Mac is for usability
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I don't know why your Quick Launch bar is randomly ordered. Does your computer have syphilis or something?
Not the Quick Launch bar, the open applications. Instead of being in the order they are started, they now always sit in the same place you clicked to open them. So I now have my muscle memory trained to restore common applications when they are minimised, instead of having to hunt for their tabs every time.
-
@briverymouse said:
What? XP was useless
No it wasn't
@briverymouse said:
it was even worse than Gnome
Are you comparing XP to the Gnome that was available at the time?
@briverymouse said:
Windows 7 is the first OS Microsoft got right
This is a blatant lie and you know it, almost every OS that MS shipped was good at the time (with the exception of WinME which we know is shit).
-
@Cassidy said:
Yup, that is particularly arse, but it's also handy to have separate keys per profile.
You can do this in OpenSSH, although you can apply the settings (like key file) to an entire class of hosts. Makes administering hundreds of boxes much easier.
@Cassidy said:
It warns, and permits you to update your keys. I think there's a config setting that can change it from "prompt" to "reject".
Ah, good, that's what it should be doing.
@Cassidy said:
I think you mean "maintain shitloads of profile settings across different machines" but PortableApps managed to store the profiles in local reg keys, so I run portablePutty from a shared network drive. Lately I tried to use a profile manager to sort and export my sessions but... it's arse. I resorted to knocking up a quick perl script that reads my putty sessions and dumps the info out in HTML format so I can organise them properly.
No, I meant maintain different profiles for different classes of machines. For example, any network I admin has a unique ECDSA key for root on each host. With OpenSSH it's easy--each key is named after the hostname so finding the right key is simple. With PuTTY I'd need separate profiles.
@Cassidy said:
That's changed now - you can tweak (some) settings and store the changes with the session still open. I was dead grateful for this addition.
Fair enough. Glad they fixed that.
@Cassidy said:
nb: tried KiTTY?
Nope, but it looks good. Bookmarked in case I'm ever admining a bunch of boxes from Winders again.
-
@briverymouse said:
Not the Quick Launch bar, the open applications. Instead of being in the order they are started, they now always sit in the same place you clicked to open them. So I now have my muscle memory trained to restore common applications when they are minimised, instead of having to hunt for their tabs every time.
Ah. Okay, that is useful, but I think it would be overshadowed by the lack of icon-to-launch-multiples, and the icons-burried-amongst-tasks complaint.
I tend to open stuff in the same order anyways, so I probably wouldn't have noticed that.
That being said, I do love that the Win7 taskbar allows me to drag-to-rearrange tasks.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit. I knew Gnome did it but didn't know Win7 did. It always strikes when I'm trying to juggle a dozen open
pornimportant work windows, which is when you least want to be wrestling with your window manager. At least it's a setting in Win7.. supposedly it is in Gnome, too, but disabling it hasn't worked for me.@Lorne Kates said:
See above for "ordered". And I just didn't like the look or re-arrangement. And I absolutely detested the Start Orb. When FF was maximized, the Start Orb would overlap the browser's status bar. Again, not by much, but just enough that when I would glance down, instead of seeing the browser status, I would see "GIANT FUCKING ORB!"
To be fair, I'm with you on this one. I've always preferred the Win2k plain gray look, but I understand that other people don't. Still, it's very easy to switch back to it.
-
@serguey123 said:
No it wasn't
Yes it was.
@serguey123 said:
Are you comparing XP to the Gnome that was available at the time?
I am.
@briverymouse said:
This is a blatant lie and you know it, almost every OS that MS shipped was good at the time (with the exception of WinME which we know is shit).
No they were not. Look, I'm not saying Linux window managers were better. They suck. But they were better in some ways, where Windows was better in other ways. Windows 7 is better in almost all ways.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@briverymouse said:
What was the easiest way to move a maximized window to another monitor in XP? The only way I found was to "restore" it, move it and maximize it again. That sucks. Sure, setting up two monitors on Ubuntu was a pain in the ass, but at least it actually worked afterwards. Windows 7 is the first OS Microsoft got right.
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
It took a few googles to find out turning that off is buried three menus deep inside Easy of Accessiblity setting. Huh?
Or, you could have opened the start menu, and typed "window sn" and gotten right to the setting. Except, you reverted to the shitty XP menu. Whoops!
@Lorne Kates said:
@briverymouse said:
What? The "show the fucking desktop" button is in the bottom right, which is a much better place than where it used to be. Also, why would you want a Quick Launch bar, what's wrong with pinned applications? The fact that they're in a consistent order instead of randomly placed annoys you?
1) Mentioned earlier, yes I was annoying it was not only moved, but the icon changed, and the color changed, so it blended in to the point of invisibility. If I have my hands on the keyboard, great, WIN+D. But chances are if I'm going to interact with the desktop, I'm in mouse mode. I have the Show Desktop location committed to muscle memory. I don't like that it moved.
Mash mouse to bottom-right, hey there's the desktop. It's a lot easier than hunting for the button in the middle of the fucking task bar. You don't even have to click, if you're just looking at a desktop widget or something.
@Lorne Kates said:
2) My Programs aren't in a random order (anymore). I can find them by memory with a mouse, or the keystrokes are in muscle memory. WIN P M M <ENTER> and Visual Studio is up.
3) Yes, I like the Quick Launch bar. I absolutely hated that when I launched a program, it morphed the icon into a task tab. It made it nigh impossible to launch more than once instance of a program quickly. And I ended up with a "wrong" looking mix of (i) (i) [T A S K] (i) [T A S K].
The Quick Launch bar was a good idea, in theory, but was made absolutely useless by every fucking program that decided to take a shit on it (which was every fucking program). The new task bar is so much better because A) it cannot be changed by random ass programs, and B) The icon is always there. Odds are, if I have the program open, I don't also need a button to launch it. If you want to launch it a second time, just middle click it, like a link in a browser.
@Lorne Kates said:
4) I don't know why your Quick Launch bar is randomly ordered. Does your computer have syphilis or something?
@briverymouse said:
What's wrong with the start menu? The fact that you can now just press the Windows key, start typing an application name and press enter is in all ways superior to looking for your app in an unordered list.
See above for "ordered". And I just didn't like the look or re-arrangement. And I absolutely detested the Start Orb. When FF was maximized, the Start Orb would overlap the browser's status bar. Again, not by much, but just enough that when I would glance down, instead of seeing the browser status, I would see "GIANT FUCKING ORB!"
If I had one complaint about Windows 7, it would be this. However, I do not suffer from neuroses that cause me to flip out when things overlap a tiny bit, so I can live with it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit. I knew Gnome did it but didn't know Win7 did. It always strikes when I'm trying to juggle a dozen open
pornimportant work windows, which is when you least want to be wrestling with your window manager. At least it's a setting in Win7.. supposedly it is in Gnome, too, but disabling it hasn't worked for me.I don't understand why people don't like this. I love it! I have to use XP at work, and I cringe every time I need to move a maximized window. I love just being able to tear it down and pop it in to the other monitor.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit. I knew Gnome did it but didn't know Win7 did. It always strikes when I'm trying to juggle a dozen open
pornimportant work windows, which is when you least want to be wrestling with your window manager. At least it's a setting in Win7.. supposedly it is in Gnome, too, but disabling it hasn't worked for me.I don't understand why people don't like this. I love it! I have to use XP at work, and I cringe every time I need to move a maximized window. I love just being able to tear it down and pop it in to the other monitor.
You're talking about something else. They were talking about what happens when a non-maximized window grazes the edge of the desktop. I always turn that off. The problem with Windows is that the setting that does that seems to be the same one that allows you to do stuff like maximize a window vertically. Not having that feature is the #2 thing that drives me nuts in Windows.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
And I absolutely detested the Start Orb. When FF was maximized, the Start Orb would overlap the browser's status bar. Again, not by much, but just enough that when I would glance down, instead of seeing the browser status, I would see "GIANT FUCKING ORB!"
The orb doesn't overlay anything...
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@pkmnfrk said:
It took a few googles to find out turning that off is buried three menus deep inside Easy of Accessiblity setting. Huh?
Or, you could have opened the start menu, and typed "window sn" and gotten right to the setting. Except, you reverted to the shitty XP menu. Whoops!
I have no idea what "window sn" does, nor would I even think of typing "window sn" to get to a submenu I'm going to visit exactly once in the lifetime of the OS.@pkmnfrk said:
The Quick Launch bar was a good idea, in theory, but was made absolutely useless by every fucking program that decided to take a shit on it (which was every fucking program).
True. But between keeping the QL bar at a reasonable width, having my preferred ones to the left, and being vigilant when installing programs, I don't mind.
@pkmnfrk said:
If I had one complaint about Windows 7, it would be this. However, I do not suffer from neuroses that cause me to flip out when things overlap a tiny bit, so I can live with it.
I do. Getting rid of the orb is for the safety of all the people, animals and vehicles within fifteen kilometers of me. Also for their safety: no tacos for lunch.
@pkmnfrk said:
If you want to launch it a second time, just middle click it, like a link in a browser.
Didn't know that, but wouldn't do that. I tried getting used to middle-click-to-open, but never could. I'm either on a laptop with no middle click, or I'm using a mouse with a scroll-wheel-as-middle-button that takes either misclicks, scrolls, or the amount of force needed to register a click is equal to-- umm-- something forceful-- let's go with the amount of force needed for one elephant to anally rape another. With its trunk.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit. I knew Gnome did it but didn't know Win7 did. It always strikes when I'm trying to juggle a dozen open
pornimportant work windows, which is when you least want to be wrestling with your window manager. At least it's a setting in Win7.. supposedly it is in Gnome, too, but disabling it hasn't worked for me.I don't understand why people don't like this. I love it! I have to use XP at work, and I cringe every time I need to move a maximized window. I love just being able to tear it down and pop it in to the other monitor.
That's not the same setting (maybe it is in Windows, I dunno). I know I can drag a maximized window from one screen to the other and it automagically maximizes when it gets there. We're talking about taking a non-maximized window and getting it near the "border" of the screen, which causes it to maximize. It's annoying if you're trying to position a window manually. And on Ubuntu, at least, the target area is so huge that it's extremely easy to accidentally maximize a window.
One thing I do love in Ubuntu/Gnome/whatever is the "grid" view. If I drag a window off-screen leftwards or rightwards, it will jump to take up the left or right side of the screen, respectively. It's vertically maximized but horizontally using only 50%. Great on the 2560x1440 monitor.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@Lorne Kates said:
@pkmnfrk said:
It took a few googles to find out turning that off is buried three menus deep inside Easy of Accessiblity setting. Huh?
Or, you could have opened the start menu, and typed "window sn" and gotten right to the setting. Except, you reverted to the shitty XP menu. Whoops!
I have no idea what "window sn" does, nor would I even think of typing "window sn" to get to a submenu I'm going to visit exactly once in the lifetime of the OS.
It's short for "Window snap", which is the feature you're complaining about. See, the search bar in the start menu searches not only your programs, but the control panel, and your documents as well. By the time you got to typing the 'n' in 'Snap', it would already be highlighting the option to turn it off.*
-
@morbiuswilters said:
No, I meant maintain different profiles for different classes of machines. For example, any network I admin has a unique ECDSA key for root on each host. With OpenSSH it's easy--each key is named after the hostname so finding the right key is simple. With PuTTY I'd need separate profiles.
Aha, I misunderstood..but still comes down to a "metric fuckton of profiles I need to manage" issue, I'm guessing.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Cassidy said:
nb: tried KiTTY?
Nope, but it looks good. Bookmarked in case I'm ever admining a bunch of boxes from Winders again.
Seems it's a fave with some University sysadmins I know of, due to the number of machines they need to admin (I've not used it so would welcome any feedback).
As a footnote: I have many aliases setup on my boxen, eg:
alias devbox='ssh -p12345 oracle@testbed.test.lan' alias devftp='lftp sftp://oracle:xxx@testbed.test.lan:12345/'
Similarly, setup a few batch files (devbox.cmd) that run the putty equivilent ("putty.exe -load devbox") - means I tend to use the same alias on either OS to connect. I know it's a pig having to create sessions under both (easier to copy the Linux aliases between boxes) but for the smaller number of machines I handle, I tend to aliases.
Meh, YMMV.
-
@boomzilla said:
The problem with Windows is that the setting that does that seems to be the same one that allows you to do stuff like maximize a window vertically. Not having that feature is the #2 thing that drives me nuts in Windows.
How do you maximize vertically? Is it the same thing I'm talking about in my previous post, the grid thing?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@pkmnfrk said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly BAM blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit. I knew Gnome did it but didn't know Win7 did. It always strikes when I'm trying to juggle a dozen open
pornimportant work windows, which is when you least want to be wrestling with your window manager. At least it's a setting in Win7.. supposedly it is in Gnome, too, but disabling it hasn't worked for me.I don't understand why people don't like this. I love it! I have to use XP at work, and I cringe every time I need to move a maximized window. I love just being able to tear it down and pop it in to the other monitor.
That's not the same setting (maybe it is in Windows, I dunno). I know I can drag a maximized window from one screen to the other and it automagically maximizes when it gets there. We're talking about taking a non-maximized window and getting it near the "border" of the screen, which causes it to maximize. It's annoying if you're trying to position a window manually. And on Ubuntu, at least, the target area is so huge that it's extremely easy to accidentally maximize a window.
One thing I do love in Ubuntu/Gnome/whatever is the "grid" view. If I drag a window off-screen leftwards or rightwards, it will jump to take up the left or right side of the screen, respectively. It's vertically maximized but horizontally using only 50%. Great on the 2560x1440 monitor.
Hmm, I use those too, thought not as much. Windows lets you snap windows to the left and right as well. I've never had any problems with accidentally maximizing windows, but I can see where it might be an issue.
-
@Cassidy said:
As a footnote: I have many aliases setup on my boxen, eg:
alias devbox='ssh -p12345 oracle@testbed.test.lan' alias devftp='lftp sftp://oracle:xxx@testbed.test.lan:12345/'
Similarly, setup a few batch files (devbox.cmd) that run the putty equivilent ("putty.exe -load devbox") - means I tend to use the same alias on either OS to connect. I know it's a pig having to create sessions under both (easier to copy the Linux aliases between boxes) but for the smaller number of machines I handle, I tend to aliases.
Meh, YMMV.
I use aliases, too, but for the number of machines I have access to, that wouldn't work. Also, you can simplify your commands a bit by using ~/.ssh/config You can specify a host pattern with its own settings (like port, username, identity file).
-
@pkmnfrk said:
I've never had any problems with accidentally maximizing windows, but I can see where it might be an issue.
In Ubuntu, the "target area" is about 20px so if you drop a window within 20px of the left, top or right of the screen, it just maximizes. This also means it's impossible to place a window all the way at the edge of the screen without having it maximize. I've tried disabling it but it didn't seem to take (although other settings on the same screen did).
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I didn't like how the notification icons were hidden, and the ones that were shown were useless to me.
So they were hidden, except the ones that weren't, which were useless?
@Lorne Kates said:
I didn't like how my most commonly accessed programs were hidden or moved.
I can guarantee Windows 7 doesn't move or hide any programs unless you specifically tell it to-- I think you're missing at least one word in your complaint there. (My guess is the word is "icon" or perhaps "shortcut".)
@Lorne Kates said:
I didn't like that the "start" orb covered up part of my active screen (yes, it was only a few pixels, but still).
In Windows 7? Are you sure you're not talking about Vista?
Also if you're spending multiple hours changing a computer configuration due to "a few pixels", you are most likely insane.
@Lorne Kates said:
I didn't like the Explorer breadcrumbs, or the missing buttons in Explorer, or-- any number of a hundred other tiny things.
The only "missing button" is "up a level", and it's missing because the breadcrumbs do that. But, oh wait, you "don't like" the breadcrumbs. Why? Who knows!
@Lorne Kates said:
Half of those things to change either didn't have a UI, or a registry entry, or the option I wanted had been removed for my convenience. So I had to turn to 3rd party tools to get done what HAD to get done, and also allowed me to do what I WANTED to change.
Every checkbox added to the OS doubles the QA time. Adding 2 checkboxes quadruples the QA time.
@Lorne Kates said:
The rest of the time is a crapshoot between "lost productivity due to learning curve/swearing" vs. "lost productivity due to customization".
The learning curve would have taken significantly less than 8 hours to manage. The problem you have is that your brain cells are calcified, and new information can no longer be absorbed by them. Apparently, because I can't figure out what the fuck else your problem could possibly be. You've become a luddite. You hate change. Time for you to hike up your pants to your waist and yell at kids to get off your lawn. Because your ability for rational though has flown out the window years ago.
Oh, and people like you? You're holding back the IT industry. You're the problem, not the solution. Thankfully, Microsoft has shown via Windows 7, Office 2007+, and Windows 8 that they do not give a shit what you and people like you think and we all as an industry can move forward despite your calcified brain cells. Thank God.
@Lorne Kates said:
I don't have numbers, but I know that the second option took fewer hours, and was less annoying to me, personally.
If you don't have numbers, then you don't "know" shit.
@Lorne Kates said:
@blakeyrat said:
And I'm guessing your "sane XP-like Start menu" also has the Windows 7 search box, right? Making it not-at-all-XP-like, right?
Wrong. 3rd party "like it was" add-on, with everything laid out where my muscle memory is expecting it:
So you were so keen on Windows XP, you actually went out of your way to remove one of the best features of Windows 7? You are literally insane. There's no way around it now, sorry.
@Lorne Kates said:
Yes, and more. It was moved to the opposite side of the screen, and the icon was changed. Worse, the icon was changed to a plain-looking box that used the same color as the new task bar (sky blue). So I didn't even know there WAS a "Show Desktop" button.
It has a tooltip. And since the tooltip appearance time is less than 8 hours, I can only assume you didn't even bother to spent 3 seconds to try learning the Windows 7 UI.
@Lorne Kates said:
But if it's POSSIBLE to customize it to look a certain, expected way (but still "function" like 7 under the hood), then yes, I'm asking that question.
Except you don't want it to function like Windows 7. Windows 7 functions with breadcrumbs and no "up" button in Explorer. Windows 7 functioning doesn't include the Quick Launch bar, which has been made redundant due to taskbar pinning. Windows 7 functions with the Show Desktop button on the right-hand side of the taskbar.
Look, if you want to use XP, then why upgrade in the first place? Just use fucking XP.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
The problem with Windows is that the setting that does that seems to be the same one that allows you to do stuff like maximize a window vertically. Not having that feature is the #2 thing that drives me nuts in Windows.
How do you maximize vertically? Is it the same thing I'm talking about in my previous post, the grid thing?
Not quite the same. That sounds like tiling to me. I'm not a huge fan of that behavior. On Win7 (IIRC...I'm only in there once in a blue moon or so), when you move the mouse to the upper edge of the window so that you get the vertical resize icon, you double click. I suppose the implementation is probably somehow similar, and it made sense to the dev who designed it to have one setting for both of these features. Or they figured they had too many checkboxes already and were looking for ways to reduce the footprint of the control panel.
I'm usually in KDE, where you middle click the maximize button to vertically maximize a window (right clicking horizontally maximizes, but I rarely need that).
-
@Lorne Kates said:
the lack of icon-to-launch-multiples, and the icons-burried-amongst-tasks complaint.
+1 on that. Hate having to right-click and then hit the icon from the menu popup to launch another instance.
@Lorne Kates said:
That being said, I do love that the Win7 taskbar allows me to drag-to-rearrange tasks.
Only if the tasks aren't multiple versions of the same launching icon. Try opening three explorer windows to different locations then repositioning the centre task icon either site of its bodyguards. Score one for Gnome in that aspect.
@morbiuswilters said:
@Lorne Kates said:
I'll grant you that, but I had to turn off the "automatically maximize as soon as it so much as brushes a corner" crap. I either have windows maxed, or I min them and sometimes have to move them to ALMOST the edge of the screen. Then, suddenly *BAM* blue outline and a maximized window.
Oh God how I hate that shit
AOL, brethren. I didn't know it was easily off-an-onable. Quick
googlesearch and... blammo. Gone!@morbiuswilters said:
I've always preferred the Win2k plain
gray look, but I understand that other people don't. Still, it's very
easy to switch back to it.Okayyyyy... it's not just me, then. All XPs I've ever used have been dropped back to the plain 2K look, and it was the first thing I did with this Win7 netbook - mainly on the grounds of familiarity, but I'm going to search out that Start Menu hack now.
-
@pkmnfrk said:
Or, you could have opened the start menu, and typed "window sn"
How did you know to type "window sn"...?
-
@Cassidy said:
@pkmnfrk said:
Or, you could have opened the start menu, and typed "window sn"
How did you know to type "window sn"...?
The feature he wanted to change is called "Window snap" like he already said. The search bar figures you want to change that behavior and provide the #1 result of "Turn off automatic window arrangment" before you even finish spelling the word snap.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
In an ideal world, that would be correct. In this particular universe, however, most people can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of the mainstream OS, let alone one that's weird.
That is correct, but the problem still has the same origin: people, not the OS.
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
But let's try a proof-of-concept: I challenge you to explain the benefits of the select/middle-click keyboard to morbs. Just give me a few minutes before you start so I can get popcorn.
You can challenge me all you like, but... firstly, has morbs asked for the benefits? Secondly, would it help him, make him more productive? Thirdly, would his mindset be open to learning a new way of doing things, or is he productive enough and comfortable enough with what he knows and will resist unwanted attempts at training since they only serve as intrusions upon his comfort zone?
Or should I just inflict it upon the user as a default setting and let them flounder?
I tihnk we're in agreement what the source of the problem is: people. I don't think we share the same views upon the solution, though.
-
@boomzilla said:
That sounds like tiling to me.
When someone says "tiling" I think of a tiling window manager. This just splits the screen into 4 quadrants and lets you put a window into a 1x2 (50% width, 100% height), 2x1 (100% width, 50% height) or 2x2 (fully maximized) configuration. I've seen a similar app on OSX which further subdivides the screen (3x4, I think) but that seems too extreme. Like I said, it's useful on a big screen where you want two windows side-by-side.
@boomzilla said:
I'm usually in KDE, where you middle click the maximize button to vertically maximize a window (right clicking horizontally maximizes, but I rarely need that).
I learned something new today: Gnome does the same thing. I'm on a laptop most of the time, though, so middle-click is kind of a PITA.. I wish they'd just made it its own button. It's not like there's not plenty of room in the title bar for one more button.
-
@Cassidy said:
How did you know to type "window sn"...?
For real?
Wow.
He searched for "Window snap" but it got it before he finished typing.
If you didn't know you could do that on modern operating systems... wow.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
That sounds like tiling to me.
When someone says "tiling" I think of a tiling window manager. This just splits the screen into 4 quadrants and lets you put a window into a 1x2 (50% width, 100% height), 2x1 (100% width, 50% height) or 2x2 (fully maximized) configuration.
Yeah. In KDE, the closest thing to that seems to be "Tile windows by dragging them to the side of the screen." Although I've never gotten the hang of that (and I suspect it's being confounded by my multi-monitor setup).
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
I'm usually in KDE, where you middle click the maximize button to vertically maximize a window (right clicking horizontally maximizes, but I rarely need that).
I learned something new today: Gnome does the same thing. I'm on a laptop most of the time, though, so middle-click is kind of a PITA.. I wish they'd just made it its own button. It's not like there's not plenty of room in the title bar for one more button.
I've gotten fairly skilled at clicking both trackpad buttons to simulate a middle button in the process of middle clicking links in a browser. In KDE, it looks like you can change double clicking the titlebar to maximize vertically. And you can change which mouse buttons (left, center, right) do which maximization (all, vertical, horizontal). I suppose you're lucky to be able to change the timezone in Gnome.
-
@boomzilla said:
I've gotten fairly skilled at clicking both trackpad buttons to simulate a middle button in the process of middle clicking links in a browser.
My laptop has 5 buttons around the trackpad, but the three at the top would require me to move my hand and that simply isn't going to happen.
@boomzilla said:
I suppose you're lucky to be able to change the timezone in Gnome.
Great Scott, you can change your timezone!?
-
@nexekho said:
He searched for "Window snap" but it got it before he finished typing.
If you didn't know you could do that on modern operating systems... wow.Firstly, I didn't know he was typing "window snap" - there was nothing to indicate in his post that's what he was typing. I just presumed he knew it was this "sn" thing.
Secondly.. I didn't know it was called "snap" (perhaps if I did, then his post may have made sense).
Thirdly, I use SSDS and it has no "window sn". It has t t enter enter e down-arrow but I still couldn't find it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
... rant rant rant...
Look, if you want to use XP, then why upgrade in the first place? Just use fucking XP.
As mentioned, work computer-- company upgrade-- no choice.To sum it up: given the choice, I'd rather stay with XP due to familiarity. Windows 7 is a big change, not for the bad (except for the bad parts), but it is still a change. That is not conducive to an upgrade path. Everything that I worked to customize could have been there as a Microsoft provided customization, because they are all just a collection of Microsoft customizations. Not providing them is as bad as Mozilla, say, taking the Status Bar away because "UPGRADE YOU OLD FUCKAS!".
If they were smart, they would have provided an XP skin for 7, which makes it look and feel like XP, but kept some of the 7 features (like the search) to "tease" the user into going full 7tard.
The fact remains that they didn't, and the benefits of 7 get drowned out by the major, deal-breaking annoyances (like windows snap, icons-mixed-with-tasks, Start Orb).
And to clarify two things:
1) The only two icons that were shown by default were "Wireless Management", which is fucking useless for a wired desktop computer, and "Alert Center", which as far as I can tell is only used for programs to spam me with fucking annoying balloon popups telling me I can download their latest toolbar.
2) I don't care if it was 10px or 1px, an OS component shouldn't ever permanently overlay/obscure another window, especially when it literally did obscure onscreen information. It's a fucking braindead move that added zero value.
So in summary: new shit's fine, but provide an easy way to customize to the UI your customer base has spent the last 11 years with. Introduce a huge learning curve/useless UI tweaks, and is it any wonder people will stick with an 11 year old OS?
(Or you can assume that someone's wrong on the Internet and argue some more. Have fun)
-
@Lorne Kates said:
2) I don't care if it was 10px or 1px, an OS component shouldn't ever permanently overlay/obscure another window, especially when it literally did obscure onscreen information. It's a fucking braindead move that added zero value.
And what OS component are you claiming did this? Because the Start button in Windows 7 certainly doesn't. (It did in Vista, though.)
-
Linux does not really have 2 clipboards. The middle click thing is a shortcut for drag-and-drop. It does the same thing as selecting some text and dragging it to some other spot. It has nothing to do with the actual clipboard.
@morbiuswilters said:
On Linux there is no system clipboard--if you want to retain some bit of content, you have to keep the originating window open.
This used to drive me insane, but newer distros don't have this problem. With the actual clipboard. Gives me some hope that the other things that suck on Linux might get fixed eventually. (Haha ... yeah)
@morbiuswilters said:
What I really want is a clipboard with history. So Ctrl-c Ctrl-v works as normal, but if you use a different key combination instead of Ctrl-v you get a pop up which shows the last several items in the clipboard. ...
Try Klippy / Glippy? It does ... almost exactly ... what you describe.
-
@blakeyrat said:
And what OS component are you claiming did this? Because the Start button in Windows 7 certainly doesn't. (It did in Vista, though.)
Blakey haven't you learned that everyone who hates Windows 7 is incapabable of distinguishing it from Vista?
-
@superjer said:
@blakeyrat said:
And what OS component are you claiming did this? Because the Start button in Windows 7 certainly doesn't. (It did in Vista, though.)
Blakey haven't you learned that everyone who hates Windows 7 is incapabable of distinguishing it from Vista?
If someone hates Windows 7, they should try Windows 8. Just finding the button to shut it down is an adventure by itself.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lorne Kates said:
2) I don't care if it was 10px or 1px, an OS component shouldn't ever permanently overlay/obscure another window, especially when it literally did obscure onscreen information. It's a fucking braindead move that added zero value.
And what OS component are you claiming did this? Because the Start button in Windows 7 certainly doesn't. (It did in Vista, though.)
I'm claiming it's the Start Orb. I'll try to screen shot it tomorrow if I can figure out how to undo all the customizations.
I know that I don't have Vista. The words "Windows 7" are (were) plastered all over the start menu, etc.
-
@superjer said:
Linux does not really have 2 clipboards. The middle click thing is a shortcut for drag-and-drop. It does the same thing as selecting some text and dragging it to some other spot. It has nothing to do with the actual clipboard.
That is, functionally, two clipboards.
@superjer said:
This used to drive me insane, but newer distros don't have this problem. With the actual clipboard. Gives me some hope that the other things that suck on Linux might get fixed eventually. (Haha ... yeah)
Hmm.. I can't fully verify right now, but I recall it happening recently.
@superjer said:
Try Klippy / Glippy? It does ... almost exactly ... what you describe.
Looks interesting, I'll check those out, thanks. I noticed one of them mentions "keeps your clipboard content after you close a program" as a feature, so my guess is if you're seeing this behavior in Linux it's an add-on daemon put there by your distro and not part of xorg.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I'm claiming it's the Start Orb. I'll try to screen shot it tomorrow if I can figure out how to undo all the customizations.
I know that I don't have Vista. The words "Windows 7" are (were) plastered all over the start menu, etc.
If you right click the taskbar, and tick "Use small icons", you get a teesny little bit of overlap. It's nowhere near enough to cover anything up, really.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
What's even better is that in X the responsibility for holding the clipboard belongs to the application the content was copied from!
Ah, yes - forgot about that particular bit of fuckkery. I seem to unconsciously deal with it these days - not that I should have to mind you...
-
@superjer said:
Linux does not really have 2 clipboards. The middle click thing is a shortcut for drag-and-drop. It does the same thing as selecting some text and dragging it to some other spot. It has nothing to do with the actual clipboard.
Highlight some text, then click elsewhere to deselect it. Then, middle click somewhere; it puts the previously selected text where you middle click (despite the fact that it is not selected anymore). Kind of like it has been copied to a buffer somewhere.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
…snip endless goalpost moving, ranting based on personal taste mixed with claims that the argument isn't about personal taste…
You're really struggling if you're heading to the old overpriced claims. The MacBooks are pretty reasonable. For some reason the desktop machines sit in some ridiculous fantasy land with their pricing though, which is why I can't support them.
Vague claims of far more security problems is an interesting one too. I'm not going to trot out the old "Macs don't get viruses" claim, because it's a load of horseshit that only reinforces the stereotype that mac users are delusional idiots.
Next time, maybe you shouldn't go for the "fanboi" claim so quickly either. It just makes you look like an arse.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
I do love that the Win7 taskbar allows me to drag-to-rearrange tasks.
Ah! But it doesn't! It allows you to drag groups only. And obviously you don't want the thumb-popup delay when moving to one of the 3 browers windows/RDPs/Explorers/Excelsheets you have open,so you turn off stacking. But they're still inseparable!
And when you have labels on, icons further down the bar will move to the right when you launch an application.
And in short I dislike the new taskbar and am happy that I found a customization tool thing for it when I start using Win 7.
And then there's this long-standing bug in Explorer-7 where it auto-scrolls the selected folder to the bottom when you 1. click it and then 2. unfold it via the arrow.
But really, reverting the start menu to its '95 style is a step back. The new Start menu is better in pretty much every way.
-
@nexekho said:
If you right click the taskbar, and tick "Use small icons", you get a teesny little bit of overlap. It's nowhere near enough to cover anything up, really.
But the XP start button doesn't overlap anything, at all, ever. So I can change the Start Orb from the default to something that's almost what I want. In other words:
@Me from the start of the discussion said:
Used Win 7 a lot : hated it's guts initially, but after heavy customizations and third-party additions, made it
quite goodalmost as usable as XP
-
@dhromed said:
Ah! But it doesn't! It allows you to drag groups only.
Fuck, just encountered that. Fortunately, I tend to have grouped icons opened in the order I want them anyways-- until today when I didn't. :|
-
@mott555 said:
@Lorne Kates said:
And I absolutely detested the Start Orb. When FF was maximized, the Start Orb would overlap the browser's status bar. Again, not by much, but just enough that when I would glance down, instead of seeing the browser status, I would see "GIANT FUCKING ORB!"
The orb doesn't overlay anything...
I'm guessing you guys can't see the image in this post for some reason, but it's a screenshot showing that the Start Orb clearly does not overlay anything outside of the taskbar. But I also use a stock version of Windows 7, so if you changed a bunch of settings and that's what caused it then it's your own fault.
-
@Cassidy said:
You can't fix willful ignorance!@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
In an ideal world, that would be correct. In this particular universe, however, most people can't be bothered to learn the ins and outs of the mainstream OS, let alone one that's weird.
That is correct, but the problem still has the same origin: people, not the OS.
-
@mott555 said:
I'm guessing you guys can't see the image in this post for some reason
?
I can see it perfectly.
@mott555 said:
if you changed a bunch of settings and that's what caused it then it's your own fault.
Yeah no I agree with Lorne that letting that sort of thing stick out is dumb. Fortunately, my Vista bar is double-row so I don't have that issue.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
If they were smart, they would have provided an XP skin for 7, which makes it look and feel like XP
They kind of did that for Vista, they always only include a revert back look to the last OS (at least in the recent ones), if you follow that line of thought it could be argued that there should be a skin for win 3.x in 7 and that is retarded.
@Lorne Kates said:
The only two icons that were shown by default were "Wireless Management", which is fucking useless for a wired desktop computer, and "Alert Center", which as far as I can tell is only used for programs to spam me with fucking annoying balloon popups telling me I can download their latest toolbar.
Hmmm, that is a setting that can be easily changed, actually is better than XP because it let you control what exactly is shown in there, instead of the clutter you get in XP if you install a lot programs that use that.
@Lorne Kates said:I don't care if it was 10px or 1px, an OS component shouldn't ever permanently overlay/obscure another window, especially when it literally did obscure onscreen information. It's a fucking braindead move that added zero value
Odd, that doesn't happen to me and for what I can gather it doesn't happen to other people in this thread.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
But the XP start button doesn't overlap anything, at all, ever. So I can change the Start Orb from the default to something that's almost what I want.
If losing 8 pixels to the Start button is a thing that concerns you, you need psychiatric help. You're here posting away as if that was normal. It's not. You have OCD.
-
@serguey123 said:
if you follow that line of thought it could be argued that there should be a skin for win 3.x in 7 and that is retarded.
* * * BEEP BEEP BEEP SLIPPERY SLOPE * * *
ARGUMENT REJECTED.
-
@mott555 said:
@mott555 said:
@Lorne Kates said:
And I absolutely detested the Start Orb. When FF was maximized, the Start Orb would overlap the browser's status bar. Again, not by much, but just enough that when I would glance down, instead of seeing the browser status, I would see "GIANT FUCKING ORB!"
The orb doesn't overlay anything...
I'm guessing you guys can't see the image in this post for some reason
I can see it fine, I'm just not sure what it has to do with the discussion?
Aside from that, I'm willing to concede that not every Windows 7 Orb overlays like a carrotfucker, but mine did, and that's why I changed it. Can't seem to reproduce for a screenshot, alas. :|
[mod - looks more like a Rosie to me - PJH]
