Windows Classic Enhanced

Download requests and offers should be made in this forum.
Do not request a download if you have under 10 posts. You will be ignored.
Forum rules
Please read the following rules before posting a download request in this area:

1. Don't post a request if you have under 10 posts as stated in the rules. If you do anyway, it will be deleted without further notice.
2. Requests for anything against our rules will not be entertained and you will be warned.
3. Check that we don't already have the file on our FTP servers by using the database linked in the navigation.
hougtimo
FTP Access
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: c:\tmp\*
Contact:

Windows Classic Enhanced

Post by hougtimo »

Hi,

On OSBA I had a completed project called "Windows Classic Enhanced" which I know a fair few people downloaded. I unfortunately have lost it on my own hard drive (due to faliure) and was wandering if anyone here had it, and if they copuld upload it to the server?

Thanks

HougTimo

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

Yepper, I had it downloaded. Uploading to the server right now!

(Oh and you know, you should really have 10 posts before requesting, but since i know you from OSBA i will upload it for you)
-Jeff

hougtimo
FTP Access
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: c:\tmp\*
Contact:

Post by hougtimo »

*feels very embarrassed*

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

About 50 minutes left to upload!
-Jeff

dirtwarrior
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:09 am
Location: Glendale KY USA

Post by dirtwarrior »

Tim
Do you have it? If not PM me. I have it

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

May I ask what kind of custom OS that is?

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

empireum wrote:May I ask what kind of custom OS that is?
I also want to know this. This sounds interesting
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."

hougtimo
FTP Access
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:42 pm
Location: c:\tmp\*
Contact:

Post by hougtimo »

Well I created it on the base of Windows 2000 pro. It was intended to take the best of the NT line of windows oses.

It has an enhanced ui (similar to XP's classic style)
SegoeUI Fonts
32-bit colour tray icons
Cleartype (a bit buggy...but generally works)
A new driver database for additional support
New bootscreen
Speed enhancements
Desktop Switcher from Microsoft Neptune
All updates to date
And some (not finished) activity centres

It was a fun project to do, and I classed it as finished, but I do feel there is more I could do to it.

I have it now, Joe

Thanks

HougTimo

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

where can I get this version? Is it on Andys ftp?
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

Last time I checked, it was there (HD2), but in the Upload folder, so you'll have to wait till Andy has moved it. Is the upload finished? The .rar file is only ~110MB. It sounds really interesting, as NT and Win2000 are still my favourite Microsoft OSes, I love to see something new and extraordinary for them

Luckie, do you happen to know http://www.windows-nation.de? They have developed a Win2K Pro/Server modification using mostly the original NT 5.0 logos and texts that were found in the Beta 2, so after installing from the modified CD, the entire Win2K OS identifies itself as NT 5.0. This mod is really cool because it looks completely like a real NT 5.0. I love it!

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

I'm going to give Windows 2000 a try on my new-old laptop, on the spare hard disk so as not to throw away my ME install in case 2000 is too slow - I've just upgraded it to a toal of 48 MB Ram and it feels really fast now! Still no crashes on ME - this has got to be one of the all time great OSes!

I'd be interested in this if it's got all the XP icons integrated into it, as if 2000 is fast enough and I keep it I'll probably want to use XP icons, and a shell32.dll (with the latest patches) with them all in already would be useful to save me the time of doing it.

Alternatively, there's not a way of taking all the icons from the XP shell32.dll and putting them into the 2000 one quickly without having to replace each one individually is there? I think most of the icons are in the same place in both versions of the file.
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

I'm going to give Windows 2000 a try on my new-old laptop, on the spare hard disk so as not to throw away my ME install in case 2000 is too slow - I've just upgraded it to a toal of 48 MB Ram and it feels really fast now! Still no crashes on ME - this has got to be one of the all time great OSes!
I'm not going to comment on the last sentence given my experience with it, but I once used Windows 2000 with 96MB of RAM and while it was okay, I sometimes felt some sluggishness. Once I upgraded to 160MB (this was when 2000 came out, on a 400MHz machine), the thing just started to fly! Booting was significantly faster and so were all day-to-day operations. I'd not expect 2000 to be speedy on 133MHz and 48MB of RAM, though. Better stick to ME.
I'd be interested in this if it's got all the XP icons integrated into it, as if 2000 is fast enough and I keep it I'll probably want to use XP icons, and a shell32.dll (with the latest patches) with them all in already would be useful to save me the time of doing it.

Alternatively, there's not a way of taking all the icons from the XP shell32.dll and putting them into the 2000 one quickly without having to replace each one individually is there? I think most of the icons are in the same place in both versions of the file.
You could try to use the XPize installer. It saves all resources to be edited in directories where you can easily replace the bitmaps, icons and logos. But beware: Installing XPize on Win2k does not change the icons, so I'd say the icons are not in the same place, although that's a bit weird. Additionally, XP icons (these for My Computer and that stuff, for instance) are not going to look as good on 2000 as they look on XP as they use alpha-blending or something like that and 2000 doesn't support that. I'd rather keep the 2000 icons, I like them more anyway.

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

I have marked it as finished. So now we just have to wait for it to be moved...
-Jeff

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:But beware: Installing XPize on Win2k does not change the icons, so I'd say the icons are not in the same place, although that's a bit weird.
Isn't XPize meant for putting XP-like resouces into XP where Microsoft forgot to? So surely it wouldn't replace the shell icons because Microsoft already XPized them on XP?

Now, if someone could make an XPize for 2000, that would be really good...
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

sn't XPize meant for putting XP-like resouces into XP where Microsoft forgot to? So surely it wouldn't replace the shell icons because Microsoft already XPized them on XP?

Now, if someone could make an XPize for 2000, that would be really good... Smile
Yes, primarily. But XPize also replaces other icons that are already "XP-ized" so they can be up to 128x128 pixels without looking like crap. And installing on W2K doesn't give you these icons. There was a project like XPize for 2000, but there have been no news for a quite long time...

To give you an idea how XP icons will look on earlier Windows versions, look in the gallery for Win2k Pro Edition 2004 which has these.

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

empireum wrote:Last time I checked, it was there (HD2), but in the Upload folder, so you'll have to wait till Andy has moved it. Is the upload finished? The .rar file is only ~110MB. It sounds really interesting, as NT and Win2000 are still my favourite Microsoft OSes, I love to see something new and extraordinary for them
Ok, I will take look at this pack
empireum wrote: Luckie, do you happen to know http://www.windows-nation.de? They have developed a Win2K Pro/Server modification using mostly the original NT 5.0 logos and texts that were found in the Beta 2, so after installing from the modified CD, the entire Win2K OS identifies itself as NT 5.0. This mod is really cool because it looks completely like a real NT 5.0. I love it!
I've downloaded this, but forgott it I will take a look at it
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:But XPize also replaces other icons that are already "XP-ized" so they can be up to 128x128 pixels without looking like crap.
Ah, I see. The XP icons look OK on 2000 - the laptop doesn't do full 32 bit colour anyway, I think (24 bit or something maybe?), so they probably wouldn't look quite as good as they should even if 2000 did do the alpha-blending thing. The default 2000 icons are OK, but look a bit poor quality compared to the modern ones - they're very pixellated and have grainy colouring compared with the XP ones.

However, I do remember seeing Windows 98 for the first time when I was still on 95 many years ago, and thinking how amazing the icons were (the 98 icons have kind of 3D effects to them that the 95 ones don't) - I actually thought the 98 icons were high quality!
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

@Luckie
Yes, you should check that out. It's meant for a german Windows 2000 CD with SP4 already integrated and it's done really well. You'll completely forget you're on 2000 because it says NT everywhere. All logos have ben replaced and so on. I lke this much more than the original "Windows 2000" branding as I was very disappointed when MS decided to rename NT 5.0 to Win 2000. Therefore, I love the early Win2k betas that are still called NT 5.0.

@Vista Ultimate R2
Ah, I see. The XP icons look OK on 2000 - the laptop doesn't do full 32 bit colour anyway, I think (24 bit or something maybe?), so they probably wouldn't look quite as good as they should even if 2000 did do the alpha-blending thing. The default 2000 icons are OK, but look a bit poor quality compared to the modern ones - they're very pixellated and have grainy colouring compared with the XP ones.
Okay. The XP logos don't look the same in 16-bit or 24-bit color as they do in 32-bit color, either. So you might be fine using the XP logos on 2000 if alpha-blending is not important for you.
However, I do remember seeing Windows 98 for the first time when I was still on 95 many years ago, and thinking how amazing the icons were (the 98 icons have kind of 3D effects to them that the 95 ones don't) - I actually thought the 98 icons were high quality!
Exactly the same thing happened to me when I upgraded my Windows 95/NT 3.51 dual-boot machine to NT 4.0 in 1996/97. As NT4 has the Plus!-95 visual enhancements integrated, like high-color icons, the icons in NT4 are much better and nicer than these in 95(A). And I kind of thought that's to show NT is the "real" Windows I'm still a big fan of NT, by the way.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:
However, I do remember seeing Windows 98 for the first time when I was still on 95 many years ago, and thinking how amazing the icons were (the 98 icons have kind of 3D effects to them that the 95 ones don't) - I actually thought the 98 icons were high quality!
Exactly the same thing happened to me when I upgraded my Windows 95/NT 3.51 dual-boot machine to NT 4.0 in 1996/97. As NT4 has the Plus!-95 visual enhancements integrated, like high-color icons, the icons in NT4 are much better and nicer than these in 95(A). And I kind of thought that's to show NT is the "real" Windows I'm still a big fan of NT, by the way.
A couple more random thoughts along the same sorts of lines:

>>I can remember when I installed IE4 on Windows 95 back in the day, and I specifically remember rebooting and that Channel Bar thing on the desktop appeared, and I thought it was so futuristic - it just looked amazing back then!

>>When I first used XP, I actually thought to myself: the icons have got slightly better with every version of Windows, but they are now so good (XP was the first one where the icons were actually high-res rather than pixellated) that it will surely not be possible to improve them more than that - I just couldn't imagine how they could possibly make higher quality icons! A couple of years later I saw Longhorn, and suddenly realised that the standard XP icons are appalling and integrated a load of Longhorn/OS X icons into my system files...
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

A couple more random thoughts along the same sorts of lines:

>>I can remember when I installed IE4 on Windows 95 back in the day, and I specifically remember rebooting and that Channel Bar thing on the desktop appeared, and I thought it was so futuristic - it just looked amazing back then! Embarassed
Yeah, same thing happened on NT after installing IE4. And my first thought was: "Oh my God, what is that? How can I remove it?" Really, I didn't/don't like the channel bar. I liked the other desktop enhancements of IE4, though.
>>When I first used XP, I actually thought to myself: the icons have got slightly better with every version of Windows, but they are now so good (XP was the first one where the icons were actually high-res rather than pixellated) that it will surely not be possible to improve them more than that - I just couldn't imagine how they could possibly make higher quality icons! A couple of years later I saw Longhorn, and suddenly realised that the standard XP icons are appalling and integrated a load of Longhorn/OS X icons into my system files...
As a Mac OS X user, I thought and still think this as well. The OS X icons, no matter if made by Apple and supplied with the system or made by someone else (who knows what he's doing) are so incredibly beautiful in my eyes I can't imagine something better. They scale perfectly up to 128x128 or even more without getting pixellated.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

empireum wrote:Yeah, same thing happened on NT after installing IE4. And my first thought was: "Oh my God, what is that? How can I remove it?" Really, I didn't/don't like the channel bar. I liked the other desktop enhancements of IE4, though.
Yeah, I think I turned it off as well, after thinking how awesome it looked (I mean, it wasn't actually particularly useful, it just looked amazing when you were used to Windows 95!). As for the Desktop Update, I never got that because I got IE4 when I installed something else that required it, and as the IE4 setup was integrated with the other installer it didn't seem to offer me the Desktop Update. I started seeing all these screenshots that showed the titlebars that changed from one colour to another and thought they were so funky, and I so wanted them on my 95!! That was in the days before broadband so there was no chance of downloading Windows 98 - when I was getting someone to upgrade my computer (my 8GB hard drive I think - I couldn't imagine ever filling that disk!) they offered to install their copy of Windows 98, but I didn't take it then as 98 had only just come out and I'd been reading all these stories of disasters caused by upgrading to 98!
Image

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

A note regarding the Windows Classic Enhanced Final ISO on the AbyssUnderground server #2

The ISO/RAR archive seems to be corrupt. I can't mount it in Mac OS X, it says the format is unrecognized, and attempting to boot it in Virtual PC displays the "Press a key to boot from CD..." message, then hangs when it tries to boot from it. Can somebody please confirm that?

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12622
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

It does seem to be corrupt even on my copy on the backup server. Sorry about that. Ill delete it and it will need to be uploaded again.

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

OK, thanks for confirming that.
The file has to be uploaded again.

Jeff
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 1:06 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jeff »

*Hits the upload button*

this time im uploading it as the ISO, not the rar. It's only 10mb bigger. If this is corrupted, i will use something becides explorer to upload it.
-Jeff

Post Reply