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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
In article , , Slimer says...
On 2015-06-10 9:44 PM, Dave Doe wrote: In article , , Paul B. Andersen says... Dave Doe wrote in message The good thing is, Windows 10 is free. And I reckon after a year, MS will leave it that way. Desktop OS's don't have any monetary value anymore IMO. Pretty much there's nothing in Windows' desktops that Linux desktops don't already have, so, I would tend to agree with you since Linux desktops are free. There is *heaps* in the Windows 7, 8.1, 10 desktop GUI that Linux doesn't have! Linux GUI's are so immature. I don't understand why the Linux dev team don't put more into that. I think it's vital. **** the command line If you can suggest or recommend a nice Linux GUI, I'm all ears. But Gnome and KDE are truly ****en horrible. Not gonna go into the details, just express my opinion GNOME 3 is honestly as good as it gets in my opinion. If you're willing to learn and appreciate how it works, it's surprisingly intuitive. Nevertheless, I agree with you about maturity. As a result of the fact that these Linux losers insist on working on a dozen or more desktop environments rather than focusing all of their energy on one or two, the developers are spread thin and adding feature or correcting ones which don't work either doesn't happen or takes time. GNOME would be much better if Ubuntu hadn't insisted on creating Unity and KDE would be a lot more stable if the people behind say XFCE or GNOME pooled their efforts towards improving it. It's hard to build a decent car if everyone in the company is building their own vehicle. Gnome is my choice too. I wish they'd just make it *smooth*. It still looks and feels cheap. The dev team need to make it beautiful and fluid. And they need to get their zones a little better - a couple of pixels out at least. They need to redo their zone maths completely (eg the sensitivity for grabbing a window / corner etc. On fluidy and beautiful-ness - they need to get their head around blending and make it work. -- Duncan. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:29:20 -0400, knuttle
wrote: On 6/11/2015 6:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:54:49 -0400, knuttle wrote: The easiest way to get to the System Screen when on the desktop, right click on the MS Icon on the taskbar, and select System from the pop up menu. There is no waiting. System is the fifth item down from the top. It is right above Device Manager, Network Connecton and Disk Management. I don't have an MS icon, but I found the System Info screen. :-) Click the Start Orb, start typing system... Thanks. The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. (It looks like a white box with a cross on it.) On the desktop it is always visible. On the Metro Start you have to move the cursor down to the exteme lower right cornor of the screen. Right clicking on either gives the same options, including the shutdown/reboot option. I don't have such an icon (on either interface) and don't remember ever seeing it, even before installing Classic Shell. That was a long time ago, though. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
On 11/06/15 01:05, Slimer wrote:
On 2015-06-10 7:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: knuttle wrote in message Until the advent of Ubuntu, Linux was far too much trouble (in comparison). Even now, Linux is just a little bit too much trouble. I agree, Windows is ubiquitous (as is Macintosh) in the stores. Ubuntu was indeed a Godsend and it has made Linux more acceptable for the common user. The problem is that it still has a tremendous amount of problems which appear after an update or two. Disappearing controls, hardware stopped working, no longer able to boot to desktop, functions which are visible but don't actually do anything, etc.. Spot on, in my experience. I installed Ubuntu 14.10 and several desktops (from a magazine DVD) on a new laptop about 6 months ago. Many years ago I had tried a liveCD on an XP desktop (Ubuntu 6?) seemed to work ok. A couple of years later I tried version 9 also on a liveCD on the same desktop (I forget the stupid names which seem to infest Linux, from distros, desktops, and programs. It's one of my pet hates about Linux). But while v6 was fine, v9 just failed to work at all, with "kernel panic" error messages. Seems the new version just didn't like something about the desktop hardware, which v6 had no problem with. It really put me off Linux for years. I was quite impressed with Ubuntu 14.10, although I didn't like Unity. Xfce seemed the best desktop for me, although it had a couple of annoying quirks, so I changed to KDE. That worked well enough, until the update to Ubuntu 15.04 killed it. It also killed LXDE. Mate works, but the desktop manager now doesn't, so I can't personalise it. Xfce soldiers on. I don't know how many error messages I've had, and in the 6 months I've had the laptop I've had to do a forced cold reboot at least 6 times. I never had to do that with Win7, and maybe that number of times with XP, but over 9 years! I've never had a Windows Update cause a problem in all that time. At least Linux always seems to recover from errors without problem - it's never failed to boot. As to the different programs, yes, much of what I used in Windows has a Linux equivalent - sort of. It just isn't so polished. I installed WINE to run an old program I had. And I miss IrfanView and PDF ExChange. I believe they work with WINE, but haven't tried yet. Yes you do not need to fork over any cash for Linux. However your time is worth something. In my experience to install a new operating system find the drivers, and get it set up for your purposes, takes 3 to 4 hours. That is 3 to 4 hours you must spend to get a Linux computer vs an Apple of MS computer. Actually, it's even worse than you stated, in a way, because all the Linux boxes I have were once Microsoft, so, I've essentially paid for Microsoft in order to get Linux for free. I guess you can buy a linux box in the store and save about a hundred dollars on the operating system, but, I personally have never seen one in the USA where I am. Well, not from the mainstream suppliers, but the smaller, independent ones do (I have a rebadged Clevo here in the UK, but I am sure you could get a similar machine in the US). It used to be worse for Linux drivers than it is now. Pretty much, Linux drivers work just fine for all the existing laptop and desktop hardware, right out of the box (IMHO). Not on my MSI GT72. It's a mess. The one place I still find Linux drivers sometimes lacking is in peripheral hardware such as WiFi adapters and the like (mostly with Realtek chips). How about Canon hardware?! I've spent hours trying to get an old Pixma ip3000 printer working with Ubuntu. It half works, allowing colour printing to paper, but to photographs, no - forget it. Wrong colours, wrong dimensions. I've now given up, and have to use my failing Win7 laptop if I want to print any photos. I know long-term Linux users criticise Canon for not supporting Linux, but distros should really make it clear that there is at least one major supplier whose hardware might not work with Linux. So remove the anti-virus on Windows. Yes, you MIGHT get infected but today's malware requires user intervention and generally, the user has to be one Hell of a ****ing moron. Not sure that's fair. Yes, anyone clicking on a *.exe or zip email attachment is asking for it, but it isn't difficult to hide such files (eg as a Myphoto.jpg .exe), and with a spoofed email address from a "friend" it isn't always easy to spot. But at least at present I run Linux without any antimalware programs or internet security suites. Just not necessary. Maybe that will change if Linux gets more popular, but I can't see it if Win10 is better than 8/8.1 But, the learning curve *is* steep. It's not that you can't do anything (you can do far more on Linux than anywhere else); but the program names are all different (so that's a large one-time learning curve, I agree). And the Windows "unlearning" curve is even steeper! But I really haven't had to use a terminal that much. And none of the names make any sense except for RhythmBox. Banshee is a music player, Totem is a video player and Midori is a browser. How was anyone supposed to know that without clicking on the app first? Don't start me on idiotic Linux names (see above). And don't forget that if you install several desktops you’re likely to get identical programs under different names! Maybe slightly tweaked for different functionality, but otherwise identical. I've not given up on Linux, and maybe when I reinstall it'll be with Mint rather than Ubuntu. -- Jeff |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
Am 12.06.2015 um 04:29 schrieb knuttle:
The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. Really? On my desktop it is on the extreme LEFT side! |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
On 6/12/2015 1:33 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:29:20 -0400, knuttle wrote: On 6/11/2015 6:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:54:49 -0400, knuttle wrote: The easiest way to get to the System Screen when on the desktop, right click on the MS Icon on the taskbar, and select System from the pop up menu. There is no waiting. System is the fifth item down from the top. It is right above Device Manager, Network Connecton and Disk Management. I don't have an MS icon, but I found the System Info screen. :-) Click the Start Orb, start typing system... Thanks. The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. (It looks like a white box with a cross on it.) On the desktop it is always visible. On the Metro Start you have to move the cursor down to the exteme lower right cornor of the screen. Right clicking on either gives the same options, including the shutdown/reboot option. I don't have such an icon (on either interface) and don't remember ever seeing it, even before installing Classic Shell. That was a long time ago, though. The classic shell is probably removing it, so you have never seen it. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
On 6/12/2015 6:03 AM, Jonas Klein wrote:
Am 12.06.2015 um 04:29 schrieb knuttle: The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. Really? On my desktop it is on the extreme LEFT side! So I just had a dyslexic event. Sorry. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
On 6/11/2015 10:29 PM, knuttle wrote:
The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. (It looks like a white box with a cross on it.) On the desktop it is always visible. On the Metro Start you have to move the cursor down to the exteme lower right cornor of the screen. Perhaps you've done something to alter the positioning of the MS Icon, but on all the Win8.x systems I have, the icon is on the extreme _left_ of the taskbar, and accessing it from the Metro screen requires hovering over the lower left corner. I think that for those using other shells it's replaced with things like the "old fashioned" Start Orb. 8-D -- Best regards, Neil |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
On 2015-06-11 11:22 PM, Dave Doe wrote:
In article , , Slimer says... On 2015-06-10 9:44 PM, Dave Doe wrote: In article , , Paul B. Andersen says... Dave Doe wrote in message The good thing is, Windows 10 is free. And I reckon after a year, MS will leave it that way. Desktop OS's don't have any monetary value anymore IMO. Pretty much there's nothing in Windows' desktops that Linux desktops don't already have, so, I would tend to agree with you since Linux desktops are free. There is *heaps* in the Windows 7, 8.1, 10 desktop GUI that Linux doesn't have! Linux GUI's are so immature. I don't understand why the Linux dev team don't put more into that. I think it's vital. **** the command line If you can suggest or recommend a nice Linux GUI, I'm all ears. But Gnome and KDE are truly ****en horrible. Not gonna go into the details, just express my opinion GNOME 3 is honestly as good as it gets in my opinion. If you're willing to learn and appreciate how it works, it's surprisingly intuitive. Nevertheless, I agree with you about maturity. As a result of the fact that these Linux losers insist on working on a dozen or more desktop environments rather than focusing all of their energy on one or two, the developers are spread thin and adding feature or correcting ones which don't work either doesn't happen or takes time. GNOME would be much better if Ubuntu hadn't insisted on creating Unity and KDE would be a lot more stable if the people behind say XFCE or GNOME pooled their efforts towards improving it. It's hard to build a decent car if everyone in the company is building their own vehicle. Gnome is my choice too. I wish they'd just make it *smooth*. It still looks and feels cheap. The dev team need to make it beautiful and fluid. And they need to get their zones a little better - a couple of pixels out at least. They need to redo their zone maths completely (eg the sensitivity for grabbing a window / corner etc. On fluidy and beautiful-ness - they need to get their head around blending and make it work. In terms of aesthetics, it's already a lot prettier than KDE. For some reason, people think KDE looks nice but I imagine the glaucoma they're suffering from is pretty severe. I agree with you about GNOME's smoothness but I believe that 3.16 addresses most of the problems. -- Slimer Proud "wintroll" Encrypt. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
On 2015-06-12 5:38 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 11/06/15 01:05, Slimer wrote: On 2015-06-10 7:01 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: knuttle wrote in message Until the advent of Ubuntu, Linux was far too much trouble (in comparison). Even now, Linux is just a little bit too much trouble. I agree, Windows is ubiquitous (as is Macintosh) in the stores. Ubuntu was indeed a Godsend and it has made Linux more acceptable for the common user. The problem is that it still has a tremendous amount of problems which appear after an update or two. Disappearing controls, hardware stopped working, no longer able to boot to desktop, functions which are visible but don't actually do anything, etc.. Spot on, in my experience. I installed Ubuntu 14.10 and several desktops (from a magazine DVD) on a new laptop about 6 months ago. Many years ago I had tried a liveCD on an XP desktop (Ubuntu 6?) seemed to work ok. A couple of years later I tried version 9 also on a liveCD on the same desktop (I forget the stupid names which seem to infest Linux, from distros, desktops, and programs. It's one of my pet hates about Linux). But while v6 was fine, v9 just failed to work at all, with "kernel panic" error messages. Seems the new version just didn't like something about the desktop hardware, which v6 had no problem with. It really put me off Linux for years. I was quite impressed with Ubuntu 14.10, although I didn't like Unity. Xfce seemed the best desktop for me, although it had a couple of annoying quirks, so I changed to KDE. That worked well enough, until the update to Ubuntu 15.04 killed it. It also killed LXDE. Mate works, but the desktop manager now doesn't, so I can't personalise it. Xfce soldiers on. I don't know how many error messages I've had, and in the 6 months I've had the laptop I've had to do a forced cold reboot at least 6 times. I never had to do that with Win7, and maybe that number of times with XP, but over 9 years! I've never had a Windows Update cause a problem in all that time. At least Linux always seems to recover from errors without problem - it's never failed to boot. As to the different programs, yes, much of what I used in Windows has a Linux equivalent - sort of. It just isn't so polished. I installed WINE to run an old program I had. And I miss IrfanView and PDF ExChange. I believe they work with WINE, but haven't tried yet. You'd be called a liar if you cited all of the problems you've faced with Linux over on comp.os.linux.advocacy. In the minds of the Linux Loser Liar's Club over there, it is absolutely impossible for the operating system to cause the issues you've faced. The one place I still find Linux drivers sometimes lacking is in peripheral hardware such as WiFi adapters and the like (mostly with Realtek chips). How about Canon hardware?! I've spent hours trying to get an old Pixma ip3000 printer working with Ubuntu. It half works, allowing colour printing to paper, but to photographs, no - forget it. Wrong colours, wrong dimensions. I've now given up, and have to use my failing Win7 laptop if I want to print any photos. I know long-term Linux users criticise Canon for not supporting Linux, but distros should really make it clear that there is at least one major supplier whose hardware might not work with Linux. With Linux, if it doesn't already work after it's plugged in, chances are that it won't no matter what you do. snip -- Slimer Proud "wintroll" Encrypt. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:23:30 +1200, Dave Doe wrote:
In article , , Shadow says... On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:44:14 +1200, Dave Doe wrote: Linux GUI's are so immature. I don't understand why the Linux dev team don't put more into that. I think it's vital. On the contrary, Linux lost their opportunity when Microsoft launched Win 8. If they'd stuck with rock stable Gnome 2 (with it's Win XP-like interface) they would have converted a lot of Desktop users. Naa they weren't even close. It looks and feels more like W95 or 3.11. It sucks. Nothing at all like win 3.11 Most XP users preferred "classic menu", which was based on win 95/win98. So it obviously worked. If XP sucks, why do so many intelligent people still use it ? []'s -- Don't be evil - Google 2004 We have a new policy - Google 2012 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 08:19:50 -0400, knuttle
wrote: On 6/12/2015 6:03 AM, Jonas Klein wrote: Am 12.06.2015 um 04:29 schrieb knuttle: The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. Really? On my desktop it is on the extreme LEFT side! So I just had a dyslexic event. Sorry. But neither answer is always correct! Although by default the task bar appears on the bottom of the screen, it can be on any of the sides you prefer it on. To move it from any side to another, simply click on an unused part of it and drag it where you want it. Be sure to click *within* it, not on the edge; clicking on the edge and dragging will resize it, not move it. If it won't move, it may be locked. In that case, right click on it and uncheck "Lock the taskbar," then try again. By the way, with today's wide-screen monitors, I prefer the task bar on the left or right side of the screen. I think that makes a better use of screen real estate than having it at the bottom. And where the start orb is depends on where you have the task bar. On my computer, the start orb is in the upper left corner. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
By the way, with today's wide-screen monitors, I prefer the task bar on the left or right side of the screen. I think that makes a better use of screen real estate than having it at the bottom. Agreed. Also the taskbar at the side accommodates many more items without the inconvenience of multiple rows/columns. -- Mike Barnes Cheshire, England |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu back (finally) with Windows 10?
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:34:50 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Slimer mentioned this nice web page in a recent thread: http://www.itechcolumn.com/2014/10/c...indows-10.html Which seems to indicate that Windows 10 has the ability to get back the missing WinXp Start Menu (whose only flaw was that people didn't know how to make their own start menu OUTSIDE of the Windows default). Am I reading that web page correctly that the user-customized start menu (always outside of the default start menu) is back finally in Windows 10? NOTE that the WinXP start menu works just fine if you create your own hierarchy just below the top level, so that nothing goes into *your* menu hierarchy except what *you* manually put there. That way, the WinXP start menu style (classic style?) is extremely manageable and functional. I had Dell set my kid up on Windows 8.1 with this classic start menu, which turned out to be a folder hierarchy embedded in the craziest place (something about roaming directories), but once set up, it worked mostly like it should. Is the Windows XP classic start menu (with a custom directory all of your own being a requirement for usability!) back with Windows 10? I prefer (and use via a 3rd party utility in Windows 8) the Windows 7 start menu. I open 99% of things from the recently used apps list on the left. -- I take loads of laxatives when the pollen count rises. It stops me sneezing - I daren't. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Is the XP classic start menu Commentary.
Am 12.06.2015 um 18:04 schrieb Ken Blake, MVP: On Fri, 12
Jun 2015 08:19:50 -0400, knuttle wrote: On 6/12/2015 6:03 AM, Jonas Klein wrote: Am 12.06.2015 um 04:29 schrieb knuttle: The MS Icon is on the extreme right side of the taskbar both on the Desktop and on the Metro Start screen. Really? On my desktop it is on the extreme LEFT side! So I just had a dyslexic event. Sorry. But neither answer is always correct! Although by default the task bar appears on the bottom of the screen, it can be on any of the sides you prefer it on. ACK. But I'm not going to change the default location. See below. By the way, with today's wide-screen monitors, I prefer the task bar on the left or right side of the screen. I think that makes a better use of screen real estate than having it at the bottom. ACK, if you use your monitor mainly for looking at movies, drawing with AutoCad etc. But I spend over 99% of my computer time reading texts. The first time I saw a monitor with pivot function, it was a mind-opening experience. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|