Does anyone still prefer the Windows Classic UI to Aero Glass?


Recommended Posts

While Aero Glass is very pretty and has some very obvious technical advantages, there's still just something about the Windows Classic UI that I really like. I've recently been forced to use a very old PC that has Win2k installed, and I noticed how consistent everything looked in 2k.

Dunno if it's just me... Anyone still prefer to use Windows Classic UI on Win7, despite the technical limitations the UI has? (No hardware acceleration, etc.)

I think the classic UI in Windows 2000 is actually very clean and nice. But in Vista and especially 7, I like Aero better. One main reason for me is that it allows the GPU to handle drawing to the screen and leaves the CPU to handle other stuff. With Aero off, that functionality is returned to the CPU like in older versions of Windows.

I think the classic UI in Windows 2000 is actually very clean and nice. But in Vista and especially 7, I like Aero better. One main reason for me is that it allows the GPU to handle drawing to the screen and leaves the CPU to handle other stuff. With Aero off, that functionality is returned to the CPU like in older versions of Windows.

Yeah, I agree with you. The classic UI on Windows 2000 is very nice and consistent, imo, unlike the classic UI in Vista and Windows 7. However, I prefer Aero for its looks, as well as the reason devHead stated.

I've always preferred Windows Classic over anything else until 7 (I've never used Vista long enough to warrant any customization--mostly I use it for testing in VMs then blow it away).

However, on 7, the Classic theme implementation is just hideous--the big graphical buttons just aren't suited and look completely out of place.

Classic?? *shudders*

On XP, I have the Royale theme; then on Vista and 7, I leave the Aero theme on. So lovely to look at compared to Classic.

  • 2 months later...

However, on 7, the Classic theme implementation is just hideous--the big graphical buttons just aren't suited and look completely out of place.

With some quick and simple adjustments this can be fixed, for example, changing the taskbar buttons to a smaller size (16x16 pixel).

I have no use, want, or need for bloated GUIs. That being said, I still very much prefer the classic look, and I disable as many of the new features that I can. Although many may find them helpful I find them to get in the way and slow me down.

I think the classic UI in Windows 2000 is actually very clean and nice. But in Vista and especially 7, I like Aero better. One main reason for me is that it allows the GPU to handle drawing to the screen and leaves the CPU to handle other stuff. With Aero off, that functionality is returned to the CPU like in older versions of Windows.

I agree with every single word you said.

YES.

Anything to get away from the foul gimmick that is Aero Glass, even if they've ruined it since XP.

Honestly, even Windowblinds skins look nicer than Aero :rofl:

I use this in basic, looks the ######!

http://k-johnson.deviantart.com/art/Clearscreen-Sharp-for-Windows7-141360821

I think the classic UI in Windows 2000 is actually very clean and nice. But in Vista and especially 7, I like Aero better. One main reason for me is that it allows the GPU to handle drawing to the screen and leaves the CPU to handle other stuff. With Aero off, that functionality is returned to the CPU like in older versions of Windows.

Yup. I agree. Aero > Vista/7 "Classic". Windows XP Classic > Vista/7 "Classic". Its obvious that they didn't put much work into the Vista/7 Classic themes.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I have a Motorola, one of the lower end ones, it works fine. It is possible to get rid of the Gemini app and also to disable googles assistant , but A.i is still apps. I try to avoid all LLM A.I, is i can, I use no Ai duck duck go.
    • Free Software Foundation Europe pushes EU to force Google to allow AI uninstalls on Android by Paul Hill Credit: Pexels Users should be able to fully uninstall AI-based features from Android devices and be able to access interoperability functions, free from Google’s verification requirements, the European Commission has heard as part of an Android interoperability consultation under the Digital Markets Act. These measures were proposed by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) last week when it submitted its documentation. The FSFE noted that Google had started silently installing AI models without telling users. It noted that the EU’s DMA requires companies like Google to allow users to uninstall pre-loaded software from their devices, but in the case of the AI models Google is installing, they reinstall if you delete them, contravening the DMA. To get Google back under control, the FSFE has told the European Commission that there needs to be improvements within the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). First, it said that users should be able to fully remove pre-loaded AI components from their devices, with companies being prohibited from silently reinstalling or reactivating them. Second, access to Android interoperability features should not be contingent on registration, authorization, or contractual relationships with Google. This pertains to Google’s attempt to force developers to register with Google, even to publish apps to alternative app stores like F-Droid. Discussing its submission, Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager, said: Google is planning to roll out its Android Developer Certification in September 2026. This will force every Android app developer to register with Google before their software can be installed on certified Android devices, but it should affect those who have removed Google Apps from their device. The program is controversial because it entails the signing of contracts and payment of account fees to Google, as well as the handing over of the identities of developers. It said: The FSFE said that if the Commission’s draft measures remain unchanged, then Google will be allowed to make developers verify their identity. The FSFE believes that asking developers to register is contrary to the text and spirit of the law. In summary, the FSFE has told the Commission that no developer should need a Google account, a Play Store presence, or any agreement with Google to access Android’s interoperability features.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      87
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!