+10MB



  • Windows Vista... ah well I won't even go down that road. But it decided to just add 10MB to the file size in the status bar. No other files selected. Also clicked on an empty spot and selected several other files and they all had 10MB added.

    [img]http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/9348/windowsplus10mb.png[/img]

    I cannot imagine the logic behind this bug...



  •  Unable to reproduce under Aero.

     

    PS.

    Firefox 3.0? WTF?



  •  Unable to reproduce.  shrug

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.



  • @pbean said:

    Also clicked on an empty spot and selected several other files and they all had 10MB added.
    Dood, you can has a virus!!1!11! (Not actually as stupid as it sounds, since there are cases where viruses or rootkits cause various utilities to spoof the details of infected files, to hide the additional payload data. But then, a 10 MB virus would be quite extreme, unless it also came with a hi-res RAW picture of Anna Kournikova. Perhaps you got lucky, see if you can find her hidden in your files...)



  • @Master Chief said:

    Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    I use it, mainly because I dislike the "attention deficit ooh shiny" look of Aero.



  • @Master Chief said:

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.
     

    Because sometimes all the Aero shit gets on my nerves and I turn it off.

    Some parts look like shit, though, because they weren't designed for the Classic look, such as the start menu, all dialogs with linky sidebars, and Windows Explorer.



  • @dhromed said:

     Unable to reproduce under Aero.

     

    PS.

    Firefox 3.0? WTF?

    Well it was a one-time only thing for me. It only happened in that directory and when I closed and reopened that directory the bug was gone. :( I don't think it has anything to do with the theme though (since you mention using Aero). The Firefox 3.0 setup is just there because I never delete any files and I originally installed it at 3.0. :) Don't worry, the currently installed version is recent.

    @Master Chief said:

     Unable to reproduce.  shrug

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    My computer can run the Aero interface just fine, but that doesn't mean that I want it to. I think it's ugly, uses to much space on my screen and is often buggy as hell (at least on Vista; I use it on 7 at home and it works perfectly there). Since I have no problems whatsoever with the "classic" look I use it. It's not like I'm looking at my GUI widgets all day and think "omg they're ugly". As long as it's usable, doesn't have too many bugs and doesn't use too much resources I'm content with whatever user interface you place in front of me.



  • Vista file size reporting seems off, at least it was back when I used it.

    My system drive was a 1 TB drive with approximately 500 GB on it, according to the Windows pie-chart thingy for my C: drive. I was trying to move what's important over to a 250GB backup drive so I could format and install Windows 7.

    I found that if I show hidden, system, and protected operating system files, open my C: drive in Explorer, select everything at the root, right-click and choose properties and wait 45 minutes for it to calculate total size, it told me I had selected ~220 GB.

    I had Shadow Copy or whatever disabled, as well as System Restore. Vista apparently just fails at math. I've never noticed any such discrepancies in reported file sizes since switching to 7.



  • @mott555 said:

    I found that if I show hidden, system, and protected operating system files, open my C: drive in Explorer, select everything at the root, right-click and choose properties and wait 45 minutes for it to calculate total size, it told me I had selected ~220 GB.
    I forget exactly what causes that, but it's not a bug as such. Vista has genuinely padded out your data to that extent with things that will be stripped out if space gets tight. Hyperbolising to an extent that is barely true but sounds good, if you give Vista a hard disk, it will keep copies of almost anything that changes until the disk starts to fill up. Not that that's not a WTF all by itself.



  • @pbean said:

    is often buggy as hell (at least on Vista
     

    I call nonsense! Requesting a list!

    The rest okay. It's my sentiment as well.



  • @Master Chief said:

     Unable to reproduce.  shrug

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    Seriously.

    Oh wait, it's those "geeks" who are so afraid of change that they bitch and moan at every pixel that changes. The kind who get foaming-at-the-mouth-mad when Chrome removes the letters "http://" from their URL bar. Those kind of "geeks."



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I forget exactly what causes that, but it's not a bug as such. Vista has genuinely padded out your data to that extent with things that will be stripped out if space gets tight. Hyperbolising to an extent that is barely true but sounds good, if you give Vista a hard disk, it will keep copies of almost anything that changes until the disk starts to fill up. Not that that's not a WTF all by itself.

    That's basically what shadow copy is... it's not a WTF at all. The only difference between having Shadow Copy on and Shadow Copy off is that if it's on, Windows'll let you recover those files. (Which is kind of goofy, but people would have bitched if they removed the option to turn Shadow Copy off altogether.

    The theory is that when you write a new file, it'll overwrite the absolute oldest file you deleted. So on the off-chance you need to undelete or revert a file, you'll have access to the most recent versions of it. It doesn't slow down your drive, it doesn't "waste" any space, it's a good feature. Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.

    That doesn't excuse the failure to properly calculate disk space. But to be fair, it said it was "about" 220 GB. Out of curiosity, how much data did your selected files occupy on the external drive?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Master Chief said:

     Unable to reproduce.  shrug

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    Seriously.

    Oh wait, it's those "geeks" who are so afraid of change that they bitch and moan at every pixel that changes. The kind who get foaming-at-the-mouth-mad when Chrome removes the letters "http://" from their URL bar. Those kind of "geeks."

    It's the PIXELS MAN! Tha PIXELS!

    I use the classic look. I like it, find it easier on the eyes, and why shouldn't I when they offer the option?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    Seriously.

    Oh wait, it's those "geeks" who are so afraid of change that they bitch and moan at every pixel that changes. The kind who get foaming-at-the-mouth-mad when Chrome removes the letters "http://" from their URL bar. Those kind of "geeks."

    I do it, but not because I don't like change. I just don't like the transparent-curved look, and like to minimise the amount of screen space taken up by title bars etc. It is eye-gougingly ugly, mind you. I would give a screenshot, but I don't hate you that much.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That's basically what shadow copy is... it's not a WTF at all. The only difference between having Shadow Copy on and Shadow Copy off is that if it's on, Windows'll let you recover those files. (Which is kind of goofy, but people would have bitched if they removed the option to turn Shadow Copy off altogether.

    The theory is that when you write a new file, it'll overwrite the absolute oldest file you deleted. So on the off-chance you need to undelete or revert a file, you'll have access to the most recent versions of it. It doesn't slow down your drive, it doesn't "waste" any space, it's a good feature.

    Fair point. On the other hand, just because something has a good reason doesn't stop it being a WTF in the literal sense - if it makes you go WTF on first sighting, it's a WTF.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    That's basically what shadow copy is... it's not a WTF at all. The only difference between having Shadow Copy on and Shadow Copy off is that if it's on, Windows'll let you recover those files. (Which is kind of goofy, but people would have bitched if they removed the option to turn Shadow Copy off altogether.

    The theory is that when you write a new file, it'll overwrite the absolute oldest file you deleted. So on the off-chance you need to undelete or revert a file, you'll have access to the most recent versions of it. It doesn't slow down your drive, it doesn't "waste" any space, it's a good feature.

    Fair point. On the other hand, just because something has a good reason doesn't stop it being a WTF in the literal sense - if it makes you go WTF on first sighting, it's a WTF.

    The bigger WTF is tech journalists who hadn't spent more than 10 seconds thinking about features like Shadow Copy or the aggressive Vista/Windows 7 caching go and write articles like, "OMG WINDOWS WASTES LOTS OF DISK SPACE AND RAM OMG OMG!!!" They actually had to change the wording of the memory panel in Task Manager in Windows 7 because people were just utterly failing to wrap their heads around how it worked.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.
    Hahahaha, have you never done any development work on DLLs?  You never really know when those things are fully unloaded ...



  • @Xyro said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.
    Hahahaha, have you never done any development work on DLLs?  You never really know when those things are fully unloaded ...

    Ok, there's ONE possible situation where it could hurt, that 99.9% of users will never encounter. Happy?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Master Chief said:

     Unable to reproduce.  shrug

     Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.

    Seriously.

    Oh wait, it's those "geeks" who are so afraid of change that they bitch and moan at every pixel that changes. The kind who get foaming-at-the-mouth-mad when Chrome removes the letters "http://" from their URL bar. Those kind of "geeks."

     

    I can never tell if you're trolling, being sarcasting or being serious. I specifically noted in my post that I use the new UI on my Windows 7 PC at home, I like it a lot. It's just buggy as hell on my Vista computer at work.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Xyro said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.
    Hahahaha, have you never done any development work on DLLs?  You never really know when those things are fully unloaded ...

    Ok, there's ONE possible situation where it could hurt, that 99.9% of users will never encounter. Happy?

    100% of users. Development work is not use in that sense.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Xyro said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.
    Hahahaha, have you never done any development work on DLLs?  You never really know when those things are fully unloaded ...

    Ok, there's ONE possible situation where it could hurt, that 99.9% of users will never encounter. Happy?

    100% of users. Development work is not use in that sense.

     

    Wat?  You are running a computer which has that operating system, and you are developing software on it.  How is that not using it?



  • @DescentJS said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Xyro said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Think of it like the DLL cache in RAM-- there's no possible way it can hurt, and there's a lot of situations where it helps.
    Hahahaha, have you never done any development work on DLLs?  You never really know when those things are fully unloaded ...

    Ok, there's ONE possible situation where it could hurt, that 99.9% of users will never encounter. Happy?

    100% of users. Development work is not use in that sense.

     

    Wat?  You are running a computer which has that operating system, and you are developing software on it.  How is that not using it?

    Unless I misunderstood, he's talking about developing on the machine he is developing for. The problem isn't arising with the use of the PC for development purposes, but with the testing of DLLs. Testing isn't really use in the normal sense of the word.

    That doesn't come across very well, so I'll try and complicate clarify matters with an analogy. If I make parts for a lathe, on a lathe, it is reasonable to criticise the usability of the lathe, but not so much to complain that it's hard to swap the part you're building in and out for testing purposes. Of course, it's reasonable to have that complaint if normal use requires regular swapping of that part, but if not, it's not something it makes sense to criticise. Might as well complain that the lathe is no use as a frying pan.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Seriously.

    Oh wait, it's those "geeks" who are so afraid of change that they bitch and moan at every pixel that changes. The kind who get foaming-at-the-mouth-mad when Chrome removes the letters "http://" from their URL bar. Those kind of "geeks."

    Or when MS tries to make Window decorations look somewhat nice, and just happen to blow away Compiz is terms of stability and performance in one shot?  Those kinds?

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I do it, but not because I don't like change. I just don't like the transparent-curved look, and like to minimise the amount of screen space taken up by title bars etc. It is eye-gougingly ugly, mind you. I would give a screenshot, but I don't hate you that much.
     

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

    You sir, are TRWTF.



  • ACLs still apply. If you do not have read access on a directory, then you can't enumerate it to find the size of its contents. For example, the default ACL on "System Volume Information" has only the SYSTEM account in it, which means even administrator users can't see what's in it until they give themselves access.



  • @Master Chief said:

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

    You sir, are TRWTF.

    Some of us see beyond the pixels ... beyond the code ... beyond ways to push blakey's buttons.  I am blind to the pixels, I can only see what the pixels mean.

    When I have to use Windows, I like the ghetto 90s look, because it allows me to brightly highlight the window that is in focus and give contrasted edges to the windows without focus. This is important to me because I use focus-follows-under-mouse, as it is for me far more faster to manipulate data between windows.    Just in case you wanted to know.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Or when MS tries to make Window decorations look somewhat nice, and just happen to blow away Compiz is terms of stability and performance in one shot?  Those kinds?

    Nobody in the Linux world takes features like that seriously until Microsoft does it. Nobody was paying attention to Compiz (even though OS X had the same feature perfected) until after Microsoft announced Vista would have it, then there was a suddenly flurry of development to make Compiz stable enough to say Linux had the feature "first." That's just how they work there.

    When Vista came out, Linux users mocked its aggressive caching and RAM usage. Now run Ubuntu with your performance monitor going, and it does the same fucking thing... haha.

    @Master Chief said:

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

    I had a buddy who hated Classic Macs because, and I quote "it rounds the corners, which means there are pixels you can't use." ... yeah, your reason for hating an OS is less than 50 wasted pixels? At the extreme corners of the screen? Rational.



  • @Master Chief said:

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

     

    Leaving aside your straw man attack, there are many other reasons to prefer Classic to Aero.

    For me, I prefer Classic because I can change setting slike the size of the active window border (which helps me grab windows to resize them) and the font sizes (whichhelps me read things better).

    In any case. a small number of pixels saved is important. With Aero, the smaller number of vertical pixels means that my windowed virtual machines don't fit and so showscroll bars, which reduces the usable screen real estate far more than the small loss of pixels would indicate.

     I am limited to what resolutions I can pick by the hardware I work with. Almost always that means 1024×768.



  • @Xyro said:

    When I have to use Windows, I like the ghetto 90s look, because it allows me to brightly highlight the window that is in focus and give contrasted edges to the windows without focus. This is important to me because I use focus-follows-under-mouse, as it is for me far more faster to manipulate data between windows.    Just in case you wanted to know.
     

    I would like you spotlight you as a shining example of one who has practical motivations and gives real examples.



  • @pbean said:

    I use the new UI on my Windows 7 PC at home, I like it a lot. It's just buggy as hell on my Vista computer at work.
     

    So, do you have that list of examples yet I asked for, or do you find my request odd?



  • @Master Chief said:

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

    1. I think the 'Aero look' is unbelievably ugly (and also a waste of resources). So, which of us is right? (CLUE: Both of us.)

    2. I also prefer 'Classic' for several other reasons, including just being plain less distracting while I'm working. I have enough distractions without some allegedly 'sexy' UI trying to grab my attention (the 'ooh look! shiny!' syndrome discussed earlier). Ditto, no daft 'zooming' animated windows or similar guff: when I open something, I just want it to appear, not do some ridiculous animation which seems specifically designed for people with an attention span measured in mS (hey look! I'm opening now! here I am!).



  • Basic desktop rendering is in fact technically superior to Aero in all the ways that actually matter to usability. Aero gives you useless transparency and fancy animations, but does NOT support the extensive appearance customization that previous versions of Windows have offered since Windows 95. It's pathetic.

    Oh god and don't even get me started on the mess they made of the task bar.



  • @Master Chief said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    I do it, but not because I don't like change. I just don't like the transparent-curved look, and like to minimise the amount of screen space taken up by title bars etc. It is eye-gougingly ugly, mind you. I would give a screenshot, but I don't hate you that much.
     

    So you're willing to use an ugly window system to save 3 or 4 pixels worth of vertical space in your windows?

    You sir, are TRWTF.

    Yes, absolutely. Looks are not a high priority for me in that equation (perhaps because I grew up on Windows 3.1...). If someone made a good-looking minimal skin, I'd happily use it, but I'm not willing to sacrifice usability for looks. I could shrink stuff down even further, but it would sacrifice significant usability. At the moment, text I need to read is large enough to do so, but things like the taskbar text are too small to read - I get by on a combination of (shrunken) icons and the general shape of words because I already know what the text says.

    The reasons for this balance being optimal (which aren't WTFs) are much more to do with screen shape - I'm using a wide-screen laptop, so vertical space is at a premium - than anything else. The difference between wide-screen and square monitors is such that, allowing for bottom margins not being important and so-on, you can squeeze enough extra onto the screen to make UIs designed for square screens usable in wide-screen. Well, taste also plays a part - curvy aero styling is fucking hideous.



  • @Cad Delworth said:

    So, which of us is right? (CLUE: Both of us.)
    You lose 10 internet points.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    @mott555 said:
    I found that if I show hidden, system, and protected operating system files, open my C: drive in Explorer, select everything at the root, right-click and choose properties and wait 45 minutes for it to calculate total size, it told me I had selected ~220 GB.
    I forget exactly what causes that, but it's not a bug as such. Vista has genuinely padded out your data to that extent with things that will be stripped out if space gets tight. Hyperbolising to an extent that is barely true but sounds good, if you give Vista a hard disk, it will keep copies of almost anything that changes until the disk starts to fill up. Not that that's not a WTF all by itself.
    Novell NetWare did a similar thing 20 years ago.  Deleted files were physically moved to the outer tracks of a disk and overwritten in chronological order.  It worked so well that people used to get around disk space quotas by deleting half of their files and undeleting them when they needed them back.  Microsoft is a little late to the game, but I'm generally happy with Shadow Copy and I would much rather have a little confusion in disk space reporting than not have the ability to roll back files to older versions.  Now if they could only make files undelete reliably...

    BTW, Microsoft's implementation is a little screwy mainly because they implemented it as an OS feature while other vendors like Novell built these types of features directly into their file systems.  Once again, Microsoft's decision was the right one for Microsoft because it is the most backwards compatible solution.  Messing with the file system would destroy an entire ecosystem of disk utilities and cause havoc for multi-boot systems.



  • @Xyro said:

    Some of us see beyond the pixels ... beyond the code ... beyond ways to push blakey's buttons.  I am blind to the pixels, I can only see what the pixels mean.

    When I have to use Windows, I like the ghetto 90s look, because it allows me to brightly highlight the window that is in focus and give contrasted edges to the windows without focus. This is important to me because I use focus-follows-under-mouse, as it is for me far more faster to manipulate data between windows.    Just in case you wanted to know.

     

    I've never had issues distinguishing what window is active.  shrug  At least you provide a logical explanation, even if I disagree with the assertion.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Nobody in the Linux world takes features like that seriously until Microsoft does it. Nobody was paying attention to Compiz (even though OS X had the same feature perfected) until after Microsoft announced Vista would have it, then there was a suddenly flurry of development to make Compiz stable enough to say Linux had the feature "first." That's just how they work there.

    When Vista came out, Linux users mocked its aggressive caching and RAM usage. Now run Ubuntu with your performance monitor going, and it does the same fucking thing... haha.

    Oh God, don't even get me started.  I had an old POS Viao I used to use as a makeshift Media box running Kubuntu 7, never had speed issues.  Tried to upgrade to 9 and it bricked the damn thing whoring memory out. 



  • @Cad Delworth said:

    2. I also prefer 'Classic' for several other reasons, including just being plain less distracting while I'm working. I have enough distractions without some allegedly 'sexy' UI trying to grab my attention (the 'ooh look! shiny!' syndrome discussed earlier). Ditto, no daft 'zooming' animated windows or similar guff: when I open something, I just want it to appear, not do some ridiculous animation which seems specifically designed for people with an attention span measured in mS (hey look! I'm opening now! here I am!).
     

    I totally get it now.  That 0.5 second animation, fucking hell, I didn't spend $200 on memory and $300 on a CPU to waste resources on that.

    Seriously, if that distracts you, stop using computers.  God forbid you ever hit a rickroll page, you'll go epileptic.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    Yes, absolutely. Looks are not a high priority for me in that equation (perhaps because I grew up on Windows 3.1...). If someone made a good-looking minimal skin, I'd happily use it, but I'm not willing to sacrifice usability for looks. I could shrink stuff down even further, but it would sacrifice significant usability. At the moment, text I need to read is large enough to do so, but things like the taskbar text are too small to read - I get by on a combination of (shrunken) icons and the general shape of words because I already know what the text says.

    The reasons for this balance being optimal (which aren't WTFs) are much more to do with screen shape - I'm using a wide-screen laptop, so vertical space is at a premium - than anything else. The difference between wide-screen and square monitors is such that, allowing for bottom margins not being important and so-on, you can squeeze enough extra onto the screen to make UIs designed for square screens usable in wide-screen. Well, taste also plays a part - curvy aero styling is fucking hideous.

     

    If your screen is small to the point where you need to butcher and beat Windows into smaller pieces just so you can use it, you might consider investing in a new machine.  Maybe one manufactured post-1999?



  • The arguments for the modern look so far amount to "the modern look is not much worse than the classic look". Okay, I'll go change back to the modern look right away.



  • @Master Chief said:

    @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    Yes, absolutely. Looks are not a high priority for me in that equation (perhaps because I grew up on Windows 3.1...). If someone made a good-looking minimal skin, I'd happily use it, but I'm not willing to sacrifice usability for looks. I could shrink stuff down even further, but it would sacrifice significant usability. At the moment, text I need to read is large enough to do so, but things like the taskbar text are too small to read - I get by on a combination of (shrunken) icons and the general shape of words because I already know what the text says.

    The reasons for this balance being optimal (which aren't WTFs) are much more to do with screen shape - I'm using a wide-screen laptop, so vertical space is at a premium - than anything else. The difference between wide-screen and square monitors is such that, allowing for bottom margins not being important and so-on, you can squeeze enough extra onto the screen to make UIs designed for square screens usable in wide-screen. Well, taste also plays a part - curvy aero styling is fucking hideous.

     

    If your screen is small to the point where you need to butcher and beat Windows into smaller pieces just so you can use it, you might consider investing in a new machine.  Maybe one manufactured post-1999?

    Thanks for the advice, but this is a normal sized laptop of no great age. I feel no need to proselytise my way of doing things, so what makes you think you need to do so with yours? On a bigger, screen with the same aspect-ratio, I'd do the same. As I'm sure many people would agree, wide-screen may be good for video and gaming, but they're completely the wrong shape to read from.



  • @davedavenotdavemaybedave said:

    As I'm sure many people would agree, wide-screen may be good for video and gaming, but they're completely the wrong shape to read from.
     

    While you lose points for the "argument from popularity" fallacy, I would like to say +100 to the second part. I had to test a wide site for layout issues, meaning I had to rotate my monitor back to landscape.

    How do people work like this?! On even wider monitors?!



  • @Faxmachinen said:

    The arguments for the modern look so far amount to "the modern look is not much worse than the classic look". Okay, I'll go change back to the modern look right away.

     

    I don't mind if you dislike the Aero look. It's a preference. I've swapped back and forth a few times due to annoyance with either, and I've been with Aero for a while now. It's fine.

    Me, I'm still waiting for pbean's extensive list of Vista's Aero bugs.

    Oh, I have one: some modal dialogs in some applications (e.g. Search for Editplus & Palette for Photoshop) do not overtake focus when the application gains it. Therefore, they lose keyboard interactivity and this disrupts my workflow.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.
    I do, because Aero's colour customization options are a joke. I'd like to use desktop composition (because it makes many things faster), but I can't stand black text on white background for very long, so Aero is unusable for me.



  • @dhromed said:

    How do people work like this?! On even wider monitors?!
    Quite nicely!  Rather than maximizing all my windows so I can only do one thing at a time, I have lots of tall windows next to each other that I can easily use.  As I said to one of my colleagues, "It's called 'Windows', not 'Window'."

    A continual but fundamental mechanical challenge for certain programming tasks is having both the IDE and documentation open at the same time, as both tend to be screen hogs.  Having two monitors solves this problem, so can having very wide monitors.

    BONUS:  With my IDE's text editor super wide, I can now finally read my coworker's 200 character lines! :D



  • @Xyro said:

    BONUS:  With my IDE's text editor super wide, I can now finally read my coworker's 200 character lines! :D
     

     

    :D

    :D

    ...

    :(


    D:



  • @ender said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Also, who the HELL uses Windows 95 windows?  Even my shitty little netbook running Vista HP can handle Aero just fine.
    I do, because Aero's colour customization options are a joke. I'd like to use desktop composition (because it makes many things faster), but I can't stand black text on white background for very long, so Aero is unusable for me.
     

    You can quite literally pick any color out of a rainbow.  Granted it's not as customizable as KDE, but it also doesn't die over it's own ass nearly as much.



  • @Master Chief said:

    You can quite literally pick any color out of a rainbow. 
     

    You can't put white text on a black background.

    I know this because I just tried.

    Can't say anything about 7.



  • Well, black isn't really part of the rainbow...



  • @dhromed said:

    @Master Chief said:

    You can quite literally pick any color out of a rainbow. 
     

    You can't put white text on a black background.

    I know this because I just tried.

    Can't say anything about 7.

     

    Which is why it has a white glow around the black text, so it will be readable regardless of what color is underneath.



  • @Master Chief said:

    Which is why it has a white glow around the black text, so it will be readable regardless of what color is underneath.
     

    Yes.

    So you can't put white text on a black background, because it will not be readable.

    Most of Aero's aspects don't respond to the Advanced window settings.



Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.