that ugly yellow dog in the search panelYellow dog, what?
that ugly yellow dog in the search panelYellow dog, what?
that ugly yellow dog in the search panel
XP vs. 98:
The first thing I do after re-installing XP is to change the look to Windows Classic, so the start menu doesn't take up half the damned screen. The second thing I do is go to Windows Explorer, and make all system files visible.
XP vs. 98:
The first thing I do after re-installing XP is to change the look to Windows Classic, so the start menu doesn't take up half the damned screen. The second thing I do is go to Windows Explorer, and make all system files visible.
On the first point, I find the "small icons" version of the new start menu to be really great. i have a fairly good-sized LCD, so i set it to show 30 icons, and this means I almost never need to go into the "all Programs" list to find an application to open. most of the other changes to the start menu i remove, however. As swaaye said, there's a bunch of crap "services" in there I don't want. also, i like the control panel as a menu. seeing the control panel as a window gives me bad flashbacks nowadays.
I agree on the first point, especially as unchecking "Display the contents of system folders" still lets you access them, but only after displaying a warning instead of the folder contents.Surely you understand why they hide the system files? Just imagine how much that dropped support costs around the world. The vast majority of people do not need to see those files or be able to manipulate them. Hell most people don't even want to be able to see extensions.
My boss at work, for example, has to rename bunches of JPGs daily. If extensions were shown she's screw up every 30th file and wouldn't notice. And I'd be asked why it wasn't working. Yay. Extensions are usually unnecessary and add complexity to tasks.
Agreed to both. I mostly like the XP start menu. I only wish you could make it not cover the task bar (I have it on the left side of the screen) so you could more easily drag & drop from start menu to quicklaunch bars.I too like using the small icons version of the new start menu. It's a ton faster to put some popular progs in there than click thru the real programs listing. I also use toolbars stuck into the taskbar with shortcuts.
What most people don't seem to understand is that Windows is not built with power users as the primary target. That wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. That is also the fundamental flaw of Linux and why it will never gain massive acceptance. Linux is so friggin off that track that it might just be the anti-simple. 98% of people out there just want stuff to work and be mind-numbingly simple. And I hate helping that group, so I'm with MS on making Windows as mind-numbing as possible by default. I can take the time to customize things. But man the fewer mundane questions that come from work, family, and clueless friends, the better.
Oh btw, are there actually people here who find, say, Windows XP default settings more useful/more productive than something more Windows 98/2000ish? Can we have a show of hands please?
I had dealings with several "bloody beginners" who prefered more conservative explorer settings. I.e. the search dog was found to be irritating and annoying, the "personalized menu" functionality made things confusing. "Common tasks" were not perceived as a helpful use of screen space. Autoplay functionality of USB mass storage was never quite appreciated, roughly along the lines of "I never want to see that f***in piece of **** dialog again! Do nothing! Always do nothing!".From what I whitnessed, the "bloody beginners" like my parents find it much easier like that and it also preserves them from deleting anything sensible by not showing hidden and system folders etc.
I had dealings with several "bloody beginners" who prefered more conservative explorer settings. I.e. the search dog was found to be irritating and annoying, the "personalized menu" functionality made things confusing. "Common tasks" were not perceived as a helpful use of screen space. Autoplay functionality of USB mass storage was never quite appreciated, roughly along the lines of "I never want to see that f***in piece of **** dialog again! Do nothing! Always do nothing!".
FWIW it does look friendly out of the box, but after two weeks or so of continued use friendliness does not matter anymore. Usability does. And XP's defaults are pretty weak in that department IMO.
So dual booting Vista from a Mac is possible...what about the other way around?
It doesn't work. You can pick "nothing" and "always" but it just doesn't do anything. It's ignored probably because someone at Microsoft thought that a user making that choice can't be seriousSo why didnt they set it? I've fairly certain that on the first run, actually every run, of the USB drive they are presented with an option to do nothing with USB drives when plugged in. It was to hard for them to do that?
From what I whitnessed, the "bloody beginners" like my parents find it much easier like that and it also preserves them from deleting anything sensible by not showing hidden and system folders etc.