IDE light stays on with Windows 2000

[cwathen]

I've done it, I've finally taken the plunge and let go of Windows 98SE after 4 1/2 years of faithful service. My only reason for changing was that some newer software (Office 2003, Autoroute 2004, etc) won't run on Windows 98.

I have thus changed to Windows 2000, where I can get something vaguely similar in apperance to Windows 98, rather than XP, which I still think is something of an accident of design.

For some reason though, the IDE light stays permanently lit up, which it doesn't under other operating systems. Even more oddly, if I put the system in and out of hibernate, it works properly when the system is resumed!

With my motherboard, the light used to stay lit up until the bootstrap loader was read, so I presume there is something in the Windows 2000 loader which doesn't make the light work properly.

It's a minor annoyance, but it's an annoyance nonetheless. Anyone know a better way around it than having to put the system in and out of hibernate?

[Dr Lobster*]

I'm fairly sure i had this happen to me before, it was a fujitsu drive i think, and if i remember correctly, either turning in hdd block mode in the bios fixed it, or i installed the via 4-in-1 chipset drivers, which include an updated driver for the ide controller. i'm not 100% sure though... it was a long time ago!

[Andrew Wood]

I have thus changed to Windows 2000, where I can get something vaguely similar in apperance to Windows 98, rather than XP, which I still think is something of an accident of design.

Okay, whizzing straight off topic, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Is it purely the visual appearance of XP that puts you off or some other design aspect?

If it's the former, all the Windows 'classic' themes are still available just as they were in Win98 so you can make your desktop look just the same.

Example XP desktop

[Chris]

I have thus changed to Windows 2000, where I can get something vaguely similar in apperance to Windows 98, rather than XP, which I still think is something of an accident of design.

Okay, whizzing straight off topic, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Is it purely the visual appearance of XP that puts you off or some other design aspect?

If it's the former, all the Windows 'classic' themes are still available just as they were in Win98 so you can make your desktop look just the same.

Example XP desktop

Well the yukky coloured log off and shutdown icons are more than enough for me to be put off for using Windows XP in Classic mode. It looks completely out of place with the other high colour icons.

*looks for sick bag*

[sparkybpotter]

you can make it look like the old start menu, which makes the xp shutdown and logoff icons look better than that pic.

[cwathen]

Okay, whizzing straight off topic, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Is it purely the visual appearance of XP that puts you off or some other design aspect?

If it's the former, all the Windows 'classic' themes are still available just as they were in Win98 so you can make your desktop look just the same.

It is indeed the interface. As with many people, the first time I saw Windows XP I thought 'wow, this is so impressive compared to the old UI'. I upgraded to XP. 2 months down the line, and what I thought was impressive I started to find increasingly fisher price (mainly the colour scheme with the bright blue title bars and the bright red close buttons). Then I realised that you can't actually change it; wheras the old UI was rendered by the operating system, thus affording the user a lot of control over how it looked, the new one is loaded from image files. The main issue I have with this is that you don't have control over the colour scheme.

For the better part of 10 years, I have been using a quite sedate, but gentle on the idea, 'adapted slate' colour scheme. It's basically the 'slate' scheme from Windows 95, with the scroll bars increased back to the size of the 'Windows Standard' scheme, and the title bars chaged to a black-red gradiant. But with Windows XP, I can't have this any more. Thanks to the non-rendered nature of the interface, and the limited choice provided out of the box, I have a choice of garish blue, tacky silver, and some indescribable gold/green/yellow scheme. None of which I like. Beyond that, I can make Windows XP look like Mac OS, or any other one of the myriads of themes that were designed for it (all of which look crap imo). But all I want to do is take the basic XP interface, and adjust the settings (and cruicially the colours) of it to fit in with what I like. But I can't. Therein lies the single biggest flaw in the design of the XP interface.

Role in the 'ah but if you really don't like the new look you can always choose the old one if you want' brigade. Except it's *not* the old look, it's a bastardised version of it which Microsoft have gone out of their way to turn into an undesirable option The old 256 colour system icons don't come back, the new designed for XP high colour scheme is still there, looking downright bizarre amongst the rest of the interface with it's more limited pallette.

They also introduce a number of 'lets make it shit so they don't use it' measures; i.e. with the 'Windows XP Style' theme, the new Start Menu displays the user name in quite a nice font with a picture next to it. It colour codes different sections of it. With 'Windows Classic Style' selected, the start menu changes to the user name written in Arial Bold Italic, coloured the same as the title bars, without the picture, and with the same uniform colour throughout the whole menu.

Even I live with that, and now get back the ability to customise the interface, I'm no longer able to save a colour scheme, and if I alter any interface settings (even just change between XP style and classic style) it will kick me back to a standard colour scheme from the list.

Microsoft have even spread this 'make non-XP look nasty' policy to other applications; with Office 2003 the task pane with the XP interface activated displays a Microsoft Office Online logo for you to click on. With the classic interface in use (or if you use it on Windows 2000 as I am doing), that is replaced with a text link. There is no reason why this had to happen.

Despite all I've said, the XP interface isn't that bad in itself. I just need a bit more control over it (like the ability to change the colours) than I have. If Microsoft had spent time building a proper UI that could be altered by the user rather than being tied into 'themes' (read: we couldn't be arsed to refine the old interface so we designed some pretty graphics that could just be loaded and displayed leaving the user with limited customisation options) or even just designed a full set of colour schemes to go with the new interface, it would be better.

If they'd made the 'classic' interface a viable alternative, and not something which has clearly been designed to look like the poor relation to Luna, I'd still run XP.

As it is, I want to stay with the interface I like, whilst still enjoying the support for modern hardware and software which XP provides. At the present time, that means Windows 2000.

[Andrew Wood]

I can see you really didn't like it, Cwathen!

However, just so others aren't left with the wrong impression, all the Windows 95 colour options are still there as is the option to change gradients, toolbar, widget and scrollbar sizes. The standard Win95 style Start Menu is still there if you want it. All icons can be changed if you wish (granted, not so straight forward but possible). And all your settings can to be saved to disc as a 'theme'.

Desktop (but still with XP icons)

Apologies for having take the thread off topic!

[FraserGJ]

I'm using Windows XP and I agree with everything said here.

I'll be rolling back to Windows 2000 as soon as my exams are over.

I've kept the fisher price interface cos its a bit different I suppose. I removed the Welcome screen cos it looked really childish - I use the old CTRL+ALT+DEL logon now - much better

Plus it seems to chuck stop messages at me when i use my TV card - not sure why (must be software compatibility )

Windows 2000 will stay on this machine for as long as possible 8)

[Chris]

I have thus changed to Windows 2000, where I can get something vaguely similar in apperance to Windows 98, rather than XP, which I still think is something of an accident of design.

Okay, whizzing straight off topic, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Is it purely the visual appearance of XP that puts you off or some other design aspect?

If it's the former, all the Windows 'classic' themes are still available just as they were in Win98 so you can make your desktop look just the same.

I thought I'd bring this back up as I've found a patch to get rid of those hideous logoff and shutdown buttons and make them XP style (see the screen dump below)



You can download the useful utility from this page on the Neowin forum.

[Bail]

Thats my start menu and close screen, nothing like telly tubby land. I fail to see how you can avoid what is a superiour operating system just because of the graphics, all of which can be changed with ease.

[Big Brother]

I have thus changed to Windows 2000, where I can get something vaguely similar in apperance to Windows 98, rather than XP, which I still think is something of an accident of design.

Okay, whizzing straight off topic, but I'm intrigued by your comment. Is it purely the visual appearance of XP that puts you off or some other design aspect?

If it's the former, all the Windows 'classic' themes are still available just as they were in Win98 so you can make your desktop look just the same.

Example XP desktop

I do believe you can change the appearance of the start menu to like like 98/2k etc. I can't remember where I read or saw that but I'm sure you can.

Edit : Bails got it. Right click taskbar > Properties > Start Menu > Classic. VaVoooooooom