On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Thomas Bohn<[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 9, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> XP is fundamentally identical to Win2K. It was in many ways a reskinned >> version of Win2K with better DirectX support for gaming. It did evolve some >> differences with SP2 and later though. > > Is can be true or not, I have not much experiece with Win2K as I have with > XP. I'm just saying that the way Microsoft went with XP, Vista and 7 > userlandwise wrong. Instead of maintaining the old Win2K and NT look and one > other look they should have developed one look wich can suite everyone, or > is so subtle that no one really cares to change it. > > Of course there also technical reasons I don't like Windows, the registry > for example. I always dreamed that tomorrow the files in which it is store > get broke or got somehow corrupted. Because one software didn't really know > how to change it. I guess most of the time the registry works but I don't > feel good about it. > > Thomas
The basic Win2K interface is there on XP and Vista, aside from the Start Menu changes. Turning off the Theme service immediately gets you the old look. There are some major advantages to non-expert users in the newer UI themes (Colour coded window controls for one) but the old UI is there too. I've had the most file/settings corruption issues under Linux, with Mac OS running second, in almost 2 decades of serious use. No OS has proven to be truly bad for that issue (post-1996 Seagate PATA and SATA drives on the other hand...) -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
