Frustrated with XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tim Meddick
  • Start date Start date
T

Tim Meddick

If you mean that you want Windows Explorer to (always) display the full
filename with extension included - it's exactly the same as in both Win98
and Win2K :-

Either go to "Control Panel" > "Folder Options" or in

Windows Explorer goto "Tools" > "Folder Options" > "View" (tab)

....and under the "View" (tab), uncheck the box named :

"Hide extensions for known file types."

....click on [ok] button, to exit "Folder Options"

Your file extensions should now be visible.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
P.S. You can configure Win XP to look more or less identical to both Win98
or Win2K!!

Open the "Display Properties" in "Control Panel" and change the theme to
"Windows Classic"

Next, right-click on the Start Button and choose "Properties" then change
the current setting for the "Start Menu" to "Classic Start menu".

....you will be surprised just how like Win98 it is!!

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
I'm getting very frustrated. I've been a Windows98 user since 1998.
I have Win2000 on my desktop also (dualboot). Both of them display
the full filename with extension. I bought a laptop with XP
Professional SP3. Having tried XP in the past (and hating it), I knew
I'd get frustrated with it. If I could, I'd format the drive and
install Win2000, but I got this laptop mostly just for WIFI use when I
am on the road, and I was told that the built in WIFI hardware
requires XP. I think XP is the most retarded OS ever written. (of
course I have not tried Vista or Win7). XP is not an operating
system, it's a damn toy. A toy filled with lots of useless crap, yet
it cant even give me the damn filename extension, or realize that I am
not connected to the internet.

Anyhow, I'm just glad I dont have to rely on this laptop for daily
use, and I'll force myself to use it without too much cussing. But
first, I got to find a way to view the EXTENSIONS of files. This is
the biggest annoyance of all. For example, it tells me it's a "music
file". No shit sherlock...... But what type of music file is it, is
it a MP3, WAV, WMA or another? I've tried everything, and it insists
on *NOT* giving me the extension.

Is there a way to change this?

And why does XP insist on going online every 5 minutes or less? Dont
it realize that I am NOT connected. I dont have WIFI at home, nor do
I intend to connect it to my regular internet. I'll stick with my
older (easier) computer for home internet use. XP is loaded with tons
of bloat and useless crap, yet it refuses to understand that I'm not
online.

While I'm here, I understand there is a way to strip all the useless
crap out of XP and make it look like a 98 or 2K. I'm not willing to
manually go thru the hassle, which from what I read is very difficult.
Is there some download that will strip out all the junk?

Although I could complain all day, my biggest problems at the moment
are a lack of file extensions, the insistance of going online no
matter what I'm doing, and why the hell does everything get stuck in
that "documents and settings folder", about 8 levels down. Why cant
it just put the files in a simple place, such as C:\music C:\pictures,
etc?

At least I got rid of that stupid dog in Search....
 
On Sun, 08 May 2011 14:19:39 -0600, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
[long rant deleted]
But first, I got to find a way to view the EXTENSIONS of files
Click to expand...

In any folder, Tools » Folder Options » View and remove he check mark
from "Hide extensions for known file types".

You might like to visit www.annoyances.org for some fixes for other
annoyances. And many people have pages of their favorite XP tips.
Mine is here:

http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/winxptip.htm
 
Groovy Visual Themes for Windows OS vs. Windows Classic
--------------------------------------------------------------

Win XP does have many features that are superfluous to functionality and
it's this layer of aesthetics that I think "<[email protected]>" was referring
to when he was talking about the "useless crap" in XP.

What he does not seem to realise is that, with XP, is *is* possible to turn
OFF all of the "aesthetic" stuff, and return it's interface to one that has
the look and feel of Win9x /ME / 2K

(This is done, as I explained to him, in my other post in this thread)

By the time Vista and Win7 arrive, Microsoft has got it's act more together
in what they were trying to achieve, and had begun in XP, regarding it's
"aesthetics".

In Win7 / Vista, if you turned off this "aesthetic layer" (e.g.; the "Aero"
interface), you would find that overall performance actually reduced. This
is because, in the latest versions of Windows, all the pretty "effects"
(e.g; animated Window re-sizing; Fade in/out menus; "drop shadows") are
handled by the graphics array's GCPU and using the graphics RAM, leaving
the main CPU free.
If one switches off Win7 / Vista's "Aero interface", then the standard
methods of handling the graphics output are used - thereby reducing
performance greatly.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
Groovy Visual Themes for Windows OS vs. Windows Classic
--------------------------------------------------------------

Win XP does have many features that are superfluous to functionality and
it's this layer of aesthetics that I think "<[email protected]>" was referring
to when he was talking about the "useless crap" in XP.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what I'm referring to. I only want to see the raw files
and the programs. I'll pick a nice decorative wallpaper, but please,
no more buttons, graphics, moving animations, or other useless crap.
What he does not seem to realise is that, with XP, is *is* possible to turn
OFF all of the "aesthetic" stuff, and return it's interface to one that has
the look and feel of Win9x /ME / 2K

(This is done, as I explained to him, in my other post in this thread)
Click to expand...
Thanks to your two prior posts, I have gotten XP to look more
familiar. I did what you said, and in the process I found out how to
get the search button under control too. I did not want to have to
keep clicking on "show all files" everytime I did a search. I set it
to "advanced" and now it looks like the search (find) in 98.
By the time Vista and Win7 arrive, Microsoft has got it's act more together
in what they were trying to achieve, and had begun in XP, regarding it's
"aesthetics".

In Win7 / Vista, if you turned off this "aesthetic layer" (e.g.; the "Aero"
interface), you would find that overall performance actually reduced. This
is because, in the latest versions of Windows, all the pretty "effects"
(e.g; animated Window re-sizing; Fade in/out menus; "drop shadows") are
handled by the graphics array's GCPU and using the graphics RAM, leaving
the main CPU free.
If one switches off Win7 / Vista's "Aero interface", then the standard
methods of handling the graphics output are used - thereby reducing
performance greatly.
Click to expand...
I bet turning off all this crap in XP has made my computer run faster.
But I'm still in the setup phases. I have not really used the
computer for much yet. I do all my "work" on my desktop puter using
Win98. This laptop is only for getting on the WIFI when I'm on the
road. Those built in mice and small keyboards on laptops are not
something I'd want to use on a daily basis. I like the standard
keyboards and the real mice which are 10x faster than those built in
mice.
==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
Click to expand...

No Thanks..... I know Vista is crap, and I see no need to go to Win7.
Heck, I still run Win98 on my desktop and I can do most anything with
it. I only have 2000 for a few programs and to use some of my USB
stuff that wont work in 98 (the one thing that's lacking in 98 is USB
support). I can run movies and do most everything any newer version
of Windows can do. I must admit I have added a few "aftermarket
hacks" that improved 98.

I recently had the misfortune of trying to help a friend copy the
music files from his Win7 computer to his MP3 player. I dont know why
anyone would want to use an OS like that. Maybe it's just a thing for
the young kids who seem to like having 300 buttons on a common radio.
For me, at 60 years old, give me a radio with 3 controls.... Volume,
tuning, and tone controls only, and a computer to match. I began
computers using Dos, and I still like seeing the raw files, not some
stupid (distracting) menu full of garbage and 300 buttons where only 3
are needed.

Now that I got that fixed, here are a few more things that need
fixing.

1. I'd like to turn off the "click on user" when XP boots. It came
this way from the factory. It's a Lenovo T43. Everytime I boot, I
have to click on "Owner T43". WHY?????????
Just boot the flipping thing to the desktop. Can I turn this off?

2. Is there any way to stop this thing from trying to go online every
five minutes? Yea, I know these days every help file and God only
knows what else, is online. I still dont understand this. Back in
Windows 3.x, the help files were part of the programs, often just
simple text files, and back then a program was normally less than one
meg. Now programs are hundeds of megs in size and they cant even
include a damn 20K help file...... Go figure!!!

Anyhow, when I'm OFFLINE, isn't there a way for the computer to know
that I'm offline, and stop loading IE all the time? Or is this a
useful feature that MS did not add in the process of adding all the
useless bloat?

3. Is there a way to quit having everything sent to the "documents and
settings" folder, and being sent 6 levels down? For example, Firefox
cache is loaded in something like this. Documents and Settings, then
I have to decide if it's in Administrator, Common User, or (something
else). Then it's Mozilla/Firefox/Profiles/p50Y743c/Cache. Why in the
bloody hell do I have to go thru all these steps just to view a cache
entry? I want the FF cache in C:\FFCache. I want My Documents in
C:\My Documents, not C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local
Folders\Applications\My Documents.

Yea, I've been fighting with this issue in Windows 2000 too, but XP is
even worse.

This is the main reason I like Win98. I can set up my computer MY
WAY. Now have MS do it, and make it as complicated as possible. Just
the name alone "Documents and Settings" is way too long. "Docs"
should be good enough, and the settings should be in a separate folder
called "Settings"

There is no way in hell that I want to have to click thru all these
levels everytime I want to access a file. In Win2000, I have filled
up my whole desktop with shortcuts to all these buried folders, maybe
that's the only solution??????

I guess Bill Gates never learned the K.I.S.S. theory.

Keep It Simple Stupid !!!!

Thanks for the help.
 
Thats exactly what I'm referring to. I only want to see the raw files
and the programs.
Click to expand...

For some reason (unknown) MS chose to hide file extensions, commencing with
Windows XP. When I first set up a Windows XP computer, I quickly found
(don't recall how, probably some online source) how to change that. One of
the first things I do when setting up a new Windows computer (XP, Vista, and
7) is to set the option to unhide file extensions.

As with any OS, Windows XP requires a bit of end-user setup to make it work
to the user's desires. One of the advantages of XP over 98 was improved user
security; generally overridden by end users who preferred to allow root
access to any, and every one and thing accessing the computer. Because that
is the way the Windows 9x computers work. However, as they say in the *nix
world, "Life is a bitch, but having the root password helps." MS Windows 9x
gives everybody root access, and doing that with Windows XP is a large part
of the reason Windows is perceived to be easily compromised.
 
Indeed, turning off the "Advanced Visual Themes" in XP (unlike in Vista /
Win7) *will* improve system performance and cut down on the amount of
memory used for such vanity.

I did not mention this fact because I considered that, in explaining Vista
and Windows 7 were "different" in they used the improved functionality of
graphics co-processors and greater video memory to take over processing of
"Advanced Visual Themes" in those OSes, implied that this was NOT the case
in XP.

In fact, as you are starting to experience, that, in actual fact, with XP
the reverse is true and all-round performance gets better when all the
"Advanced Visual Themes" are turned off.

I have done this on my own Win XP machine and feel the benefit of it,
especially as resources are particularly low on that system. The only
"drawback" (for some) is that XP's user-interface looks virtually
indistinguishable from Win 9x, but this is also my preference over the XP
standard "Blue" theme. After changing the "XP Theme" to "Windows Classic",
to get the full benefit of improved performance you also need to...

Turn off "Advanced Visual Themes" features by going to :

"Control Panel" > "System Properties" > "Advanced" (tab) > "Performance"
(button)

....and uncheck ALL of the boxes relating to "Visual Effects" under that
tab.

And also - in :

"Control Panel" > "Display Properties" > "Appearance" (tab) > "Effects"
(button)

....uncheck ALL the boxes there as well.

==

Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
 
It is not very useful for TIm Meddick to repeat the standard WIndows help text to us. We tried that ... and IT DOES NOT WORK. Even when we uncheck the box "Hide extensions for known file types." WIndows continues to hide some (actually MANY) extensions.

We are not idiots. We can find that sort of information for ourselves. The reason we post questions on bulletin boards like this is that the configuration option that Microsoft has provided does not do what it says (and therefore does not do what we want). So we are trying to find out if someone else has had the same problem, and found a fix for it.

All I want is for WIndows Explorer to show me the actual file names of my files - including the extensions. MacOS manages it, all version sof Unix and Linux manage it ... why does Windows make it so hard (Or impossible) to do the same? And why do they annoy and frustrate me by providing an option that purports to do exactly what I want ... but in reality does not?

Do I have to open a DOS window and issue a DIR command?
 
Back
Top