A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

computer slow



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 30th 15, 01:45 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default computer slow

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:19:16 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:04:06 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:06:21 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

Not *everything* produced by Microsoft was out and out bad but it
seems
to suit Microsoft to throw Baby out with the Bathwater and what suits
Microsoft most definitely doesn't suit me, hence my 'Search for The
Holy Grail" of desktop OSes. :-(

Exactly what is it that you don't like about Win7 desk top?


Its rather klunky file manager.


JBG. Can you explain what it is thats better in WIN 2k Pro which I used
here for many years and then upgraded to WIN 7 and really missed out XP
apart from one machine which is very little used. In WIN 7 I can find
any file I want very quickly so what is the actual problem.

Mate you've ranted on now for several postings and I think this was done
to death a while ago with no firm conclusions so can you be more
specific by example please of the two systems? I have set it to give a
more "classic" windows feel but thats no big deal surely?.


Don't be kidded by that description "Classic". All it means is what the
default configuration for the previous version of windows was. The really
classic look to my mind is the one first demonstrated in win95 and
epitomised in win2k thereafter to be slowly whittled away bit by bit with
each successive windows version.

Possibly, when you were using win2k, you just accepted the default
configuration or maybe you tried the "Open each folder in its own window"
option and decided it didn't fit your needs quite as well as the "Open
each folder in the same window" or preferred the 'explore' tree display
option so reminiscent of the text based file managers used in DOS such as
the PCTools or Midnight Commander add ons.

If you preferred the alternatives to the 2D spread everything out on the
desktop presentation style of opening each folder in its own window, then
you're not really going to appreciate its loss in Vista and win7.

I'll admit that the "Messy Desktop" metaphor used to describe the
apparent 'organised chaos' preferred by some 'office workers' is not to
everyone's taste but it works quite well for me (I regard this way of
using a GUI as the best justification for the very existence of a desktop
GUI in the first place :-).

My main criticism of winXP's version of this idea is the removal of the
intelligent auto-sizing algorithm from explorer in regard of how each
folder window was opened on the desktop, effectively a lobotomy which
rendered this method of working more like hard work than the pleasure it
used to be in win2k.

With Vista, MS then added insult to injury by taking away even this
option, topping it all off by adding unnecessary bling and and bloat to
the desktop folder windows whilst at the same time reducing
functionality. Part of all this lies with the "Cunning Repackaging" of
the common functions which reside within each OS's version but that's not
the whole story. MS may claim to have 'streamlined' the interface but,
afaic, they're lying through their teeth.

If what they offered as being a legacy option was truly 'legacy', I'd be
far less inclined to criticise the new and neutered successive versions
of windows that they've been foisting upon the Great Unwashed consumers.



FWIW I have several folders on the desktop which then break down to more
folders and then sometimes again to sub folders but its click click and
click again . Should I miss one then the search works very well, and I
don't really think this is in any way worse than what WIN 2K was!..


That sounds suspiciously like you're opening each folder in its own
window. The unfortunate thing, as with winXP, is that they don't open in
as compact a form as in win2k nor do they autosize in accordance to the
number of objects contained within as was the case with win2k so you more
swiftly land up within a swamp of opened folders than was the case with
win2k. I'll admit, even with win2k's more economic desktop usage, I could
still generate a swamp of open folders if I put my mind to it. Even win2k
has its limits (they're just wider limits, is all :-).

The other main bugbear with Vista and win7's desktop is the
counterproductive redesign of the startup menu (reversed folder/links
ordering). And, what's this with the lack of a "Run" option? Why should I
have to *type* 'run' in the search box before I get a run CLI text input
box? If there's a way to incorporate it into the programs list, I've yet
to discover it - perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.

I'm sure I can offer many more critiques as to what is wrong with win7
but I'd need to fire a win7 afflicted machine up to remind me of the
horrors that, quite frankly, I'd prefer to forget.

--
Johnny B Good
  #22  
Old April 30th 15, 04:07 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
UnsteadyKen[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default computer slow


In article:

Johnny B Good says...

If there's a way to incorporate it into the programs list, I've yet
to discover it - perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.

Classic theme answers all your criticisms.



http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=c959a27


--
Ken O'Meara

List of UK hi-fi & audio dealers:
http://unsteadyken.esy.es/
  #23  
Old April 30th 15, 07:56 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul Ratcliffe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,473
Default computer slow

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:45:16 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

And, what's this with the lack of a "Run" option? Why should I
have to *type* 'run' in the search box before I get a run CLI text input
box? If there's a way to incorporate it into the programs list, I've yet
to discover it - perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.


Taskbar properties, Start Menu tab, Customize, enable Run Command.
  #24  
Old April 30th 15, 08:10 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul Ratcliffe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,473
Default computer slow

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 21:02:04 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

Not *everything* produced by Microsoft was out and out bad but it seems
to suit Microsoft to throw Baby out with the Bathwater and what suits
Microsoft most definitely doesn't suit me, hence my 'Search for The Holy
Grail" of desktop OSes. :-(


Exactly what is it that you don't like about Win7 desk top?


Its rather klunky file manager.


The dire W7 explorer can be improved by Classic Shell and classic look.
Even in its default state, it is oceans better than anything on Linux
which drives me absolutely insane, to the point of not bothering to use
it.
You would think the various distributions might do things differently
but they all work in the same brain dead way with effectively the same
stupid file manager, even if it's called something different.
I *WANT* a tree on the left and a files window on the right so I can
quickly navigate between directories, but no, they all have to try and
put everything on the right and the left is virtually a useless
apparently pre-defined list of things I mostly don't want.
  #25  
Old April 30th 15, 08:25 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul Ratcliffe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,473
Default computer slow

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:06:21 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

The main goal of Zorin OS is to give new users easy access to Linux.
That is why Zorin OS incorporates the familiar Windows 7-like interface
by default to dramatically reduce the learning curve of this system
while still experiencing the main advantages of Linux. You can also
utilise the desktop with other interfaces. This is thanks to the
exclusive Zorin Look Changer which lets you change your desktop to look
and act like either Windows 7, Windows XP or GNOME 2 in the free
versions of Zorin OS. The Premium editions also include the Windows
2000, Unity and Mac OS X looks."


Zorin is no different to anything else. It's just a look changer and
it's amazingly slow and you can't seem to turn off its stupid animating
menus.

You might also consider Ubuntu-MATE, which is now one of the official
releases. It has a choice of three different menu styles, one of which
can be made to look very much like the "classic" menu in Windows XP.


It still has the same brain-dead file management capabilities as
every other distribution.

There is also the issue of not being able to access the file shares on a
win2k laptop that remains accessable from other windows PCs, regardless
of whether real or virtualised on this very same machine, yet the shares
from another win2k machine are entirely accessable. This particular
failing seems to a a generic Linixy thing since it's been the same with
other Live CD *nix sessions I've tried - perhaps its an 'Ubuntu thing'?


There does seem to be a problem with Samba 4 versus Samba 3 talking to
Samba 2 which I haven't found a way around. 3 will talk to 2 but 4 won't
which is causing me some annoyance. Debugging efforts have led to
discovering what is wrong but not why and I've just given up now in
frustration.
It's almost enough to make you want to go back to Windows (which of course
has no problem with any of them) on the bare metal

Zorin looks promising but I've suffered enough of Linux's empty promises
so don't have too high an expectation in this regard.


'Fraid it's rubbish too.

My view of Linux as a viable desktop alternative to win2k is becoming
ever more jaundiced as my experience grows.


Yes, I would tend to agree. That and the tablet-ification of everything
just makes me wonder why I bother with all this **** any more.
  #26  
Old April 30th 15, 09:44 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
John Hall[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 248
Default computer slow

In message , Alan White
writes
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:03:43 +0200, Martin wrote:

I've used Win 7 for 4 years and have never seen it.


Neither have I.


I don't remember seeing it either. Maybe it was a problem in the initial
release that was subsequently fixed?
--
I'm not paid to implement the recognition of irony.
(Taken, with the author's permission, from a LiveJournal post)

  #27  
Old April 30th 15, 11:33 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Indy Jess John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,242
Default computer slow

On 30/04/2015 09:44, John Hall wrote:
In , Alan White
writes
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:03:43 +0200, wrote:

I've used Win 7 for 4 years and have never seen it.


Neither have I.


I don't remember seeing it either. Maybe it was a problem in the initial
release that was subsequently fixed?


I have all the updates on Win7 so if it was fixed, I should have the fix.

It may be because I have networked drives mapped to other drive letters
that makes the difference.

Jim

  #28  
Old April 30th 15, 12:10 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,228
Default computer slow

In article , Johnny B Good
wrote:


Wow! Then it's even *worse* than I remembered it! I did wonder where
the devs for the Thunar file manager[1] got their inspiration from and
now I know. :-(


Just to check: You do know that you can change filer, etc, without having
to change distro? Note that I use xfce and ROX together. I simply installed
rox-filer and set it to run from bootup. Then I set it to also give me a
rox taskbar (panel) at the bottom of the screen, leaving the default xfce
panel at the top. Lets me use either as I prefer. The ROX gui is quite
different to default xfce/thunar.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #29  
Old April 30th 15, 12:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Java Jive[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,712
Default computer slow

To begin with, let me list (the only) two things in W7 that I think
are an improvement over previous versions:

Most of us are not keyhole surgeons, so why are so many default window
and dialog box sizes so absurdly small? This is not specific to W7/8,
it has been a problem since for ever, but at least W7 remembers how
you last had them, so you can arrange them to come up with the size
that you want.

The selection of files by checkboxes is sometimes useful.

But ...

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:19:16 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

JBG. Can you explain what it is thats better in WIN 2k Pro which I used
here for many years and then upgraded to WIN 7 and really missed out XP
apart from one machine which is very little used. In WIN 7 I can find
any file I want very quickly so what is the actual problem.


Since and including Windows XP (XP+) I can't find any file I want
nearly as quickly as I can in Windows 2k, and if and when I have found
it in W7+ (or perhaps Vista+, but I've never trodden in that
particular pile of ****e) the results are not nearly so conveniently
displayed. These are because:
:-( "Windows Search", which was an optional update in XP+,
became enforced in W7+, and is significantly less ergonomic,
I mean it is less efficient, to use.
:-( Since XP+, reading *.zips is integrated into Explorer, and
this means that:
:-( They clutter up the LH pane in Explorer as virtual
directories, and given that ...
* Commonly lots of zips are stored in folders together
* Since XP+ the LH pane automatically opens the branch
subfolder when you select any folder
... this means that valuable information is continually being
lost in the LH pane, and to get it back again, you are
continually having to undo XP's automatic opening by
immediately closing the branch.
:-( Worse still, when XP+ searches such subfolders, it presumes
that you want to search ALL the contents of ALL the *.zips in
the search tree, and this takes FOR EVER - in W2k, you had
the option of selecting this behaviour or not, depending on
what you were searching for, XP+ has no way of turning it off.
:-( Whereas W2k remembered your default search settings, in XP+
you have to remember to tell it every time you want it to
search system folders, and doing this is itself unnecessarily
involved. As I already divide my system up into a system
drive and a data drive, naturally I will want to search system
folders EVERY TIME I search the system drive. As so often,
MS 'helpfulness' in protecting system folders actually turns
out to be just another of so many f*king obstacles which are a
pain to an experienced user.
:-( Now, in W7+, the results are no longer displayed in a seperate
window, so you are continually losing them by double-clicking
folders within the results, thus navigating away from them,
and having to wait for them to rebuild when you come back.

Mate you've ranted on now for several postings and I think this was done
to death a while ago with no firm conclusions


Well, I think the conclusions were pretty firm enough, see the
extended requote of myself below. They were that to a bod who just
uses a computer casually to write an email, search the internet, and
other very light use, then it's probably not very much worse than
other systems, but to an advanced user it's like being "surrounded by
an idiot, and a bone-headed, job's worth one of low intelligence at
that" or some such phrase that I used at the time.

so can you be more
specific by example please of the two systems? I have set it to give a
more "classic" windows feel but thats no big deal surely?.


For example in W7+ ...

The LH Explore pane is cluttered with things I never use and will
never want to use, but can't get rid of them. Bearing in mind that
all my data is kept on an entirely seperate partition or disk, with
therefore a different drive letter, why would I want MS' enforced
presence of:
:-( Libraries - *I* will organise *MY* media files the way *I*
want them.
:-( Homegroup - I prefer to make and use static links to known
devices in the old-fashioned way, rather than wait for MS to
rediscover devices that I *KNOW* are there, despite, every
time I waken my media laptop from sleep and log back in,
W7 telling me that the previously selected directory on the
server can not be found. The fact that I am right has to
proven anew to it each time by clicking left arrow or 'back'
followed by right arrow 'forward' and lo and behold, all the
files are now restored! Why should I have to go through this
pointless and irritating ritual every day?
:-( My Documents - As my data is held in a rational directory
structure of my own choosing on a completely different drive,
why would I want to use or even see MS' cluttered mess? And
while I'm on the subject, can't we lose this self-centred and
possessive tendency for MY Documents, MY Music, MY Pictures,
MY Videos, MY Banal-Wiggling-Of-My-Butt-On-You-Tube, or
whatever. As I'm the one signed on to the machine, whose else
are they going to be? Rasputin's?
:-( Network - See Homegroup

And, why, for another example, has the W7+ Explorer interface removed
or crippled many of the accelerator (the clue is in the name)
keystrokes that make for efficient working. For example:
drag No longer selects files by rubber-banding, you have to use
Alt-drag instead - this is a real chore on a trackpad.
Alt-left-arrow and Alt-right-arrow no longer move back and
forth in the folder history list in a similar way to a
browser moving back and forth in the web-page history
list. The loss of this is exasperating.
:-( The location of the keyboard focus is very ill-defined,
and often seems to disappear into some black hole. When
this happens, many of the keystroke combinations below
either just do not work, or even worse do something
entirely different, unexpected, and unwanted:
Tab No longer moves between the panes
Alt EI No longer inverts the selection in the RH pane
Alt FN No longer creates a new directory
... etc, etc.

FWIW I have several folders on the desktop which then break down to more
folders and then sometimes again to sub folders but its click click and
click again . Should I miss one then the search works very well, and I
don't really think this is in any way worse than what WIN 2K was!..


Well, for a measure of how much worse it is, how's this? A couple of
years ago I bought myself an expensive new laptop, which ran W8.
Within two weeks, I was phoning the manufacturer to ask for W7
installation disks for it, because W8 was just impossible without a
touch screen. Nevertheless, I still planned to create a 'standard' W7
work build on it, as I have previously done for 2k/XP.

My three other PCs essentially have this same 'standard' 2k/XP build -
the XP is the 2k build upgraded to XP - with the same software,
window layouts, etc. If one is busy doing a long job, or suffers a
hardware failure, I can be working on another in anything from a
minute or two to an hour or two, depending on the exact situation.
This is what I would have liked to achieve with W7. However, I have
found W7 so unamenable to any rational customisation, and so
impossible to get rid of the clutter, etc, that this expensive new
laptop is only being used as a media player. It has absolutely no
other use.

Above, and requoted below, are the sort of reasons why ...

"Do Ctrl-Alt-Delete. Can you tell at a glance which item in the
menu
is selected? I can't, I have to squint, and even then I'm not always
sure. To change that background screen because it is too like the
colour of the focus marker is not just a matter of clicking a setting,
it's absurdly more involved than that.

Open Explorer, and you have a similar problem. Is the focus and
selection in the LH window or the RH window? The difference is
critical. Yesterday, I deleted a directory on a server when I thought
I was deleting a single file in it, and not all the files in it had
yet been backed up onto the other server, so are gone for ever.

So, today, I turned off aero and chose a 'classic' look (but where
have all the legacy colour schemes for the 'classic' look, such as
'Red Brick' and 'Rainy Day', gone), and suddenly found I had more
screen space, because the task bar and window boundaries are
significantly smaller, so much so that open windows that formerly went
out to some of the screen edges now fell some way short. So the
modern aero 'look' sacrifices useful functionality in terms of screen
space, for, well, for what exactly? Apparently, nothing more useful
than a whore's make up.

We are told that the new look is designed to be easier to use on
smaller screen devices, but these first three examples above all
flatly contradict this!

On a completely different line, why are so many modern operating
systems trying to enforce where we install data? Why must I have
Libraries, Contacts, Downloads, My Documents, My Music, My Pictures,
and My Video folders, especially as all my data is held on a
completely different drive anyway? All that ever really exists are
data files of one sort or another, which don't need any special place
to store, them, or any special explorer column layout. If I make a
presentation involving each type of media, naturally I want them all
in the same folder, and as I create each type I don't want to be
continually navigating away from a useless default of My Whatever to
save them where I actually want to save them. Similarly, if I attend
a friend's wedding in Spain, I might take some video of the ceremony,
some pictures of the scenery, and record some Flamenco music being
played in a bar, and again, I would want all three types of media in
one folder, not three different ones. Data storage is the user's area
of responsibility, and the operating system has no business getting
involved with it at all, let alone to the extent that you can't
actually stop it interfering.

At a deeper level, if you have a number of folders in Explorer for
which you need to change their ownership or permissions, in XP- you
just selected them all in the RH part of the window, rt-clicked and
chose the security tab, but in Win7+ you only get the security tab
when a single folder or file is selected, so you have to do each one
individually. What if there are 20, or 30, or more? Worse still, the
dialog box for making the changes itself became much more cumbersome
and unergonomic in XP, and instead of a one-off operation which was
relatively easy to get right in Windows 2000, you are left with a
chore which would be error-prone enough simply because it's f*king
boring and therefore easy for your mind to wander, even without your
being conscious of, and therefore distractingly angered by, the fact
that you are being made to go through this hell by thoughtless, ****e
design.

In Win7, the Administrators group are not really Administrators any
more. For example, the Administrators group no longer owns every file
and every registry setting on the PC, many are owned by such entities
as Trusted Installer.

Why are these two points important? Well, some examples follow ...

One thing that Trusted Installer can often be relied upon to do is to
put files where you don't want them. I've recently discovered that
both the BBC iPlayer Desktop app and Dropbox install their executable
files not in the Program Files folder(s), but in the user's profile.
This means that if more than one user installs them, disk-space is
being wasted in unnecessary duplication of files. Perhaps that's the
fault of the programmers of those apps, but the fact that all files
and settings are no longer owned by the Administrators group, coupled
with the horrendous chore of changing the permissions means that a
mess like that is much more difficult and time consuming to sort out,
so much so that eventually I just uninstalled both Apps rather than be
arsed with them.

Rt-Click My Computer and choose 'Manage'. What a mess that is! But
to give an idea of how actually inefficient this interface is, choose
Services And Applications and then Services. The default view is now
'extended' which has dead areas of white space with an Action pane
that is usually empty or all but, while the columns that actually hold
the useful information are truncated to make room for all the wasted
space. Perhaps MS would like to tell us how all that wasted white
space is supposed to be helping small screen devices? Worse still,
customising the layout to something more efficient - which involves
running the console under mmc /a, turning the action pane off,
choosing the 'standard' tab, widening all the columns, and saving the
resulting layout - is now even more tortuous because of the problems
already described of Administrators not owning the relevant files and
the chore of changing their permissions to bring this about. It is
still possible to do, but it's yet another thing that has been made so
tortuous that one loses the will to live while doing it.

So what tends to happen is (DON'T DO THIS), instead of changing
laboriously a number of files in the Windows directory to give
Administrators the ownership of them they should have had by default,
why not change the permissions of the Windows directory itself, and
choose the option to apply to sub-folders and files? The problem with
this option is that REPLACES the security settings down the entire
tree, not merely ADDS another permission to them. Consequently, if
you do this, depending on exactly how you do it, various things can
just stop working, for example the Workstation service won't start, so
you end up with no network. Back to Square 1.

When the PC is not doing anything, take a look at Task Manager in XP
and Windows 7, after some disabling of unneeded services on each, I've
got them down to:

XP 19 processes
W7 47 processes

So that's an extra 28 processes just to sit idle. No wonder my 1 year
old W7 laptop doesn't appear to do very much more than my 10 year old
XP one, though, to be fair, it is better at playing media. But then,
from the difference in hardware specs alone, it certainly ought to
be!"
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
  #30  
Old April 30th 15, 11:47 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 459
Default computer slow

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 09:54:06 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:45:16 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 23:19:16 +0100, tony sayer wrote:

In article , Johnny B Good johnny-b-
scribeth thus
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:04:06 +0200, Martin wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 15:06:21 GMT, Johnny B Good
wrote:

Not *everything* produced by Microsoft was out and out bad but it
seems
to suit Microsoft to throw Baby out with the Bathwater and what
suits Microsoft most definitely doesn't suit me, hence my 'Search
for The Holy Grail" of desktop OSes. :-(

Exactly what is it that you don't like about Win7 desk top?

Its rather klunky file manager.


JBG. Can you explain what it is thats better in WIN 2k Pro which I
used here for many years and then upgraded to WIN 7 and really missed
out XP apart from one machine which is very little used. In WIN 7 I
can find any file I want very quickly so what is the actual problem.

Mate you've ranted on now for several postings and I think this was
done to death a while ago with no firm conclusions so can you be more
specific by example please of the two systems? I have set it to give a
more "classic" windows feel but thats no big deal surely?.


Don't be kidded by that description "Classic". All it means is what the
default configuration for the previous version of windows was. The
really classic look to my mind is the one first demonstrated in win95
and epitomised in win2k thereafter to be slowly whittled away bit by bit
with each successive windows version.

Possibly, when you were using win2k, you just accepted the default
configuration or maybe you tried the "Open each folder in its own
window"
option and decided it didn't fit your needs quite as well as the "Open
each folder in the same window" or preferred the 'explore' tree display
option so reminiscent of the text based file managers used in DOS such
as the PCTools or Midnight Commander add ons.

If you preferred the alternatives to the 2D spread everything out on
the
desktop presentation style of opening each folder in its own window,
then you're not really going to appreciate its loss in Vista and win7.

I'll admit that the "Messy Desktop" metaphor used to describe the
apparent 'organised chaos' preferred by some 'office workers' is not to
everyone's taste but it works quite well for me (I regard this way of
using a GUI as the best justification for the very existence of a
desktop GUI in the first place :-).

My main criticism of winXP's version of this idea is the removal of the
intelligent auto-sizing algorithm from explorer in regard of how each
folder window was opened on the desktop, effectively a lobotomy which
rendered this method of working more like hard work than the pleasure it
used to be in win2k.

With Vista, MS then added insult to injury by taking away even this
option, topping it all off by adding unnecessary bling and and bloat to
the desktop folder windows whilst at the same time reducing
functionality. Part of all this lies with the "Cunning Repackaging" of
the common functions which reside within each OS's version but that's
not the whole story. MS may claim to have 'streamlined' the interface
but, afaic, they're lying through their teeth.

If what they offered as being a legacy option was truly 'legacy', I'd
be
far less inclined to criticise the new and neutered successive versions
of windows that they've been foisting upon the Great Unwashed consumers.



FWIW I have several folders on the desktop which then break down to
more folders and then sometimes again to sub folders but its click
click and click again . Should I miss one then the search works very
well, and I don't really think this is in any way worse than what WIN
2K was!..


That sounds suspiciously like you're opening each folder in its own
window. The unfortunate thing, as with winXP, is that they don't open in
as compact a form as in win2k nor do they autosize in accordance to the
number of objects contained within as was the case with win2k so you
more swiftly land up within a swamp of opened folders than was the case
with win2k. I'll admit, even with win2k's more economic desktop usage, I
could still generate a swamp of open folders if I put my mind to it.
Even win2k has its limits (they're just wider limits, is all :-).

The other main bugbear with Vista and win7's desktop is the
counterproductive redesign of the startup menu (reversed folder/links
ordering). And, what's this with the lack of a "Run" option? Why should
I have to *type* 'run' in the search box before I get a run CLI text
input box? If there's a way to incorporate it into the programs list,
I've yet to discover it - perhaps I just haven't looked hard enough.


I have a Run option on my version of Win 7 Typing "run" in the search
box produces the same result.


Why do you echo my criticism back at me? At least Paul had the good
grace to suggest this, "Taskbar properties, Start Menu tab, Customize,
enable Run Command."



I'm sure I can offer many more critiques as to what is wrong with win7
but I'd need to fire a win7 afflicted machine up to remind me of the
horrors that, quite frankly, I'd prefer to forget.


How about sticking to Win 7 and listing the problems you have using the
file handler?


You might just as well have simply advised me to go boil my head with
that suggestion.

--
Johnny B Good
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.