Of course.Brad wrote:Tom you said the same about the XP Start Menu. Aren't you still using the 95 one?
I just don't understand why we'd need so many buttons.

Of course.Brad wrote:Tom you said the same about the XP Start Menu. Aren't you still using the 95 one?

There's nothing on the new one that you can't easily add to the old. All the new one does is take up more room.bradavon wrote:Nothing except they're outdated (the XP one you can access Quick Programs and My Computer instanly). What's wrong with Windows 2000? Nothing but XP is better.
The XP Start Menu not to be confused with the XP Theme (which is just green and blue instead of grey anyway) is more concerned with usability and much easier to navigate.
I was being sarcastic. I have plenty of room as is.tom2681 wrote:@Lourdes:
Maybe you should try my method.
As seen above, on my PC the taskbar is twice as tall as yours. All icons are at the top, all windows are at the bottom.
It doesn't take up any room because I use the taskbar's auto-hide feature.
That's how it looks:
https://www.bulletsnbabesdvd.com/forums/ ... barnew.gif
What's it like? I knew it was just a front end but never realised it was just literally another program.Shen wrote:and yes its media center, came with pc. never used it lol.
Fair enough but people can't contact you that way. It reminds me of my Dad who only turns his mobile on when HE wants to make a phone call.Shen wrote:no i dont run messengers on start up, it annoys me too much to wait for them to load up, plus its just as easy to load up when i want to use them.

Def Micro$oft is simply playing catch up at the moment, I don't think they will ever go beyond. But saying that, other developments of their are very very good...EvaUnit02 wrote:*Samples video*
HAHAHA, what a fucking queer that guy is. He would feel more at home writing for a San Francisco paper.
BTW we already knew that Vista is rip off of OSX. Hell, IE7 is a poor rip off of Firefox.
It's only been out 2 minutes what do you expect?romerojpg wrote:Games for instance seem to really need some serious patching and new stuff as a lot of them run like shit.
I presume it was the same PC and the PC was properly capable of running Vista? If not it's not a fair test in the slightest.romerojpg wrote:Doom 3 for instance in a test I saw runs at a nice speed of 80 frames per second on XP, which is wonderfully fluid, on Vista it runs at 28 frames! now that sucks bad!
Like I said you'll find it's not MS but the software makers that need to release patches to make their software Vista compatible.romerojpg wrote:it seems to be the same for many games, and video re-encoding, they better sort that shit out as no way I want that kind of problem when I get my new PC in a while.
Obviously that's possible provided you upgrade your hardware too.romerojpg wrote:I want Vista running faster than XP for games or I keep XP.