What if Microsoft had given us Windows XP 2024? A brave hero has given us a glimpse at an alternative universe, where Microsoft evolved the Windows XP design language. And isn't that a better use of time than coming up with the Copilot key? Huh? key on keyboard Windows keyboards to get a Copilot key – but how quickly will users jump? READ MORE Windows XP arrived in 2001 …
Windows XP was the last real desktop OS Microsoft ever made. The user commanded, the OS obeyed. XP did not "helpfully" turn options back on "for a better user experience".
Since XP with each succeeding OS Microsoft has taken more and more control away from the user until we have Windows 10 where it's a constant battle to wrestle control of your computer from Microsoft, and now Windows 11 where the user is a helpless pawn.
>XP did not "helpfully" turn options back on "for a better user experience".
Oh god, triggered I am.
"You can turn Windows Defender off, but we'll turn it back on again later for your protection"
How about "no, f*ck off, if I turn my AV off that is my decision and my risk and I don't need to be patronized or hand-held"...
Per the icon, I am currently sitting here with a pint of Crux Fermentation's finest Porter, so my comments might be less coherent than usual (hush at the back there, what do you mean "than usual"??)
> > Use the server version.
> That would be Server 2003 64bit in Workstation mode aka Windows XP Professional X64 Edition.
Double no. Server 2003 R2 x64 (please R2 with Sp2) has no defender feature to begin with. Using such old versions, besides from "I want a VM running that", does not make sense. And XP 64? What use case?
Use Server 2012 to Server 2022. I'd recommend 2022 for obvious reasons, freely available as EVAL. And if you know your way around with dism unlimited eval. It complains "not activated", but it works. Which should be fine for private test installations.
> Server 2003 R2 x64 (please R2 with Sp2) has no defender feature to begin with.
So it couldn’t be turned on by default…
> Using such old versions
Not sure about this, I thought we were discussing the world of circa 2010, rather than taking a 2008 copy of XP 64 and installing it on a modern computer for everyday use.
But if talking about W10/W11…
> And XP 64? What use case?
Same as all 64 bit versions of Windows since.
Back in the day, a 64 bit version of XP wasn’t constrained by the 4GB limit on RAM (ignoring the Intel x86 addressing scheme which could be used to address 64GB) so useful for CAD and video editing.
> Use Server 2012 to Server 2022. I'd recommend 2022 for obvious reasons
A couple of years back I picked up a couple of copies of 2019 Std 16 core licences for peanuts, runs very nicely on top of W10 Hyper-V, (well good enough for single user purposes on my laptop) or directly on the hardware (Lenovo L15 supported configuration).
So yes, if I wanted more of a workstation than a PC today, I would run 2022, however, I would still prefer the UI to be either W2K or XP rather than W10/W11; just with the functionality, security and stability of the W10 core…
It switched to, at least, Server 2012 once the line "You can turn Windows Defender off, but we'll turn it back on again later for your protection" came up. After that was the derailing to older versions :D. All versions before have no defender feature, though you could install the what-was-it-named-back-then AV from Microsoft.
Server 2022: Try it, it missed the "UI improvements" of Windows 11 by sheer luck I suppose - or by a big veto from the server guys who did not want that shit as UI. Looks like Windows 10.
Windows Defender was an optional component in XP as I recall it. It only became bundled with Windows 7. The original XP came out before Windows Defender was a thing, and Service Pack 3 rather rationally did not bundle it. The only time you get Windows Defender preinstalled is if you buy a prebuild.
Speaking of which, I find Windows XP great because how easy and quick it is to slipstream (ie merge a service pack onto the disc intself). No faffing about with DISM and waiting hours for the image to decompress, update and then recompress, and then repeating again and again for every SKU the image supports.
I got my tech moguls mixed up.
Tim Cook is in Cupertino and is of course the Apple Miester. Shame about that, as Tinky Winky fits quite well.
Alas, not sure which of the others Satya Nadella would be a match:
Dipsy, Laa-Laa or Po.
Given the Windows 11 retrograde UI issues, Dipsy and Laa-Laa are in the running
I've been forced to use Windows as far is W10. W2k was peak Windows GUI. W7 was usable, but I was already using utilities to get around the crapiness creep.
Nowadays, on getting a new PC, one of the first things I install is Open Shell and set it as close as possible to W2k UI.
The second thing I install is Taskbar Tweaker.
The third thing I install is Ribbon disabler. Don't get me started on the ribbon. Who the F'K ever thought that's a good idea??? I watch colleagues who've been using it for years, frequently searching for features and clicking the wrong icons.
The fourth installation is generally Libreoffice, depending on the purpose of the particular PC.
Why doesn't MS just let us use whatever GUI shell WE want? Why don't they let US control our OWN PCs? Forced updates in W10 are the work of the devil, forcing me to periodically re-disable the ribbon, etc.
I use Linux for all personal stuff. Personally I think the Linux Mint UI is the cleanest and easiest to use.
Microsoft should be forbidden from ever removing a previous UI that they have introduced for the good of the product.
Witness the nostalgia of a Windows 7 theme for KDE:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38711003
The reason that Aero was removed was because it was not efficient phones and tablets, so Microsoft resorted to insulting it by calling it "cheesy" as an excuse for Windows 8:
https://advyon.com/microsoft-saying-goodbye-to-aero-in-windows-8/
If every previous Windows UI is "dated and cheesy," then there is no reason to grow attached to the current incarnation.
If they are all slated to die, then the faster, the better.
"If every previous Windows UI is "dated and cheesy," then there is no reason to grow attached to the current incarnation."
And as for anything being dated, whether a UI, art, clothes etc, it's only because someone came up with a different concept and everyone followed the "new way", hence setting the "old way" into a date period and said new designer disparaging the old way and calling it dated in the first place. Don't get me wrong, some designs, fashions, whatever do get improved on, so moving on from isn't always bad, but often it's not improved on. It's just change for the sake of change, especially by fashion designers. It's the business model. The "important" people in the relevant industry tell the rest of the world what is cool and what isn't and most of the world follows along because "ooh, shiny".
You know what I miss most about GUIs? The way Win95/98 menus could be completely changed and re-ordered to suit what *I* want. Just open the relevant folder and start moving shortcuts around, creating new folders etc so the stuff I use most is where I expect to find it, or just dragging and dropping on the Start Menu itself. The current incarnation, at best, has "recently used" or "frequently used", which changes depending on what I...er..recently used. Which not only is not always what I next want, but the order changes every time I open it.
I have to use Win10 at work, and it's more like going back to what the Linux haters always complained about; the dreaded command line. It's easier to to type the program name in the search box than to go hunting through the menus!
Agreed, except for in the statement 'everyone followed the "new way"', replace "everyone" with "Microsoft". The users ("everyone else") had no choice in the matter.
Long live LibreOffice, which still looks like MS Office 97. No hunting for where MS put things THIS time every year or so!
Thunderbird has recently had a big interface revamp because they have fallen for this line of thinking. "We're losing marketshare, it must be because it looks old!" Meanwhile the functionality has been on maintenance mode for a decade and the revamp has brought nothing new on that front.
This article had me thinking, actually: The flat 'look' was introduced in windows 8, about 10 years ago, which was about 11 years after the introduction of the 3D look introduced in XP.
What new ugly paradigm will they force upon us with Windows 12 next year, because surely flat is dated now?
"What new ugly paradigm will they force upon us with Windows 12 next year, because surely flat is dated now?"
Good point! Yayyyy!!!!. What could be worse than "flat" look and non-obvious clickable links? Am I being too optimistic? I've never had to deal with arty designers, let alone UI designers, no my optimism may be misplaced by ignorance of just how bad a "new look" could be ;-)
I only use windoze as a runtime for Visio and Project, or other odd one-off windoze-only tasks, XP that I can with 384mb of ram and 5gb of disk was perfect. Anything after only added spyware, telemetry, and garbage I never wanted or needed.
If visio/project ran in wine, I never need windows at all, but Microsoft would never let *that* happen.
It would just be funny to see people say how "modern" it looks. It would be good proof that people's opinions of aesthetics are entirely what Microsoft dictates.
It would bubble down to something far more important though; we would have a good push to get rid of defective shite like Gnome 3+ and KDE 4+ and go back to something more useful.
I do wish OS developers would leave things alone that work. When I used windows, I hated having to relearn where everything was when I installed the latest version. I use Kubuntu now. Their developers are also guilty of changing things around all the time. It's confusing when I look online for help on how to do something. The instructions in the article tell me how to fix the problem, but when I try to follow them, nothing is where the directions say it is. Android is the worst for this. Instructions for finding something in Android 10 aren't good for Android 11 . ARRRRGH!
The UI did not really improve after that. A lot of things BELOW the GUI did improve, but that is not visible to the user - literally.
Though I still miss the "not-full-row-select" logic of Windows Vista explorer drag and drop, where it showed a little black like to indicate that you will copy/move the data exactly there, and not into the subdirectory you forcibly hover over or open a program you forcibly hover over (thank you Windows 7 for making this worse than Vista!).
But what about the stupid mmc default having the left pane is only 200 pixel wide since Windows 2000? There is some autodetection of a useful size, so it could be 400 pixel wide on higer resolution. Instead the code f's up if running at 4k with 100% OS-zoom, so the right pane is way too big, like some weird overflow... Still the same bad code.
Screw that.
How about--come with me here--instead of forcing a set width. Instead of saying THIS IS YOUR NEW MENU. What if, maybe, it was rewritten to provide the option of customizing it? We've got more computing power today than when it came out. So instead of making a giant waste of the screen and shuffling everything on each new OS release, why not simply refine things and provide more customizibility?
And yes, I realize that most users are absolute morons. So also have a way to lock it via group policy and include a 'reset this because it's borked' switch someplace.
At the time, I think it only really needed a decent desktop search option (though Google Desktop search could do this - albeit, I suspect, at considerable risk to your privacy). That said, I don't mind 10 and 12 either (I prefer the Mac, obvs), probably because I only use the search part of the start menu.
But there is nothing here about OS features, only about the GUI, right?
As I have said a few times already, this idea that the GUI should be tied inextricably into the OS kernel should have been left behind in the 1990s.
Tip: when you start talking about “design language“, maybe you should stop thinking of yourself as an OS software engineer.
A client had brought in a Sony Vaio XP laptop that they wanted restored from the factory disks.
As I was reinstalling it, I had a very pleasant surprise...well, a couple actually.
The typical XP grass field background came up, but the grass was waving as if in a breeze which was very cool...but then something even better happened, a remixed instrumental version of New Order's Ruined In A Day started playing while the install completed.
(non-instrumental version link)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbMu1ADVbrQ
My favorite system restore ever!
That might be the Bliss screensaver by Microsoft, you can still download it from archive.org.
I just skimmed through the video. got the gist, but the gist looked REALLY good.
Well played! THIS should be the design of "Next WIndows" - i.e. what the CUSTOMERS want, not what THEY want to shove ihto our orifices
And OPTING OUT of the cloudy .login and tracking and ads, while we're at it.
Was wondering if anyone else would say as such, and I heartily agree!
There's probably not so much difference in the work needed to create the video, and the work needed to actually create the OS UI. They've practically done it all already, just hire them immediately.
It brought tears to my eyes. A fast, responsive, intuitive OS that did its job as a platform rather than trying to be a "user experience".
Good contrast and clear borders between windows - Ah, the good old days.
All those principles lost in time, like tears in rain... Time to switch off.
《Microsoft had taken its finger off the reinvent button》
Novel way of putting it?
The Windows server 2008R2 GUI wasn't too bad although I only ever had 2008 running to support an obscure single hardware locked license server.
I have used Classic Shell/Open Shell for the few Windows instances I have ever needed run up which at least keeps thing consistent between W7 and W10 and not too horrid (a hybrid of NT4 and W7.)
Having waded through a Windows Internals book ages ago I would say the old joke beauty is only skin deep but uglyness goes all the way through is particularly applicable to Windows. :)
We started creating multiple applications in the Windows environment to help users access clinical and biometric 3D data collection data (C3D files) before XP appeared, but then started to see the issues appearing after XP first appeared (XP worked great initially) as Microsoft started to update their internal function support. This resulted in completely eliminating any access to the internal Windows functionality (dll's) and making all our applications functional regardless of any Windows updates.
As a result, our applications written for XP are still completely functional with no problems all the way through to Windows 11 these days, with only a few of our minor internal bugs needing to be fixed ever since. The Windows update problems were effectively very helpful, making us completely avoid them. And security is not an issue because I watched hacking in the early days too and insisted that our applications have absolutely no internet access functionality, resulting in easy sales to the military too.
I know various Windows interfaces get a lot of stick, but the issue with Vista was not specifically the interface, it was the driver model change, the move towards x64, and an improved security model (also, manufacturers twisting Microsoft's arm to certify hardware that couldn't run the OS properly).
All of which you'd need to do regardless of the interface. Windows 8 had the interface issues, because they tried to force a mobile interface on to desktop devices. There's a reason they wanted people to buy touch screen monitors.
It's arguable whether the UAC was a bit over the top, Windows 7 actually reduced the security. However a noticeable degree of complaints were due to the hideous security design of pre Vista software. Developers had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a world where the average application required administrator privilege.
Things such as large memory support, high resolution displays, advanced gaming APIs are now absolutely standard in Windows and for the most part Just Work. Whereas Linux is only now starting to address (badly) shortcomings in Wayland, Windows has had a modern compositor for years.
I don't think anyone was trying to. Under the hood windows has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 25 years.
The thing that pisses us all off is that for every improvement to the core kernel we seem to get saddled with some insane userspace GUI changes that make the objectively better new thing harder to use than the older, less good one.
Its like they went "here's your new car. It gets 80mpg and has 600 horse power. By the way, we put the windscreen wiper controls in the glove box, and you have to scroll 9 items deep in the stereo sub menus to adjust the volume. Also you're not allowed reverse gear now unless you pay another $20 a month."
My computer went tits up this week, weird errors and blue screens and then it lost the SSD, all in less than an hour.
I needed to get to the Macrium Reflect backup on my other HD but no SSD meant no Windows, so I had to reinstall from disk while realising the SSD was toast.
At least got the new install onto the SSD but I couldn't believe the flat screen monstrosity of W10 I was seeing, slidey this and that and big buttons everywhere. WTAF.
I must have made so many tweaks I have something that looks like W7 - classic shell of course - but then who knows what else I've switched off.
Realising something was still a bit iffy I opened the case and decided to wiggle all the wires and hey presto everything was working perfectly.
The Macrium Reflect back up worked and I only lost three days of email. I don't even need the spare SSD that's arrived.
I wish could get on with Linux.
Yeah. Blame Gnome for that. Mate had Compiz - mad features, many nice tweaks, but ever-so-slightly flaky.
Then Gnome went to 3 then 4, the Gnome folks didn't want to play nice with 3rd party compositors, and so Compiz has now rotted to unusablility. It still has the best Alt-Tab handler.
It's demise has made me sad.
It sure seems nowadays when I hear Microsoft use the words Innovate or Improve, the first thing I think is "Let's have a look-see what they have made better for Microsoft, and worse for the rest of us." This makes me somewhat nostalgic for the "bad old days!"
Love or loathe it, macOS has remained familiar since 2001 - and indeed, some parts since inception. (The top context sensitive menu bar)
The dock has been in place for 23 years. The context sensitive menu bar since 1984, 40 years.
Apple clearly realised that extreme and sudden changes to the GUI of an operating system is not a good idea, but gradual incremental changes are.
Microsoft were very much on the same journey, until Windows 8.
This proof of concept shows what I think would have been a gradual evolution of the Windows UI. It combines some of the good bits of the XP interface with the Aero effects from Windows Vista and the minimalist icons and widgets from Windows 11. Personally, I prefer the legacy Windows 2000 interface (and the Mac OS UI from versions prior to System 8) < insert long nostalgic sigh here >. But I would be totally content with the XP 2024 UI. It is more intuitive and consistent. This, compared to the daily reminders of how downright crappy and kludgy the actual Windows UI has become in its latest iteration.
All Microsoft needs to do is make the shell for windows 12 FULLY re-skinnable/replaceable.
THOUSANDS of people will create everything from tentacled Hentai Start buttons to very cool actually useable interfaces FOR FREE.
Look how Doom still gets mods, minecraft is going strong and Skyrim continues to get updates!
Maybe people hanker after the design, but the OS itself was flaky and nowhere near as fully featured as win11. Compare the number of viruses and malware items xp had compared to windows today.
I agree win11 is shamelessly plugging stuff the whole time and steering the hapless user towards more Microsoft products and services. But deep down it’s a better OS than XP for modern use.
Don’t get me wrong, windows has always been shit and Microsoft software has always been largely flaky.
Every single one of their OSes was a sham.
XP when I got my first large scale corporate support job. I'd been fixing PCs for years before as far back as DOS 3 and worked my way up to NT 4 as a small scale server admin. But it wasn't until XP that I was working for really large deployments. i.e. thousands instead of a few hundred.
XP was a bloody nightmare. Unstable, slow, and unpredictable. XP was where I learned to hate MS.
The love for XP is insanity. Win 7 was also garbage until SP 2 made it tolerable. How have people forgotten about the BSOD?
MS has never made a good OS, but at least I've hardly ever seen a BSOD in years. Still hate MS though. An OS that constantly gets in its own way.
Still have XP on a couple of old laptops, mainly used things like network monitoring, or apps for old stuff like eprom programmers. Windows 7 is quite usable, but have been using windows server for desktop here for years. Starting with server 2003, (aka XP), currently on ws2012, (~windows 8) with the "classic shell" plugin added, for customisation. Far better system management tools and just about everything is disabled as a default. Even has an nfs client / server included which is essential in a unix shop. Very reliable, uptimes of months if need be, and no ms nanny state...
> "Filename cannot exceed 255 characters"
Nope, not fixed. This is the Limit:
New-Item -ItemType File -Path "\\?\C:\tmp\1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDEF1234567890ABCDE"
EDIT: The path can be Unicode, i.e. 255 Chinese/Japanese/Russian/Arabian/Korean etc characters. For example using the japanese unicode character for questionmark:
New-Item -ItemType File -Path "\\?\C:\tmp\？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？ ？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？？"
The same limit as Btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, XFS, ZFS, exFAT, UDF etc etc etc. Only a few selected can have longer names, like Reiser with ~4000 or Nasumi UniFS, but the applications to use them are rare.
But the whole NTFS path can be 32767 characters since 2016 with Win10 1607 / Server 2016.
But tell me, do you have an actual use case for more than 255 characters? I only stumbled upon those with large pictures where a lot of characters from famous games or anime were drawn, and someone insisted on naming them all on the file name. That is the only time someone used such a long > 300 characters file name. And the guy only did it for "Riser can do what Windows cannot do" reasons, ignoring literally ALL other linux filesystems and applications which cannot handle it.
> But tell me, do you have an actual use case for more than 255 characters?
Bless. You've clearly never worked with architects or engineers. Every file in it's own folder, long descriptive file names. Whether or not it's a valid use case is moot - they will have spent weeks and months designing the folder hierarchy - without consulting IT - and expect it to work to their will.
> Bless. You've clearly never worked with architects or engineers. Every file in it's own folder, long descriptive file names.
Well, the complete path can me 32700-somthing characters, each subdirectory can have 250 (or 253?) unicode characters, and each file 255 characters. So your architect is no issue. And I can handle those things.
The problem arises when "they" create a folder structure, and then rename the base from "Project 1" to "Customer Name, City, Street, Country, Project Name, Project Responsibility, Planner Name" and then complain it does not work any more. Maybe that's what happens with your example? I've seen that quite often. If yes: The application is at fault not being able to handle long paths.
Date 1998: Windows 98 was the final straw for me -- I started out on a Linux life with RH5.....never looked back!
Date 2008: Julie Larson-Green and her crusade for "the ribbon" was a serious contributory factor driving EVERYONE away from M$.....
Date 2013: My wife needed Windows until now -- but Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 (...thank you Steve Sinofsky) was the last straw. (again!!).......
Date Today: All is pretty good in the Fedora 39 world. It's mostly a Linux world here, but WINE is running Visual FoxPro 6 perfectly (Yup...I paid for the licence)
So......why the discussion about ANY FLAVOUR AT ALL of Windows? Fedora 39 can do it all!
As a semi-pro photographer I wished I was the one who shot that famous background XP image. I seem to recall the snapper in question saying, "I can't tell you how much I got paid but safe to say that I won't ever have to worry so much about finding work for the rest of my life, all from that one shot."
The ability to have object information associated with a single object, like folders and file explorer windows having different settings.
This joint crap is so infuriating... file trees required to be showing in folders of program shortcuts is a big one. Having folders full of pictures or video's being set to "Medium Sized thumbnail" vs. "Details" for general directories.
I truly miss the customization available!
To date there is one, and only one, item I like about the start bar after XP: The ability to group like icons.
The Control panel on XP was far superior than the POS we have now. And pick any "Settings" screen today vs. XP... I'd like 10 minutes with the development team... just me, them, and my Louisville Slugger.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
