pro SP3.

Screenshot here: http://gyazo.com/4375c5c305b48c9c8080d0ea652adf93

Notice how it is clearly checked and is enabled in start menu options.

[JorgeA]

I concur with @2008WindowsVista -- I made the Start Menu settings change on a second XP system, and got the same (lack of) result.

 

--JorgeA

[xpclient]

Ah ok I see what you mean from @2008's screenshot. I meant that the Programs column itself won't expand to the right of the main menu when "Scroll programs" is enabled - the Programs column shows in a single column then. But it's subfolders do expand beyond that - no way around that in XP. It's a tradeoff - to avoid scrolling vertically and clicking to expand each folder in a relatively cramped area like the Vista Start Menu, XP's menu requires you to move the pointer horizontally to reach the program. IMHO using the available screen estate is better than click-scroll-click-scroll to launch the program, but I see how some users may prefer the compact Vista style because it doesn't cover the rest of the screen. Of course, searching to launch a program is an outstanding improvement of the Vista Start Menu but it forces mouse diehards to use the keyboard.

[WinClient5270]

except s***ty performance even under sp2

I simply hated it coz of its clunky file manager and whole system wide ui

 

7 got better less cluttered FM, yet again system wide ui still sucks, but I guess with M$ you can't get it all

finally 7 SP1 runs better to me than vista SP2, so why downgrade 

 

in fact if XP had option for scaling of folders/image thumbs to bigger

and 7 taskbar (tho viglance somehow helps but it aint it), i'd switch back to XP even today

actually, i don't know what level of performance you're aiming to get, but Vista runs like the wind on my pc, blows 7 away in terms of speed, boots up in 5 seconds and shuts down in 3.

vista's "cluttered" UI can be customized, i saw where you didn't like how they crammed the file "tree" under the favorites links, but you can turn those off, see here: http://gyazo.com/7431f3f6ff28fce13260837c47cdc25d

and i prefer vista's level of backwards compatibility (in terms of UI) over 7 or 8 any day of the week.

7 got rid of the classic start menu, so no choice for users that prefer it than to install classic shell (shouldn't have to install 3rd party software for something like that IMO)

win8 got rid of the classic theme and start menu and has the cluttered and uncustomizable ribbon UI in explorer, as well as that intrusive and ugly start screen, so vista easily beats it.

also 7 forces auto arrange in explorer for no reason, have to tweak a registry setting to turn it off, but vista doesn't do this.

[netbookdelgob]

Vista sp2 runs a lot faster than W7 sp1 on a netbook with atom n455 1.6 ghz and 1 gb ram. It really works great. In windows 7 you just cant do anything, the cursor lags, boot times over 3 minutes.

[Jody Thornton]

I've been running Vista Ultimate x64 Edition (SP2 integrated) for just over a year, and it smokes.  XP x64 Edition ran a hair more responsively, but it's hardly noticeable.

 

I tried and supported Vista in its RTM days and it was crap (REALLY slow), but on a good machine with SP2 integrated, there's no issue now.  Am I right in assessing the x64 build as more stable as well?  I've just never seemed to like the x86 build of Vista, but the x64 build seems "better".

[AnX]

Windows Vista wasn't all that great in its RTM days, but SP2 has fixed it to the point that it's a very usable and viable OS. The server edition of it is also supported as long as Windows 7 is.

[Jody Thornton]

...The server edition of it is also supported as long as Windows 7 is.

So if that is the case, there will have to be two sets of updates between Classic and R2, since the codebases are different, right?

[Ponch]

 In windows 7 you just cant do anything, the cursor lags, boot times over 3 minutes.

You don't expect to be taken seriously with that, do you?

[vinifera]

lol my boot is within 45 seconds

and I have old machine