Jody Thornton

But there's the thing. It's demonstrated that MOST people don't need or even want the product that gets things done. They don't need full on office suite applications or audio production apps, or heavy photo publshing apps. They just need small tailored apps to get quick things done. Tablets and phones are not toys, and their OSs (even though I care not for them) aren't toys either. They fit the bill perfectly for what MOST people want to do. The term "MOST" doesn't represent us on tech forums. We are quite the minority. You might want to think most people are feeling turned against by Microsoft going in this mobile direction. But the truth is, most just don't care. They ditched Windows long ago. To them, Windows is something they have to use at work, and they are just pining for the day that their boss lets them use an iPad instead. I've seen it in action. Now you might say, "Today's tablet and phone addicts used to use PCs and Windows XP religiously. How did we lose them?" Because in 2004, websites were still the norm. In 2005 and 2006, YouTube videos had to be watched on a PC web browser. And you had to use a PC to get all of those songs on your iPod. (Hear that I never mentioned a Word document or an Excel Spreadsheet?) Fast forward to 2015, and there are Android/iOS apps to view YouTube, and to post on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. No one downloads MP3s anymore. They just play songs on YouTube. And, if they really did need to see a work-related document or spreadsheet, they can open it with Google Docs. See? They have everything they ever needed or wanted, WITHOUT being tied down to a PC or some dumb product called Windows (by the way, I don't think that, I'm just echoing the mindset of a millenial. ) - but you need to hear it.

Not that I agree with Microsoft's prying eyes, but doesn't Google do the same thing? The only way we have all of the customized Android and iOS options (like regionalized search or customized apps) is specifically because of data gathering. Ask most people to adopt a more secured user environment, and they'll kick and scream because they want the "always connected" convenience. Microsoft may not last, and this may be the beginning of the end for them. But they need to be seen by their shareholders as entering the mobile apps space. They need to be seen as using information as a way to draw growing revenue. So yes, Microsoft still needs a way to provide a way (for now) to run Explorer-based applications so you can still produce with them. But that's not where the future is - for anyone! Microsoft needs to chase the same space everyone else is? Since corporations and PC tech types want to stick with more conventional desktop designs, where is the revenue growth in that? There are no new ideas wanted here. (in fact, I'm sure most of us would be happier if Microsoft just kept supplying security and driver updates to allow new hardware to just keep runing on Windows 7 in perpetuity.) So Microsoft is catering to a market that embraces the idea of regularly turning things upside down. These types don't embrace "if it ain't broke; don't fix it". There's no adventure in that for them.

Haaaaaaaaaa! (That's clever)

Isn't that a wee bit strong? (LOL funny though) but they are trying to get everyone on a unilateral platform. Information gathering apps are going to be the way software companies make money in the future. Operating systems are just a means to an end in that respect, and while at it, provide the end user with the basic tools needed to achieve productivity. I don't think there's much farther you can go with a desktop, is there? Microsoft, even though they may fail at it because of their late entry, NEEDS to be in the mobility market. Desktop environment like conventional Windows are indeed necessary, but not growth industries. We may still need them in the office or for specialized work, but most people don't "want" them. In fact I know a lot of people, mostly women who've told me that they always hated computers but loved the Internet (I responded to that with "Huh?), but a phone or tablet gives them the joy of the Internet without having to use geeky computers or websites. Just use easily customized apps.

I want to agree that there's no buzz surrounding Windows 10. But over at tenforums.com (aside from the fact that there are a few fan boys), there seems to be a lot of joy over the OS. I'm personally just not stuck on it.

Actually I use Windows Basic out of choice, but still I might have used Chrome way back when if it had conformed to the UI (It does in Linux, so why can't it do so in Windows?)

I prefer Sumatra PDF. Any Adobe can bite me.

Use Pale Moon so you don't have to put up with Australis. What is the difference between the Chrome "XP" and "7" styles? I always wished that Chrome just conformed to the UI completely.

Perhaps someone could answer this for me regarding "Visibility" states of packages in the following registry path: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Component Based Servicing\Packages\[pick a package] Each packages shows a key called "Visibility" which I believe shows if the packages is visible in Turn on/off Windows Features. If this is true, what are the Visibility states? I've seen both "1" and "2" but it appears to make no difference. What I'm attemting to do is try to remove packages of my choice, without using the tool because it errors out (same result if I use OCSETUP). But I would like the items to be shown as "removed" with the check box clear. Right now, they are just hidden, and I cannot be sure that the components are truly removed and not taking up CPU cycles or RAM. Thanks everyone.

I would love to use Win2k, but some stubborn programmers decided to stop supporting it Real shame. I like my W2k much over my WinXP. In Win7 i feel like I'm locked in my own computer, so this OS is only for gaming computer. WinXP there and *loving* them almost like I loved W2k SP4. Sadly... modern GPU-Z, FFMPEG and few **** games need WinXP Up until I used XP x64 Edition, Windows 2000 was my all time favourite version of Windows. I do wish I could have used it longer, but it's amazing what it will even run. You could be still fairly productive on it.

I posted this over on the Vista Forums web site, but I thought you guys might be a much better source of assistance. Whenever I try to remove Internet Printing Client using Turn On/Off Windows Features OR using OCSETUP, my system errors out, likely because I have removed components with vLite. The system runs REALLY well, and the Event Log is clean (other than when I try to defeat a feature). The errors come from trying to set packages to either a staged or installed state; likely because their missing. When I used Turn On/Off Windows Features, I receive the error: An error has occurred. Not all of the features were successfully changed. Does anyone know of a good guide as to what registry components would need removal so that I could get this functionality back? The usual SFC, reinstall options are not what I'm looking for, since I wish to keep the lighter installation. I have corrected a lot of stuff with the System Update Readiness Tool, so that's been a BIG help. Thanks all.

Well I brought over the drivers for the Standard Floppy Controller, and it installed. Then it detected a phantom floppy drive. The only way to make Device Manager happy was to feed it the drivers for the Floppy Disk Drive. Mind you, the controller is disabled in the bios, there IS NO drive, and the previous installation of Vista (from the same vLited DVD) never asked for it. Nor did Windows XP x64 Edition. Device Manager is happy, but it is indeed strange.

See I did that. What I think happened is that I vLited the Floppy Controller out of the install.wim file, since I turned off the Floppy Controller in my Bios. So I'd have to go to the original DVD and load the floppy driver to install it. For now it keeps redetecting the unknown device. I'm just stunned that the floppy controller was never detected on previous OS installations.... hmmmm. I enabled the controller in the Bios, so I'll have to grab the original DVD. Thanks Jaclaz.

Is that the same as disabling in Device Manager? (Luckily, I had the XP x64 support tools on hand, which are compatible)

I read that somewhere too, but I think they dismissed that in the thread. My floppy controller is disabled in the BIOS. And it's interesting because on previous installations of XP x64, XP x86 and Vista, it was never detected. But I am now wondering if it wouldn't be a smart idea to try the standard floppy controller driver and see if that cleans things up a bit.

I was missing a driver for an Unknown Device, and the Hardware ID showed up as: ACPI\PNP0700 *PNP0700 It's parent device was the Intel 82801EB LPC Interface Controller. So I figured I was missing the Power Management Controller. I look in the drivers included with Vista and all that was on hand was the Intel 82371EB Power Management Controller. I attempted to use this driver, and there are no errors, but I really don't think that's correct. Interestingly, my last Vista installation did not exhibit this issue. I wonder if anyone who has an HP xw8200 (with ANY OS installed) can tell me what driver is used for this device (most likely the power management controller). Any assistance is GREATLY appreciated. Thanks.

OK here's the link to the themes. Whew! https://www.dropbox.com/s/z02xmt6ngt70cng/Theme%20Backups.7z?dl=0

Me too. I also have Windows Search and Indexing removed on Vista, using vLite.

My Vista screen. A bit customized with smaller basic buttons and a lighter blue basic Win7 style menu.

Please share. I need your PM. In 7-zip format, I've got it down to 5 mb.

Here a few visual styles that I used. I modified them somewhat (smaller caption buttons or start button replacement, etc). Use as you like. I may have more. (Actually, it's too big to attach. Send me a PM or if someone knows another way, that would be great.)

I think ever since XP, the OS has become LESS dependant on Internet Explorer. During the early 2000s, apps like Music Match Jukebox relied on IE6 libraries to be present, in order to run. It's not so much that Windows needs .NET Framework. But application developers have found it easier to work with, so it's here to stay. Mind you (when not in use) I don't find .NET to impact performance at all. I dunno; I used to hate Vista when it cam out, and even Windows 8. But I'll tell you, Windows 8 (when used with Classic Shell applied) really can be a stable desktop OS. It runs exceptionally well.

Yes but Windows Server 2003 updates extended XP x64 by a year (same codebase) And Windows Server 2008 "Classic" could extend Vista to 2020 because it shares the same codebase as Vista. We're not expecting Microsoft to step up at all. We just keep hoping that some person will attempt hacking the updates to make them compatible.

We also now know that YES Microsoft will push updates. I think slow ring users (business editions) will get updates later than fast ring customers (home users), but it seemes updates are forced. So much for being able to stick with a particular build of Windows 10 if you like how it works.

Hi Folks: I vLited my Vista installation back in Feb 2014. I integrated IE9 and all updates to that point. SP2 was already part of the source. And I've removed such goodies as Indexing, Remote Assistance, System Restore, Simple TCP, Terminal Services and lord know what else. It runs great and really lean. And no event log errors. Now I recently had to fix up a bunch of .NET and Windows Update issues. So I'm back to running well again. As a final step I ran The System Readiness Tool. When I look at the CheckSUR.log that it creates, I find references to files in the Component Store that appear orphaned, or else the payload/file is missing (and most of it looks like it's from the junk I removed with vLite) So here's my question: would it be fair to say that if a line in CheckSUR.log reads as: Checking Package Watchlist (f) CSI Payload File Missing 0x00000000 mshwkorr.dll amd64_microsoft-windows-t..reinkrecognition.ko_31bf3856ad364e35_6.0.6001.18000_none_600bc58be4a7864a ... that I could delete either the WinSxS folder that corrresponds with it, or the registry entry that matches it, without doing damage to the system?