Slashdot Mirror


Pimp Your XP

An anonymous reader writes "Ezinearticles.com has up an interesting article on how you can improve Windows XP to mimic and even surpass Vista — at least some of its new features. Several of the suggestions cost money and others are free. From improving the user interface with Stardock to mimicking new security features with open source software such as Sudown, the article discusses many ways that die-hard XP users can enhance their environment without moving to Vista."

14 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. That's all very well... by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but how do you simulate the hardware incompatibilities? I suppose you could get all your old peripherals a pour coffee in them, but I don't think that's really going to give you the same sense of frustration that you'd get with Vista.

    1. Re:That's all very well... by blowdart · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well Stardock is fat bloated and heavy, so it will help simulate the slow down you may experience running Vista on your existing hardware.

    2. Re:That's all very well... by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suppose you could get all your old peripherals a pour coffee in them, but I don't think that's really going to give you the same sense of frustration that you'd get with Vista.

      I've been thinking about this, and I think if you poured coffee into all your old peripherals and flushed $120 down the toilet, you might get pretty close.

    3. Re:That's all very well... by blackicye · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think there has ever been a new MS OS release that has run faster on the same hardware than its predecessor.

      I managed to get Vista business running pretty much like 2K, I don't really feel the need to have all the shiny, bloated stuff. One of the main reasons I even switched to Vista (aside from receiving it as a free upgrade) is to check out DirectX 10.

      More alarming than some new MS games for windows (Halo 2 and Shadowrun) REQUIRING vista to play, is the fact that to play online you have to pony up for Xbox Live..I wish MS the best of luck convincing PC users to get leeched like they've managed with their console gamers, no way in hell I'm paying for online play for an FPS.

    4. Re:That's all very well... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      upgrade your PC?

      I bought a brand spanking new Core 2 Duo E6600 w/ an X1950 vid card. 4 gig RAM.

      I took Vista off and installed XP Pro SP2 because Vista felt like I was trying to jog in a swimming pool. XP runs like a dream, even using Adobe Premiere and Sonar 6 at the same time.

      And, there's minimal DRM. And, I don't have to tell the computer that I really, really want to do what I want to do. And, I can play City of Heroes. And, for the first time since I started using computers a couple of decades ago, I feel good about not having the latest OS.

      That may be the real legacy of Windows Vista. It may be the turning point in the way many of us have slavishly lined up for every new technology that came along, just because it was the latest and greatest. I see Windows XP sort of like the way I saw the '66 Mustang that I had when I was in grad school in 1977 - as far better than the current model. And you know what? There was something fine in feeling that way about a bit of technology. And there is, again.

      When Microsoft removes the DRM from Vista, and I'm convinced all my little productive applets and plugins will work in Vista, AND I get a free upgrade to the latest service pack from the license I paid for when I bought this new computer that is now lying unused, I may take a second look at Vista.

      Until then, I'll enjoy my nice new WinXP system and save up for the next gen Mac Pro or quad-core Ubuntu Studio box. And Bill Gates can shove Vista so far up his ass that his eyes look Aero Glassy. That's all.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Why buy separate? by gravos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure of the value of tacking on features to XP to make it more like Vista, especially when such features cost money. I mean, if you want Vista-like stuff, why don't you just pay the upgrade fee and get a complete, well-tested package instead of a bunch of disjoint shareware utilities?

    1. Re:Why buy separate? by Runefox · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is true; However, XP was a major departure from what we had seen in the past, and it was scary - It was a true, user-oriented NT-based OS that was actually very solid and offered a few neat new features (one of the most prominent of which being the Windows Firewall of SP2), as well as having much better plug and play support. As I recall, the lack of DOS support and many Windows 3.1 to 95-era games and applications failing to work, coupled with relatively high system requirements for the time, caused most of the delay for the migration from 98/ME/2k and XP. As more applications came about to replace those of yesteryear that actually worked on XP, and as emulation such as DOSbox became popular, and as more powerful machines became cheaper, more people went with XP. All this and I haven't mentioned XP's crash rate was, and is, far lower than Win9x, which on modern hardware would require a reboot after 12 hours of uptime with anything of consequence running, due to massive memory leaks in the 9x kernel, all non-issues in XP.

      Vista, however, when you look at it for what it is, is basically Windows XP with a hardware-accelerated GUI (which is cool), some parental controls, an idiot check, and even less compatibility with both software and hardware than I believe even XP had when it was first released (especially if you consider 16-bit apps). So many of the planned features were ripped completely from the OS, and its continued delays caused me to personally become quite skeptical of the necessity of Vista to begin with, not to mention another bout of the need for relatively powerful hardware that many OEMs aren't even providing (512MB of RAM on Vista? What are you guys thinking?). The security aspect of things really hasn't changed much, IE7 is still more insecure than any other browser, (early) video drivers can often crash or lock the system outright, and the installer takes forever just to get to the point where you can choose a destination drive and enter your serial - No disk activity is happening, just a long, drawn-out three minute pause between clicking "Next" and actually seeing the next screen. Vista takes forever and a day to install in comparison to other operating systems, even on systems that easily exceed the system requirements. XP's install was closer in completion time to 2k's (probably because it was pretty much the same installer), which was very reasonable. All this not to mention Windows Live OneCare, which, while a separate product, is very much related to Vista, and is one of the worst products in the security market.

      Vista's cool, though. It has that flashy cool factor, but that's not really a selling point for an MS OS; I want something that's going to work, and something that's not going to bring my system to its knees just to boot the damned thing.

      --
      Screw the rules, I have green hair!
  3. Humorous. by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 5, Funny
    From TFA, first line:

    Just lately it seems to be the fashion amongst writers on the internet to compare and criticise operating systems. Joke article, right?
  4. Cost? by JamesRose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The author mentions costs all the way through this article, this costs, that costs, and none of it is cheap. I got an OEM vista ultimate for £120 ($240) which from the looks of it is actually cheaper than the cost of pimping my XP.

    Not to mention, this is a hell of alot of software, I mean, he's talking about installing several toys that will run 24/7 and of course this is gonna sap your processing power, and its not integrated, so it'll probably end up using more resources than vista.

    1. Re:Cost? by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not to mention, this is a hell of alot of software, I mean, he's talking about installing several toys that will run 24/7 and of course this is gonna sap your processing power, and its not integrated, so it'll probably end up using more resources than vista.

      The creators of WindowBlinds are fighting this notion of "it's integrated so it takes less resource" really hard as of late.

      People seem to believe that if it's integrated, it should be better, but it's not the case. In their benefit, I downloaded and tried WindowsBlinds. It seems to indeed take less RAM and CPU than XP's theme compared (for simple themes). Then of course when you account for all the glows and transparencies running without DirectX who knows.

      One things though, it misbehaved a lot and lots of artifacts where the skin authors didn't account i'll use the skin in this fashion (such as put the task bar on left vs bottom). I wished hard it'd work, since I wanted to mod the default XP skin a bit so it has smaller titlebar and taskbar (and not blue). But, not good enough. Pitty.

      Looks like the best skin ever created by Microsoft is the Windows 95/2000 classic look, which I use now on XP, and will most likely use on Vista.

  5. Cheaper Breadcrumbs by sjwoo · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can't go wrong with Explorer Breadcrumbs -- I'm using it on XP right now, and I don't miss Vista one bit.

  6. Re:Shell replacements? by KermodeBear · · Score: 5, Informative

    Indeed. I used to change my shell every other week or so for a few months, just to try something new and tinker.

    I found that LiteStep was a PITA to use. Too much playing with config files.

    SharpE was a decent and simple to use. Same with geOShell.

    AstonShell is a nice shell with lots of features, but it costs money and it can't do anything that LiteStep can't.

    I tired BlackBox for windows when it was first released and liked it quite a bit. Very minimalistic.

    There is quite a lot of shells to choose from, though, sadly, not as many as there used to be. DarkStep was a stripped down LiteStep shell that I REALLY liked, but the maintainer abandoned the project many, many years ago. Seranade looked promising, but the site doesn't even exist anymore.

    --
    Love sees no species.
  7. even more alarming by svallarian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is that both of those games are DX9! We still don't have any DX10 goodness (save for the Lost Planet DX 10 Demo and Company of Heroes if the patch came out)

    --
    I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
  8. The real list by Amadawn · · Score: 5, Informative

    No offense to the author, but the linked article is barely informative. I don't even know how this made it to the front page. But

    the subject is interesting, as there is a bunch of cool freeware software to make XP be like (or even better than) Vista. You

    don't need to spend a single dollar. So this is my real list of programs to Pimp your XP:

    1. Lauchy: www.launchy.com
    Some may say that this is the poor man's QuickSilver. Maybe it is, but in the Windows world there are few programs as useful as

    Launchy. Install it and you won't need to access your start menu anymore.

    2. Quizo's Explorer toolbars: http://quizo.at.infoseek.co.jp/freeware/indexEn.ht ml
    These are 2 free toolbars that make Windows Explorer as good as Directory Opus (IMHO) for free:
    * QTTabBar: Adds firefox-style tabs to windows explorer. It also adds a cool incremental search feature, and a customizable

    toolbar where you can add folder shortcuts, etc
    * QTAddressBar: Explorer breadcrumbs!

    3. FileBox eXtender: http://www.hyperionics.com/files/index.asp
    This is one of the most useful little pieces of software that I've used. I adds 2 buttons to the title bar of every windows dialog

    and of every windows explorer window. One button gives you access to your "favorite folders" (which you can easily change) and the

    other one gives you access to your "folder history". With these, going back and forth between folders to open or save files

    becomes a snap. The only problem is that the default button icons a kind of ugly, but they can be easily changed.

    4. Findexer: http://tomseffect.com/
    Substitutes the windows explorer sidebar for a place where you can put links to your preferred folders. If you use FileBox

    eXtender (see above) this might not be as useful, but I still like to use it.

    5. TaskBar Shuffle: http://www.freewebs.com/nerdcave/taskbarshuffle.ht m
    Another really useful program. With it you can reorder the window buttons in the windows taskbar. It can even automatically group

    windows from the same program without collapsing them. You can also reorder the tray icons in the system tray.

    6. Free Launch Bar: http://www.freelaunchbar.com/
    Make the windows Quick Launch bar much more useful with this free replacement. It adds the ability to have folders inside the

    quick launch bar, and have shortcuts within those folders.

    7. LClock: http://www.softpedia.com/get/Desktop-Enhancements/ Clocks-Time-Management/LClock.shtml
    A nice replacement to the windows clock in the system tray. It looks much better and is more useful as it shows a calendar when

    you click on it. But the reason I recommend it is that it can also hide or reduce the size of the start menu button! Once you

    start using Launchy (see above) you will not use the start menu very often, so I like to recover the taskbar real state that it

    uses unnecessarily. To do so, with LClock you can reduce it by substituting the start menu image with a much smaller one.

    8. MenuApp: http://www.freewaregenius.com/2006/11/02/menuapp/
    Customize the explorer context menu with this tool. It comes with a lot of built-in actions, such as Command Prompt here, Create a

    Folder, copy filename to path, etc.

    There are other tools that you can use, but which I personally don't (although I've tried or used them in the past):

    1. RocketDock: http://www.punksoftware.com/rocketdoc