Is there any way to restore Windows 7 look, or some better visuals, to Win 8?

Shifty Geezer

uber-Troll!
Moderator
Legend
Considering which OS to get for my new PC, the possibility of Win 8.1 to boot to desktop makes it a valid option. I know nothing about the OS so have just started looking into it. One thing I find kinda shocking is the primitive graphics. Solid, flat, pin-sharp rectangles of colour are okay for fine-art galleries, or 1980's WIMP interfaces, but look like &*@# on an modern interface IMO.

Are these graphics skinnable, or is that only option with W8?
 
I haven't done much, but the UI isn't as ugly as it was with 8.0, where you can have the same custom backgrounds on both desktop and tiles menu, so that it looks like the tiles menu is a transparent overlay of your desktop.

So I don't hate it as much as I used to do. But it still lacks a lot of sexyness, and I don't think it's in any way skinnable (or they'd have a default Desktop skin that looked sexier than the energy saving current setup).

But hey, it probably uses a lot less power.
 
You could check out Windowblinds by Stardock. It's a commercial software package, but it should be pretty cheap. Not sure if it supports win8 though or even if it's still supported, I haven't looked at it in literally 10 years or so...
 
I've found it's skinnable, can even look like a Mac, but it doesn't matter. A friend says not all apps are compatible with Win 8 which is something I failed to consider. I've no issues with Win 7, so may as well stick.
 
I've found it's skinnable, can even look like a Mac, but it doesn't matter. A friend says not all apps are compatible with Win 8 which is something I failed to consider. I've no issues with Win 7, so may as well stick.

What do you mean with not all apps are compatible with Win 8? Stuff that just plain doesn't run on Win 8? It happens, but not often, and is usually a matter of switching some setting (that is better hidden in Win 8 than 7, like disabling digital driver sign requirement)

Certainly, no Apps are compatible with Win 7.

Having Windows 7 at work and Windows 8 at home, I'd definitely never happily go back from 8 to 7.

Don't you use two screens?
 
By apps, I mean applications, its original meaning before Apple hijacked it. I know everything I own works on Win 7 (including some real old stuff!). No real need to chance whether it'll work properly or not on Win 8. Having to upgrade software could add unnecessarily to cost.

I work on one screen and have no interest in side bars and docked apps and social streams and pretty interfaces. ;) I work one window at a time and task switch (although may go dual screen for development as the PC under the desk will free up room for a second screen).
 
I haven't run into any program I've gotten in the past 5 years that doesn't work on Win 8. While I haven't install everything I've purchased in the past 10 years, I haven't run into anything from that long ago that doesn't work either.

Regards,
SB
 
Me neither. Shifty you shouldn't forget that Windows 8.1 really is Windows 6.2 under the hood. There's almost nothing that doesn't work at this point, but you can't develop Windows 8 apps on a Windows 7 machine, for instance.

And dual screen support is highly recommended, greatly improves productivity and decent screens are really cheap these days.
 
With win 8 theyve gone backwards with the UI, i.e. you cant easily set a scrollbar to X number of pixels wide, same with the colors etc.
I dont mind colors so much (I dont even have wallpaper) but losing usability for a 'unified' UI sucks
 
With win 8 theyve gone backwards with the UI, i.e. you cant easily set a scrollbar to X number of pixels wide, same with the colors etc.
I dont mind colors so much (I dont even have wallpaper) but losing usability for a 'unified' UI sucks

Only in terms of customisability (which, btw, is not just limited to configuring the GUI; MS has disabled many options for configuring windows behaviour. For example, it used to be very easy to rename a network in Windows. Now you need to open regedit32.exe to do that). MS claims it's done because 'based on telemetry data, <X% of users used this function'. Of course, this is flawed logic for removing features, as even though certain configuration options are not used often, they might prove extremely useful for those few situations where they are required.

In terms of GUI, the flat design and doing away with Aero is actually an improvement imo, as visual effects like transparency usually are mostly bling and deteriorate actual usability of the interface. Think of the people who starting using 'classic layout' from the Windows XP era onwards. For the same reason, this was the default GUI interface for Server versions of Windows for a long time.
 
I don't use transparency in Aero. I agree it's gimmicky and messy. However, I'd like subtle shading and 3D effects rather than flat colours a la Win3.1. I think we've moved on from that. It's actually a pet hate I have with the current universal UI styling across all sorts of platforms. It's like the art-house designers have taken over and everything's fashionably plain and ugly.

There's probably a very interesting social commentary buried in the increasing complexity of people's multitasked social interactions and the regression of UI's to plain and simple. We're adding clutter to what people are doing while simplifying how it looks.
 
I don't use transparency in Aero. I agree it's gimmicky and messy. However, I'd like subtle shading and 3D effects rather than flat colours a la Win3.1. I think we've moved on from that. It's actually a pet hate I have with the current universal UI styling across all sorts of platforms. It's like the art-house designers have taken over and everything's fashionably plain and ugly.

There's probably a very interesting social commentary buried in the increasing complexity of people's multitasked social interactions and the regression of UI's to plain and simple. We're adding clutter to what people are doing while simplifying how it looks.

I agree it's being taken too far,but not because of the ugly argument. I think Outlook in Microsoft Office 2013 is a good example of this.Since all the panes have the exact same background colour (white), it takes slightly longer to focus on them. That's taking the flat&plain design a bit too far in my opinion.

However, when I go back to office 2010/2007, I now find it looks worse than 2013 (even though it might be better usable due to making it easier to focus on the right interface element). So in the end, the 'ugly' aspect is very subjective.
 
There were some design issues where scrollbars became difficult to see, but I changed the default palette slightly to handle that (you can still do that). The advantage of not having to hook in the GPU for certain display effects is of course power consumption reduction, and I understand the benefit of unifying everything, for testing, consistency, etc. But with Maverick, OS/X looks more appealing to me than Windows for the very first time in a long time, so I'm definitely hoping it won't be too long before Win8 goes back to being attractive. ;) I was a big fan of Aero by the way, especially the transparency effects.

The Windows 8 aesthetic, including the background, seem to me to take a bit of the worse part of Indian design (hopefully I don't offend anyone with that) - a weak use and combination of the typical primitive colors, without any of the glitter that makes things look interesting.

E.g. like this:
indian-paisley-variety-design.jpg
 
We have several software packages that don't play well with w8. They're hodgepodges of java, SQL and low level code for data acquisition over MODBUS, CANbus and Profibus. As such I just bought a new lappy (gigabyte p34g) and went with w7.
 
What's the issue? What does the low level code do?
 
But with Maverick, OS/X looks more appealing to me than Windows for the very first time in a long time.
http://windowsthemesfree.com/2013/10/mac-os-x-mavericks-windows-8-skin-pack.html

Deviant Art has quite a few visual styles for Win7 I've been perusing. I can see where something can be 'minimal' in principal without actually being minimal. A little shading here, a little 3D there, and I think the result is the best of all worlds.

What I don't understand though is why the design is fixed and needs a hack to enable styles. I have Go Explorer installed on my Android phones and it supports themes of a fabulous range, and I'm guessing they make good money off it. As many users have to stare at their computer for hours on end, allowing customisation to make that more palatable seems a no brainer (with disable options for the workplace, natch).
 
I was a long term Windows 8 hater and after giving it a second chance it now makes perfect sense and now Windows 7 will never be installed on my SSD again.

Games seem to run a bit smoother on Windows 8 too.
 
I don't use transparency in Aero. I agree it's gimmicky and messy. However, I'd like subtle shading and 3D effects rather than flat colours a la Win3.1. I think we've moved on from that. It's actually a pet hate I have with the current universal UI styling across all sorts of platforms. It's like the art-house designers have taken over and everything's fashionably plain and ugly.

There's probably a very interesting social commentary buried in the increasing complexity of people's multitasked social interactions and the regression of UI's to plain and simple. We're adding clutter to what people are doing while simplifying how it looks.

It's like they want to blur the lines with websites : websites are by large mostly flat, often with lots of white and plain rectangles, moreso since the Windows 8 era. Metro apps are of course the same.
Web GUIs are a lot more used than even 5 years ago - not long before there wasn't even Youtube yet and today young kids can't even be arsed to be using a file manager and winamp (or at least use vlc in playlist mode like some people my gen or older are doing)

All web GUIs are flat and proprietary actually. Now the OS and its apps (no : applets) want to follow that as that's what people use all day - so, complexity and simplified looks, as long as people click their way out without learning anything.

As for the appearance itself, rather than Windows 3.1, the trend of flat and white everywhere with all customization disabled makes me think of the systems older than Windows 3.1, like Atari ST and classic Mac OS. I remember Win 3.1 would let you change color schemes and the window border thickness.
 
Back
Top