The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the need to

 

download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the link below :

 

 

 

Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

 

 

 

http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/c/a/fca6767b-9ed9-45a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in message

 

> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

 

>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it

 

>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

 

>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep

 

>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old

 

>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

 

>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

 

>>>

 

>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP look

 

>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new

 

>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

 

>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

 

>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

 

>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required

 

>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

 

>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

 

>>> junk.

 

>>>

 

>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

 

>>>

 

>>> Thanks

 

>>>

 

>>> Jerome

 

>>

 

>> Display Properties

 

>> Appearance tab

 

>> Windows and buttons

 

>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

 

>>

 

>> Right click the taskbar

 

>> Properties

 

>> Start Menu tab

 

>> Check "Classic Start menu"

 

>>

 

>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

 

>

 

>

 

> I would add one more:

 

> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI

 

> for XP from the package.

 

> Install and then run TweakUI.

 

> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search

 

> in Explorer" and select it.

 

> Click Apply> OK.

 

>

 

> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the

 

> simpler Win2K search window.

 

>

 

> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

 

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

 

>

 

> This and other tips can be found here:

 

> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+

 

> http://dts-l.net/

 

>

The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the need to

 

download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the link below :

 

 

 

Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

 

 

 

http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/c/a/fca6767b-9ed9-45a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"glee" wrote in message

 

news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in message

 

> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

 

>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but it

 

>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

 

>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will keep

 

>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The old

 

>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

 

>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

 

>>>

 

>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP look

 

>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a new

 

>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

 

>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

 

>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

 

>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not required

 

>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

 

>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

 

>>> junk.

 

>>>

 

>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

 

>>>

 

>>> Thanks

 

>>>

 

>>> Jerome

 

>>

 

>> Display Properties

 

>> Appearance tab

 

>> Windows and buttons

 

>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

 

>>

 

>> Right click the taskbar

 

>> Properties

 

>> Start Menu tab

 

>> Check "Classic Start menu"

 

>>

 

>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

 

>

 

>

 

> I would add one more:

 

> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is Tweak UI

 

> for XP from the package.

 

> Install and then run TweakUI.

 

> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic Search

 

> in Explorer" and select it.

 

> Click Apply> OK.

 

>

 

> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with the

 

> simpler Win2K search window.

 

>

 

> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

 

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

 

>

 

> This and other tips can be found here:

 

> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+

 

> http://dts-l.net/

 

>

If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

Start the Task-Manager (right-click on empty area of the taskbar, and

 

choose "Task Manager") and click on the heading "Mem Usage" so they are

 

arranged from high usage at the top down to lowest usage at the bottom.

 

 

 

Then read down the list to see if any running applications are "hogging"

 

memory - and if any of those high-memory-usage applications are really

 

necessary.

 

 

 

Win98 is just as susceptible to over and unnecessary use of memory, and can

 

be made to be just as slow loading applications if not enough free memory

 

is available.

 

 

 

But as time goes by, more software manufacturers are taking the liberty to

 

have components of their software auto-loaded at boot.

 

 

 

Examples of this are such as :

 

 

 

Google Updater (auto memory resident at boot)

 

Adobe Reader Speed Launcher (also loaded in memory at boot)

 

 

 

....and many other "auto updaters" and others, depending what software you

 

have installed on your system.

 

 

 

For a more detailed investigation of just what is running on your system,

 

download the [free] Microsoft program : "Process Explorer"

 

 

 

Download "Process Explorer" from the link below :

 

 

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

 

 

Also, to see exactly what is auto-loaded at boot time, try "AutoRuns" also

 

from Microsoft.

 

 

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

 

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

 

> Robert Macy wrote:

 

>

 

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

 

>

 

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

 

> benefits,

 

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved

 

> program

 

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

 

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.

 

> A

 

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

 

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

 

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

 

>

 

 

 

These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

 

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

 

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

 

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

 

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

 

to be the one using that space

 

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

 

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

 

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

 

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

 

 

 

It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

 

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

 

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

 

 

> > I

 

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

 

> > product. When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

 

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

 

>

 

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.

 

 

 

along with memory

 

 

>

 

> > Have any of you followed

 

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

 

>

 

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.

 

 

 

what?

If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

Start the Task-Manager (right-click on empty area of the taskbar, and

 

choose "Task Manager") and click on the heading "Mem Usage" so they are

 

arranged from high usage at the top down to lowest usage at the bottom.

 

 

 

Then read down the list to see if any running applications are "hogging"

 

memory - and if any of those high-memory-usage applications are really

 

necessary.

 

 

 

Win98 is just as susceptible to over and unnecessary use of memory, and can

 

be made to be just as slow loading applications if not enough free memory

 

is available.

 

 

 

But as time goes by, more software manufacturers are taking the liberty to

 

have components of their software auto-loaded at boot.

 

 

 

Examples of this are such as :

 

 

 

Google Updater (auto memory resident at boot)

 

Adobe Reader Speed Launcher (also loaded in memory at boot)

 

 

 

....and many other "auto updaters" and others, depending what software you

 

have installed on your system.

 

 

 

For a more detailed investigation of just what is running on your system,

 

download the [free] Microsoft program : "Process Explorer"

 

 

 

Download "Process Explorer" from the link below :

 

 

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

 

 

Also, to see exactly what is auto-loaded at boot time, try "AutoRuns" also

 

from Microsoft.

 

 

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

 

On Jun 7, 5:55 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

 

> Robert Macy wrote:

 

>

 

> > Someday, someone will explain how WinXP is an improvement for me.

 

>

 

> That's easy. XP is built on the NT base, not DOS. There are many

 

> benefits,

 

> none the least of which is that it is impossible for an ill-behaved

 

> program

 

> to bother another. Further, XP has preemptive multi-tasking. It is

 

> impossible for one application program to lock down a machine completely.

 

> A

 

> more robust file system that is less prone to error (NTFS), virtually

 

> unlimited memory space, and hundreds of other improvements make XT FAR

 

> superior to Win98 in almost every category.

 

>

 

 

 

These sound great, except I don't get to see their effects much. NT

 

base vs DOS base sounds higher level.

 

1. I don't have any applications that 'hog' the system

 

2. NTFS is less prone to error: Would I have seen this type of error?

 

3. Yes, unlimited memory space is an improvement, except WinXP seems

 

to be the one using that space

 

4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

 

what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

 

minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

 

immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

 

 

 

It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

 

deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

 

to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

 

 

> > I

 

> > know there was an improvement for MS by requiring registration of the

 

> > product. When I must use the WinXP, I miss the 'snappy' response

 

> > [even on a slower machine] of this Win98.

 

>

 

> XP does require better hardware, I'll give you that.

 

 

 

along with memory

 

 

>

 

> > Have any of you followed

 

> > how Linux boots up in less than 1 second?

 

>

 

> And a blow-up doll is ready to have sex in less than that.

 

 

 

what?

thanatoid wrote:

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in

 

> news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

>

 

>> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

 

>> FUBARed install of it.

 

>

 

> While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

 

> experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

 

> 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

 

> XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

 

> 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

 

> ever). It boots in 35 seconds.

 

>

 

> I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

 

> takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

 

> "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

 

> disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

 

> identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

 

> should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

 

> not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

 

> During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

 

> IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.

 

>

 

> Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

 

> it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

 

> programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

 

> connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

 

> install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.

 

>

 

> Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

 

> sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

 

> complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.

 

 

 

My comment was directed at the OP's complaint that even simple programs took

 

a minute to start. That slow starting time isn't a characteristic of XP

 

itself, just of the OP's install of XP and/or the particular program(s).

 

 

 

As far as boot time goes, that also depends a lot on what is installed. I

 

have two XP installs, each on a different physical drive the one normally

 

used - numerous programs installed - takes maybe 45 seconds to boot but once

 

the desktop appears it continues to grind the HD for about the same period.

 

The second XP install has very few programs on it, mostly for fixing

 

purposes it will boot in maybe 25 seconds or less and is pretty much

 

finished when the desktop appears.

 

 

 

The windows directory for the main XP is 1.96 GB for the #2 XP it is 1.06

 

GB. So why is #1 so much slower to boot? No idea.

 

 

 

Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I ever actually liked

 

was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is awful. I find it more reliable than

 

the previous MS offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for it...it allows

 

even the most inept user the illusion of computer literacy. If they

 

actually had to understand anything, how many computers do you think would

 

be sold? And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced operating

 

systems.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

dadiOH

 

____________________________

 

 

 

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

 

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

 

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

 

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

thanatoid wrote:

 

> "dadiOH" wrote in

 

> news:#baoDbxBLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

>

 

>> That has nothing to do with XP in general, just your

 

>> FUBARed install of it.

 

>

 

> While I know you are far more knowledgeable than me, my limited

 

> experience with XP forces me to disagree here. My P1 166 with

 

> 64RAM runs at the same or faster speed than either 98SELite or

 

> XP I have installed on a 2GHz P4 with 1 GB of RAM (more than

 

> 200-400 of it NEVER being used, nor the swap file accessed,

 

> ever). It boots in 35 seconds.

 

>

 

> I haven't bothered to time how long XP takes to boot up, but it

 

> takes a good while - and I have virtually all "services" and

 

> "hand holding" let alone stuff like AV, indexing, etc.,

 

> disabled. I actually have to WAIT a few seconds for the

 

> identical generic icons on the desktop to turn into what they

 

> should be. Programs run at about the same speed - but if I did

 

> not have the Intel Appl. Accel. installed, they would not.

 

> During all the installs and messing around I forgot about the

 

> IAA and the machine ran noticeably slower until I installed it.

 

>

 

> Tiny XP platinum, OTOH, ran like a demon - unfortunately, since

 

> it is so stripped down, it would not let me install some

 

> programs - I kept getting bizarre "things missing/not

 

> connecting" errors which disappeared after a complete clean

 

> install of XPSP3 - but also brought a lot of waiting with it.

 

>

 

> Not to mention the most common complaint about XP by users not

 

> sophisticated enough to see it as an idiot-targeted OS (and

 

> complain about THOSE assorted "features") is that it is SLOW.

 

 

 

My comment was directed at the OP's complaint that even simple programs took

 

a minute to start. That slow starting time isn't a characteristic of XP

 

itself, just of the OP's install of XP and/or the particular program(s).

 

 

 

As far as boot time goes, that also depends a lot on what is installed. I

 

have two XP installs, each on a different physical drive the one normally

 

used - numerous programs installed - takes maybe 45 seconds to boot but once

 

the desktop appears it continues to grind the HD for about the same period.

 

The second XP install has very few programs on it, mostly for fixing

 

purposes it will boot in maybe 25 seconds or less and is pretty much

 

finished when the desktop appears.

 

 

 

The windows directory for the main XP is 1.96 GB for the #2 XP it is 1.06

 

GB. So why is #1 so much slower to boot? No idea.

 

 

 

Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I ever actually liked

 

was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is awful. I find it more reliable than

 

the previous MS offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for it...it allows

 

even the most inept user the illusion of computer literacy. If they

 

actually had to understand anything, how many computers do you think would

 

be sold? And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced operating

 

systems.

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

dadiOH

 

____________________________

 

 

 

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...

 

....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from

 

LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.

 

Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

....snip....

 

 

 

What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

....snip....

 

 

 

What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

On 6/8/2010 2:33 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

>> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

>> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

>> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

>

 

> ...snip....

 

>

 

> What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

On 6/8/2010 2:33 PM, Robert Macy wrote:

 

> On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

>> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute to

 

>> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

>> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

>

 

> ...snip....

 

>

 

> What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

 

to begin by simply starting Task Manager. Then, in the "Processes" tab,

 

re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

 

to smallest). To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

 

"hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

 

Notepad-style apps takes ages).

 

 

 

To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

 

 

 

"Process Explorer" :

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

 

 

"AutoRuns" :

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

 

 

....However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

 

process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

 

applications.

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:2aa20813-010e-47ac-86f5-40eb08012a92@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

 

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute

 

> to

 

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

....snip....

 

 

 

What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

 

to begin by simply starting Task Manager. Then, in the "Processes" tab,

 

re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

 

to smallest). To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

 

"hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

 

Notepad-style apps takes ages).

 

 

 

To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

 

 

 

"Process Explorer" :

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

 

 

"AutoRuns" :

 

http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

 

 

....However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

 

process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

 

applications.

 

 

 

==

 

 

 

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:2aa20813-010e-47ac-86f5-40eb08012a92@n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

 

On Jun 8, 12:38 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> If you are having problems with "simple" programs taking up to 1 minute

 

> to

 

> load in XP - then I would seriously investigate what programs are

 

> automatically loaded into memory at start-up.

 

 

 

....snip....

 

 

 

What gets me is that the applications is extremely small

Thanks Tim.

 

 

 

 

 

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:eaoyM4zBLHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

> The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the

 

> need to download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the

 

> link below :

 

>

 

> Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

 

>

 

> http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/c/a/fca6767b-9ed9-45a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

> news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> "dadiOH" wrote in message

 

>> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

 

>>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but

 

>>>> it

 

>>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

 

>>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will

 

>>>> keep

 

>>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The

 

>>>> old

 

>>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

 

>>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP

 

>>>> look

 

>>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a

 

>>>> new

 

>>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

 

>>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

 

>>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

 

>>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not

 

>>>> required

 

>>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

 

>>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

 

>>>> junk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Thanks

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Jerome

 

>>>

 

>>> Display Properties

 

>>> Appearance tab

 

>>> Windows and buttons

 

>>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

 

>>>

 

>>> Right click the taskbar

 

>>> Properties

 

>>> Start Menu tab

 

>>> Check "Classic Start menu"

 

>>>

 

>>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> I would add one more:

 

>> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is

 

>> Tweak UI for XP from the package.

 

>> Install and then run TweakUI.

 

>> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic

 

>> Search in Explorer" and select it.

 

>> Click Apply> OK.

 

>>

 

>> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with

 

>> the simpler Win2K search window.

 

>>

 

>> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

 

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

 

>>

 

>> This and other tips can be found here:

 

>> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

>> A+

 

>> http://dts-l.net/

 

>>

 

>

Thanks Tim.

 

 

 

 

 

"Tim Meddick" wrote in message

 

news:eaoyM4zBLHA.1940@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>

 

> The "TweakUI.exe" powertoy can be downloaded SEPERATLY without the

 

> need to download the entire XP Powertoys package, by clicking on the

 

> link below :

 

>

 

> Download the small TweakUI installation file from the link below :

 

>

 

> http://download.microsoft.com/download/f/c/a/fca6767b-9ed9-45a6-b352-839afb2a2679/TweakUiPowertoySetup.exe

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

> "glee" wrote in message

 

> news:hukb48$pid$1@news.eternal-september.org...

 

>> "dadiOH" wrote in message

 

>> news:%23zMyASkBLHA.980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

 

>>> jerome.hill@nospam.com wrote:

 

>>>> I have used Win98 since 98. I really didn't care to upgrade, but

 

>>>> it

 

>>>> seems there's just too much stuff that dont work in 98 anymore. I

 

>>>> just bought another (used) computer with XP installed, and will

 

>>>> keep

 

>>>> my Win98 computer as it is. That way I can use either one. The

 

>>>> old

 

>>>> one was too slow for XP and dual booting seemed like a hassle to

 

>>>> setup. So, now I just have 2 computers.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Anyhow, I recall someone long ago saying there's a way to make XP

 

>>>> look

 

>>>> and act like Win98. I really dont care to have to get used to a

 

>>>> new

 

>>>> look, and XP has too much junk I dont care to use anyhow, like that

 

>>>> dog cartoon. Not only do I not want that stuff, but I have always

 

>>>> believed that any computer should use it's power for tasks, not

 

>>>> unneeded toys, which is one reason I never load anything not

 

>>>> required

 

>>>> by the OS into memory upon booting. I dont even run automatic virus

 

>>>> scans. I do it manually. I dont run screen savers or any of that

 

>>>> junk.

 

>>>>

 

>>>> So, what's the method to make XP look like Win98?

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Thanks

 

>>>>

 

>>>> Jerome

 

>>>

 

>>> Display Properties

 

>>> Appearance tab

 

>>> Windows and buttons

 

>>> Select "Windows Classic Style"

 

>>>

 

>>> Right click the taskbar

 

>>> Properties

 

>>> Start Menu tab

 

>>> Check "Classic Start menu"

 

>>>

 

>>> Those will clean it up pretty well.

 

>>

 

>>

 

>> I would add one more:

 

>> Download the Microsoft Powertoys for Windows XP. All you need is

 

>> Tweak UI for XP from the package.

 

>> Install and then run TweakUI.

 

>> Go to the Explorer sub-menu. In the details pane find "Use Classic

 

>> Search in Explorer" and select it.

 

>> Click Apply> OK.

 

>>

 

>> That will replace the brainless XP search function (and the dog) with

 

>> the simpler Win2K search window.

 

>>

 

>> Microsoft PowerToys for Windows XP

 

>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

 

>>

 

>> This and other tips can be found here:

 

>> http://www.petri.co.il/restore_classic_search_in_windows_xp.htm

 

>>

 

>> --

 

>> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

>> A+

 

>> http://dts-l.net/

 

>>

 

>

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

 

>> snip

 

>4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

 

>what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

 

>minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

 

>immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

 

>

 

>It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

 

>deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

 

>to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

 

> snip

 

 

 

On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any newer

 

OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

 

chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

 

I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

 

 

I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:bd9e3a4f-83ff-417f-aed1-e83b29a4fec4@r5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

 

>> snip

 

>4. superior in every way? then someone should have paid attention to

 

>what I can see, for example, the long delay between transitions. 1

 

>minute to start up a simple application, when Win98 starts it

 

>immediately, those kinds of things, what I see.

 

>

 

>It's just that I've given up precious 'time' for not much. But in

 

>deference, a friend of mine said he uses WinXP because of its ability

 

>to recover from a blown install. Too difficult with Win98

 

> snip

 

 

 

On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any newer

 

OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

 

chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

 

I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

 

 

I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/

"dadiOH" wrote in

 

news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

 

> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

 

> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

 

> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

 

> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

 

> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

 

> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

 

> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

 

> operating systems.

 

 

 

No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

 

gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

 

years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

 

sound of bleating...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,

 

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

 

most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it

 

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

 

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

 

- Arthur Schopenhauer

"dadiOH" wrote in

 

news:unJoaX0BLHA.5476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Note that I'm not a big XP fan - in fact, the only OS I

 

> ever actually liked was NewDOS 80 - but I don't think it is

 

> awful. I find it more reliable than the previous MS

 

> offerings. I too decry the bloat (especially the forced

 

> multi-user characteristic) but I understand the reason for

 

> it...it allows even the most inept user the illusion of

 

> computer literacy. If they actually had to understand

 

> anything, how many computers do you think would be sold?

 

> And if computers aren't sold, neither are over priced

 

> operating systems.

 

 

 

No argument there... it's all about money... Or they would have

 

gotten off their asses and written a brand new OS from scratch

 

years ago... So much easier just to keep on bloating to the

 

sound of bleating...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,

 

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

 

most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it

 

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

 

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

 

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Robert Macy wrote in

 

 

 

 

 

(you should try it somtime!)

 

 

> Thank you for the URL to litepc. Using a dial up modem, the

 

> site opened in less than a second giving me much text to

 

> read/review as the 'pretty' pictures were downloading and

 

> filling in -- instead of the other way around! I'm really

 

> tired of blank screens, until useless pictures appear

 

> buried in the text, but litepc did things in the right

 

> order! TEXT to read while images were forth coming

 

>

 

> Interestingly at this site, the first comment from a

 

> satisfied customer referenced their own problem with WinXP.

 

> Brought to mind the time I had problems with one of our

 

> WinXP systems [booting slowly, and never recovering once on

 

> the internet!, well almost, once in a while I regained

 

> WinXP to do something] I posted to the WinXP users group

 

> and was confronted with the most childish responses I've

 

> seen in ?? years. Everything from "you did something

 

> wrong", to "buy better hardware", to "make certain you

 

> burden your system with excessive antimalware and antivirus

 

> software"! I NEVER got an effective answer from the WinXP

 

> group, nor even a response from any site they sent me to,

 

> other than lists of hoops to jump through!

 

 

 

I spent about 5 weeks at a few XP sites when I was putting XP on

 

another partition because of a stupid piece of new hardware. The

 

level of maturity and intelligence reminded me of primary

 

schools in 'C' horror movies taking places in backwoods counties

 

where inbreeding is encouraged.

 

 

 

 

 

ped stuff I am too ignorant to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,

 

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

 

most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it

 

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

 

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

 

- Arthur Schopenhauer

Robert Macy wrote in

 

 

 

 

 

(you should try it somtime!)

 

 

> Thank you for the URL to litepc. Using a dial up modem, the

 

> site opened in less than a second giving me much text to

 

> read/review as the 'pretty' pictures were downloading and

 

> filling in -- instead of the other way around! I'm really

 

> tired of blank screens, until useless pictures appear

 

> buried in the text, but litepc did things in the right

 

> order! TEXT to read while images were forth coming

 

>

 

> Interestingly at this site, the first comment from a

 

> satisfied customer referenced their own problem with WinXP.

 

> Brought to mind the time I had problems with one of our

 

> WinXP systems [booting slowly, and never recovering once on

 

> the internet!, well almost, once in a while I regained

 

> WinXP to do something] I posted to the WinXP users group

 

> and was confronted with the most childish responses I've

 

> seen in ?? years. Everything from "you did something

 

> wrong", to "buy better hardware", to "make certain you

 

> burden your system with excessive antimalware and antivirus

 

> software"! I NEVER got an effective answer from the WinXP

 

> group, nor even a response from any site they sent me to,

 

> other than lists of hoops to jump through!

 

 

 

I spent about 5 weeks at a few XP sites when I was putting XP on

 

another partition because of a stupid piece of new hardware. The

 

level of maturity and intelligence reminded me of primary

 

schools in 'C' horror movies taking places in backwoods counties

 

where inbreeding is encouraged.

 

 

 

 

 

ped stuff I am too ignorant to understand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

Of course, it is no easy matter to be polite in so far, I mean,

 

as it requires us to show great respect for everybody, whereas

 

most people deserve none at all and again in so far as it

 

demands that we should feign the most lively interest in people,

 

when we must be very glad that we have nothing to do with them.

 

- Arthur Schopenhauer

On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

 

> to begin by simply starting Task Manager.   Then, in the "Processes" tab,

 

> re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

 

> to smallest).  To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

 

> "hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

 

> Notepad-style apps takes ages).

 

>

 

> To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

 

>

 

> "Process Explorer" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

>

 

> "AutoRuns" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

>

 

> ...However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

 

> process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

 

> applications.

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    :-)

 

>

 

 

 

Thanks Tim. Apologies for seemingly ignoring your excellent

 

suggestions.

 

 

 

I had already downloaded ProcessExplorer, and had used it, [i think it

 

was that program that had found the huge hog, enabling me at that time

 

to simply shut it off and go on] nice program. The other I

 

downloaded, but have not moved to the WinXP - still haven't turned it

 

back on in the last month. When using it, I just turn it on, run

 

whatever, and shut down. Since been adequately getting by, it is hard

 

to justify a long time and sustained effort at improving it. But when

 

I do ...

 

 

 

And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

effective, help than the WinXP group.

On Jun 8, 3:08 pm, "Tim Meddick" wrote:

 

> My primary advice, if you take the time to re-read my post-before-last, was

 

> to begin by simply starting Task Manager.   Then, in the "Processes" tab,

 

> re-arrange the running processes in order of "Mem Usage" (largest at top,

 

> to smallest).  To try to discover if there are any loaded applications

 

> "hogging" resources (especially at times when loading "simple"

 

> Notepad-style apps takes ages).

 

>

 

> To this end I also advocated the possible using of some other tools :

 

>

 

> "Process Explorer" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/ProcessExplorer.zip

 

>

 

> "AutoRuns" :http://download.sysinternals.com/Files/Autoruns.zip

 

>

 

> ...However, the most important thing is to first investigate Task Manager's

 

> process-list, at the time the PC is acting unusually "slow" to load

 

> applications.

 

>

 

> ==

 

>

 

> Cheers,    Tim Meddick,    Peckham, London.    :-)

 

>

 

 

 

Thanks Tim. Apologies for seemingly ignoring your excellent

 

suggestions.

 

 

 

I had already downloaded ProcessExplorer, and had used it, [i think it

 

was that program that had found the huge hog, enabling me at that time

 

to simply shut it off and go on] nice program. The other I

 

downloaded, but have not moved to the WinXP - still haven't turned it

 

back on in the last month. When using it, I just turn it on, run

 

whatever, and shut down. Since been adequately getting by, it is hard

 

to justify a long time and sustained effort at improving it. But when

 

I do ...

 

 

 

And as I said, THIS group has ALWAYS provided more, and more

 

effective, help than the WinXP group.

On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

...snip..

 

> On what hardware are you trying to run XP?  If you try to run any newer

 

> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays.  What processor,

 

> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

 

> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

>

 

> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

 

7 !!!!

 

 

 

Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

 

hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

 

conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

 

powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

 

'grotty' hardware.

On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

...snip..

 

> On what hardware are you trying to run XP?  If you try to run any newer

 

> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays.  What processor,

 

> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this 'evaluation'?

 

> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

>

 

> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

>

 

> --

 

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP  Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

> A+http://dts-l.net/

 

 

 

True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

 

7 !!!!

 

 

 

Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

 

hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

 

conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

 

powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

 

'grotty' hardware.

"Robert Macy" wrote in message

 

news:6d4ceee9-e780-4d91-99c7-526cf27d8edc@q36g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

 

>On Jun 8, 10:06 pm, "glee" wrote:

 

>..snip..

 

>> On what hardware are you trying to run XP? If you try to run any

 

>> newer

 

>> OS on older hardware, you are going to see delays. What processor,

 

>> chipset, amount of RAM, and so forth, are you basing this

 

>> 'evaluation'?

 

>> I've never seen anything you describe using XP on adequate hardware.

 

>>

 

>> I have seen Win95/98 crawl on Win3x/DOS-capable hardware, and XP run

 

>> slow on hardware suitable for Win98 or 2K

 

>>

 

>

 

>True, the hardware is anemic, but look at what it takes to run Windows

 

>7 !!!!

 

>

 

>Just like long boot times are accepted, excessively high grade

 

>hardware is the norm. Just imagine what is possible with a bit of

 

>conscientious effort. Instead of booting in 40 seconds on excessively

 

>powerful hardware, it might be possible to boot in 1 second using

 

>'grotty' hardware.

 

 

 

My XP installation is not on the greatest hardware, yet it boots up as

 

fast as my Win98 system. Only the shutdown takes a little longer.

 

Again, it is your hardware.

 

 

 

The point is, you are going through this thread bemoaning the slowness

 

of XP, but you are running it on hardware not suited for it. It isn't

 

an issue of XP being slower, it's an issue of your deficient hardware.

 

 

 

Did you similarly complain because the bloated Win95 with all that eye

 

candy GUI was so slow to boot on your machine upgraded from Win3.x, with

 

a 200MB hard drive and 1MB RAM? Oh, excuse me, you could not have even

 

installed with 1MB RAM....so did you increase it to 4MB at great cost

 

and still have it crawl because it needed at least 8MB?

 

 

 

Most newer operating systems use more resources, and require hardware

 

upgrades, or even replacement. Is that your complaint? You could

 

always buy a Mac.....then you would have NO control over what hardware

 

you got, and pay a premium price for it too.

 

 

 

--

 

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009

 

A+

 

http://dts-l.net/