Old icons from windows 3.11 and 95 still on Windows 7!

[Digitalfox]

Hello :)

After testing 2 builds from Windows 7, I'm still surprised to see so many legacy icons from windows 95, and guess what even windows 3.11 icons..

What is Microsoft team responsible for the icons doing? Sleeping? Don't care to check how the icons on the GUI looks?

Yes, icons is a small GUI piece.. They aren't important to OS stability or to get work done..

But from an aesthetic point of view, for me in IMHO they are very important, since with large and extra large icons views they look so ugly and old..

Here are some examples, that just browse windows 7 files and in 2 mouse clicks and you're there, there's no need to be a power user to find them...

Edited December 9, 2008 by Digitalfox

[Spartan Erik]

Meet the new bOSs, same as the old bOSs

I'm waiting for Win 8, where hopefully Microsoft does a rewrite of everything from the ground up.

[Elliot B.]

Hello :)

After testing 2 builds from Windows 7, I'm still surprised to see so many legacy icons from windows 95, and guess what even windows 3.11 icons..

What is Microsoft team responsible for the icons doing? Sleeping? Don't care to check how the icons on the GUI looks?

Yes, icons is a small GUI piece.. They aren't important to OS stability or to get work done..

But from an aesthetic point of view, for me in IMHO they are very important, since with large and extra large icons views they look so ugly and old..

Here are some examples, that just browse windows 7 files and in 2 mouse clicks and you're there, there's no need to be a power user to find them...

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

I'm sure they have their own legitimate reasons. One example being that they didn't change the Fonts dialogue from XP/Vista from the 3.1 days due to potential compatibility issues.

[Ambroos]

And do you ever see those icons? Those aren't even apps you can just run, usually just things that are invisible in the background. I don't care if they replace those icons. Focusing on delivering all icons you see when using windows in a good resolution is more important I think.

[fix-this!]

i agree it's time to change ALL of the icons.

[afusion]

And do you ever see those icons? Those aren't even apps you can just run, usually just things that are invisible in the background. I don't care if they replace those icons. Focusing on delivering all icons you see when using windows in a good resolution is more important I think.

agreed those processes are there because it's still the same Windows we've been using. I find it actually incredible that Windows has evolved the way it has without having to go through a rewrite. Although you could call going from DOS to NT a necessary transition.

[Denis W. Veteran]

The only icon out of those screenshots you posted that should be changed is the one in the Advanced Attributes dialog.

Changing the icon of, for instance, winhlp32 is useless... that format isn't supported anymore. Another example is grpconv - what's the point of updating a icon for a tool used to convert Windows 3.x program groups?

[Ambroos]

Indeed. If someone still uses it they won't mind the icons.

[soulburner]

I hate old icons too, but here, I have to agree with Ambroos. Icons that aren't visible anywhere on the UI don't have to be replaced. Most of the files you show on those screenshots are either services or legacy applications (like winhlp32.exe).

Expert stuff like regedit don't need new icons - they need to be replaced with something totally new or just be left alone :)

[abcdefg]

And do you ever see those icons? Those aren't even apps you can just run, usually just things that are invisible in the background. I don't care if they replace those icons. Focusing on delivering all icons you see when using windows in a good resolution is more important I think.

Why are you defending them? Micro$oft isn't a one-man company with lack of resources.

Didn't everyone moan about those old icons in Vista?

Give us 100% price, we'll give you 95% of code you already own.

[Xenomorph]

Meet the new bOSs, same as the old bOSs

I'm waiting for Win 8, where hopefully Microsoft does a rewrite of everything from the ground up.

And of course when Windows 8 comes out, and doesn't meet your high level of expectation, you will say "well, I'm waiting for Windows 9, because that is when they will get it right!"

And then when Windows 9 comes out, you will say "I'm just going to wait for Windows 10, because I'm sure that's the one to use!"

There are people that stuck with Windows 98 because XP just "wasn't right", or was too demanding on their system, or their favorite program didn't work.

A lot of people have been sticking with the ancient XP because they don't like Vista.

If you dislike Windows so much - realize it will never be perfect for you, and just move to Mac OS X or something.

[sharp65]

Why are you defending them? Micro$oft isn't a one-man company with lack of resources.

Didn't everyone moan about those old icons in Vista?

Give us 100% price, we'll give you 95% of code you already own.

I'm not sure three or four icons you will practically never see is a huge deal. Should they be updated? Yes, but it's really nothing to throw a fit over. That last comment is just plain silly. OS's aren't rewritten from the ground up :rolleyes:

[mad_onion]

yeah only ui icons need to be replaced not just random ones in folders. it would probably be better if microsoft just removed the icons to stop people complaining

[Saarineames]

Even though I'm sure a lot of power users and sticklers (including myself) would like to see a polished %Windir%, it's really grasping at straws right now. It's too early to start complaining about these minor details.

There have been some icon updates in other small dialogs, and such. So, best to wait and see.

[Brian M. Veteran]

This comes up with every release of Windows.

They most likely have their reasons - or quite simply can't be bothered to change them. I'd personally rather they spent an extra hour optimizing some other code than designing/changing icons that you never see.

[bjoswald]

There are plenty of custom icon packs out there that should replace them. But I will agree it's mystifying why Microsoft includes them in every Windows release.

[bobbba]

Oh no, old icons bwah... :cry:

[XerXis]

and i still don't care!

[AaronMT]

They will never get rid of them because every iteration since 3.1 has been built on the same pile of code that exists today.

I wish they started fresh with Windows 7 but unfortunately they have not.

[XerXis]

They will never get rid of them because every iteration since 3.1 has been built on the same pile of code that exists today.

I wish they started fresh with Windows 7 but unfortunately they have not.

:no: as a software developer you should know better than following the sheep and repeating that same old tune

[AaronMT]

:no: as a software developer you should know better than following the sheep and repeating that same old tune

Oh please!

[Vykranth]

These icons are from legacy applications that are still bundled with Windows to ensure that very old applications still work.

winhlp32.exe is there for the few applications that still use .hlp format.

Do you want a bigger trip down to memory lane? Look in C:\Windows\System32 for moricons.dll and look into the icons resources.

And yes, Microsoft did not update them. There are still there for the few people who are acustomed to them and it's good. It's even better that Microsoft concentrate their resources on development that will impact the majority of Windows user: just for one example, the taskbar.

Frankly, I wish Microsoft would lock down C:\Windows\System32 and C:\Windows\SysWow64 for only the usage of the system and may be the installer service. This is the OS private reserve. No human are supposed to go there.

[kylejn]

The only icon out of those screenshots you posted that should be changed is the one in the Advanced Attributes dialog.

Changing the icon of, for instance, winhlp32 is useless... that format isn't supported anymore. Another example is grpconv - what's the point of updating a icon for a tool used to convert Windows 3.x program groups?

Somewhat off-topic, but why even include something like grpconv in the first place anymore? It's just clutter these days, right?

[+Gary7 Subscriber²]

I do not care what the Icons look like as long as Microsoft comes out with a reliable, fast, inexpensive OS.

[Vykranth]

Somewhat off-topic, but why even include something like grpconv in the first place anymore? It's just clutter these days, right?

The only case grpconv.exe would be needed if someone would install a Windows 3.1 application which installs a grp for the Program Manager progman.exe for which the grp file must be converted to Folders/Shortcuts in the Start menu.

I honestly have no clue on how many times a day this feature is needed today.