................................. To leave Commie, hyper to http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html .................................
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Antti Kurittu wrote: > Yeah, I've noticed that, but I switch a lot more between the already > open windows than I open new ones. then you should be using alt-tab, not going back and forth to the mouse. i never touch the thing unless i don't have to. ;) > Still, even though when placing an address bar on top of the open > programs and windows, it does not give you access to those two pixels > between the program tabs and the side of the screen. Though it does not > take very long to adjust the mouse from the edge to the tab, it still > takes time that would not be needed to be taken. It also makes reaching > the start menu harder & slower. perhaps i'm missing the point, but why are you so upset about not having access to those two pixels? > For example, if you sum up all the times you click the start menu, > change a window via the task bar or click an icon per session and > multiply it by people working on computers trying to get things done > quickly and, say, by the 0.1 second delay caused by these two expensive > pixels, you get a fairly big number per year. And time costs money. are you saying you aim for the edge of the screen with the mouse as opposed to almost-the-edge-of-the-screen, where the start menu is located? if so, it's not that hard to hit. and once again, i use keyboard for that, too. ;) > One stupid thing about windows is that when setting the "Open all > folders in one window"-option on (which I do because the desktop and the > menu bar get so cluttered otherwise) you can not open a folder into a > new window, even through the right click menu (In contrary to internet > explorer). This makes copying and moving files down a two-notch in the > hard drive hierarchy quite hard, especially when dealing with long > addressess. i agree with you, this is really stupid. > (I usually start all the programs that I use from the little icons next > to the start menu or from the desktop. I use windowFX to limit the > maximazing size of the windows to about 70 pixels from the left edge, > which leaves all the icons visible & accessible even when working > full-screen.) windowFX is a great program. i only wish the transparency settings worked better. > Actually I think the best place for the start menu would be to the pixel > nearest to the mouse, which is the active pixel where the mouse is. > Placing the start menu on the drop down menu you get on the right click > would make things a lot easier. yeah, but it would look silly with all those drop-down menus cascading off of each other. i don't know how many of you use this program (the more music-making ones, i assume), but wavelab does this with directx plugins, a lot of menus cascading off of each other and folding back in on itself when it hits the screen edge. it's very ugly and confusing. : sig : micah stupak international bright young kook [EMAIL PROTECTED] : quote : everybody needs someone to live by
