Windows 2000 look for XP

H

hawkiee552

I've been a long time XP user, but I've always liked the old Windows 2000 theme.
Now, XP and up to 7 comes default with Windows Classic theme installed, however there is a way to get all those good old 16-bit W2000 icons for XP without having to manually change them.

I discovered this program a couple of years ago, and it's called Inexperience Patcher.

This modifies your .dll files to contain all the old Windows 2000 icons and enables them, including even the grayed-out-icons-in-your-explorer-bar-that-colors-up-when-you-move-your-cursor-over-them. Yeah.

It also has an active reloader, which means if a Windows update replaces a .dll containing an icon that the Inexperience Patcher wants to use, it reloads that file automatically. It doesn't hog any system resources, rather the opposite.

Check it out, there are screenshots on the DeviantArt page.
 
Well it would be much easier to go control panel-display-and change it to windows classic instead of windows xp. Simples and you don't lose hard drive space.
 
But that doesn't give you the older icons of Windows 2000 (and not just the desktop but those deeply nested system icons you need to go into the registry and change)
 
I don't get it. Why would anyone want Win2K theme on XP, other than for nostalgia purpose? Win2K is abandonware. You can find untouched MSDN iso images floating around on abandonware sites. If you want the Win2K theme, why not run the genuine Win2K OS itself? Besides, the Luna XP theme looks much slicker...

Also, what is wrong with the built-in classic theme in XP? Wasn't that what Win2K looked like anyways?
 
Last edited:
The icon set was different (more bubbly and less Fisher-Price). What people want is the kernel improvements of XP, but the exact look of 2000. They were quite similar but just a tad more different than what the XP Classic desktop gives you.

Hey there's people that want the Windows 8 look on XP, and the Trasnformation Pack does an outstanding job of that, so why not?

Some people like obtaining a certain look for their OS, down to a "T". What's not to "get"?
 
^ So, according to you, ppl want to drive around with the innards of a Ferrari housed within the chassis of a Honda Civic. The analogy I'm using is very fitting b/c supercars are curvy/aerodynamic by nature (much like XP's Luna), while a Honda sedan is akin to the box-like "primitive" nature of the Win2k interface... So, nope, I'm still perplexed.
 
Yes, but people just don't tend to look at cars that way. But you nailed it on the head for me. I like boxier cars from the 80s and early 90s. I wish they had better innards, because I don't care for a BMW to be quite honest. I do like early 80s Jaguars though.

I like simplicity (whether it's better or not). I have a wall full of LPs and a non-smart phone so trust me, you'd soon learn that I don't care to be up to date in every aspect of life. You could probably drop back in 1975 and I'd be happy there.

To your point, I really like classic Volkswagen Beetles (pre-1974), so if I could have a safer, more energy efficient vehicle underneath the facade of a classic Beetle, that's what would make a good comparison.

But that's OK, be perplexed if you must. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top