Have Back Classic Start Menu In Windows 7 With This Tool!

[Phemo]

Do you want to revised your statement?

Strange, I'm seeing quite different results to you.

With Aero:

Without Aero:

I have no idea why I'm seeing one more process running on the shot taken without aero, but it's not quite the 4 process difference we see on your shot, and as you can see, RAM usage is virtually identical. Absolutely no point disabling it on this system.

Admittedly that shot was taken with Windows 7 Basic enabled, but I see the same thing even with Classic. I can't feel any performance difference, and really, if I wanted to have less RAM utilised, I'd just run XP x64.

[Comic Book Guy]

Um, the second shot still has Aero running.

[+jamesyfx Subscriber²]

Nobody in their right mind would pay to have an obselete feature put back into Windows.

It's like paying ?17 forrrr... *thinks* The flying windows screensaver.

And the second shot doesn't have Aero running. It's just the Vista Basic theme. You're bound to free up resources by turning of Theming - but only a little. Modern systems don't feel the pinch.

[Comic Book Guy]

Nobody in their right mind would pay to have an obselete feature put back into Windows.

It's like paying ?17 forrrr... *thinks* The flying windows screensaver.

And the second shot doesn't have Aero running. It's just the Vista Basic theme.

You know as well as I do, someone will come out with a freeware version.

[Phemo]

Um, the second shot still has Aero running.

It's actually Windows 7 Basic, which has transparency disabled. As I stated in my post though, I see exactly the same even with Classic mode enabled so it doesn't matter. Here goes:

Ok, a 10MB difference in RAM utilisation, which could even be down to background stuff. Hardly a difference even worth mentioning.

[Prince Charming]

The other thing you're failing to realise is the program used to emulate the 'Classic Mode' will in itself have a resource overhead above standard running Windows footprint. You'll be using more RAM to use less RAM to ignore the technological developments and memory management in Vista/7 and live in the dark ages. It does seem rather fruitless.

[Descartes]

If someone tries to save his RAM by doing things like reverting to the classic start menu or such, one should probably stick with XP...

[Comic Book Guy]

It's actually Windows 7 Basic, which has transparency disabled. As I stated in my post though, I see exactly the same even with Classic mode enabled so it doesn't matter. Here goes:

Ok, a 10MB difference in RAM utilisation, which could even be down to background stuff. Hardly a difference even worth mentioning.

Your screenshot is not showing up.

EDIT: Now it showed up, was giving a little red x before.

[Mazhar]

I can't believe this is paid software! I mean first of all, why do people need classic start menu? If they need it then why they are using windows 7?

And there is nothing special in classic start menu!

[Comic Book Guy]

The other thing you're failing to realise is the program used to emulate the 'Classic Mode' will in itself have a resource overhead above standard running Windows footprint. You'll be using more RAM to use less RAM to ignore the technological developments and memory management in Vista/7 and live in the dark ages. It does seem rather fruitless.

The memory management is still there, regardless of what mode it's running in, that doesn't change.

If someone tries to save his RAM by doing things like reverting to the classic start menu or such, one should probably stick with XP...

XP doesn't natively use the Classic Start Menu either!

[Angel Blue01]

Wow!

[Prince Charming]

The memory management is still there, regardless of what mode it's running in, that doesn't change.

XP doesn't natively use the Classic Start Menu either!

I'm fully aware the memory management is still there. This brings me back to my point about researching windows memory management. Due to the nature in which Vista and 7 manage your memory, having boatloads of unused free RAM is not a good thing. As such, in your efforts to have as much 'free' RAM, you're really not doing yourself any favours.

[grant0r]

Jeez can't people just let the classic start menu die already?

+1

[Comic Book Guy]

I'm fully aware the memory management is still there. This brings me back to my point about researching windows memory management. Due to the nature in which Vista and 7 manage your memory, having boatloads of unused free RAM is not a good thing. As such, in your efforts to have as much 'free' RAM, you're really not doing yourself any favours.

By the way, memory management works better in Win7 with graphics RAM than it does in Vista because of certain changes they made, I remember an article that was posted on here while I was just a lurker. Here is the article:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...=765060&hl=

[l Ancient l]

OMFG it looks as if someone ******* in the rose garden...

Edited June 29, 2009 by gigapixels

[deanps]

NO

[(Spork)]

LOL 24.95 for this ROFL !

[MrChainsaw]

?19.95 for this? Sell it to Bill Gates!

[Comic Book Guy]

Like I said earlier, someone will most likely come out with a freeware version that does the same exact thing.

[Quillz]

What defines a "better way"?

If I can accomplish tasks via the command line much faster than you can do them via a GUI (and often things you CAN'T do without having a specialized tool for it), does that mean your "new" way is improved and better just because it's "easier" or "flashier"?

If people are content using the classic start menu, why deprive them something that has worked for them for so long? Just implement it alongside the new way of doing things and you'll please both sides of the fence.

Because people complain that Microsoft doesn't make a "totally new" Windows (stripped out legacy code, icons, tech, etc.) and yet when they attempt to do this, people complain that the old ways were better, that there's no incompatibility, etc.

And then if Microsoft was to add the classic Start menu into Win7, people would complain the OS was bloated.

Also, comparing the CLI to the GUI is a little different, since there are many uses were you NEED a CLI. But a Start menu, it's just cosmetic. The new method is much better in terms of execution and design. People who prefer the older method likely do so because it's what their used to, and not necessarily because that method is better.

It's like with the new taskbar's placement of the "Show Desktop" button. The old location never much adhered to Fitt's Law. The new button does, being larger and located in an extreme corner. Thus, the new taskbar implements a simple function in a better way. But not everyone likes it, likely because they're used to the old placement in Win95/WinXP, etc.

[iamwhoiam]

Yeah, stupid people. Having their own opinions, what's wrong with them. They should like what they're told to like.

Ha ha. That reminds me of some recent forum activity.