Improving the Windows XP User Interface?

Pimpin' Up Windows asks: "Many of us are forced to live with Windows XP for our day-to-day computing needs - at work, home or school - and longingly look to the not only beautiful, but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface. Apart from just themes, what would be Slashdot reader's suggestions for improving the user interface of XP? What changes, add-ons and other improvements could further enhance its usability?"

Comments

Clippy.

[Short Circuit]

Clippy. Or Bonzai Buddy. Take your pick. :)

Re:Clippy.

[Darth_Burrito]

I'm the one person on earth that actually likes clippy. It would be really neat if they tied him directly into google groups too. Type in a few search terms in clippy Outlook, get MS help answers and matching results from outlook newsgroups.

Dancing Hamsters

[TykeClone]

Animated and singing dancing hamsters on the desktop. Maybe they could take the place of clippy too!

Win XP Power Toys

[waynegoode]

Win XP Power Toys, which is free.

There are some good ones here. I like:

• Open Command Window Here, opens a command prompt window at the path of the current window
• Alt-Tab Replacement, see more when you use alt-tab to switch apps
• Tweak UI, which does a lot of things
• Virtual Desktop Manager, manage up to four desktops, a feature from others UIs that is missing in Windows

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[harrkev]

Virtual Desktop Manager, manage up to four desktops, a feature from others UIs that is missing in Windows

Danger, Will Robinson, Danger.

I have tried this, and found it seriously lacking. Windows was not designed for this sort of thing, and software, in general, does not know how to handle it. I have found that it is unstable, and it is impossible to move windows from one desktop to another.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[an_mo]

The best desktop manager is Virtuawin. Open source, pretty stable, very configurable.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Chop]

I have tried this, and found it seriously lacking. Windows was not designed for this sort of thing, and software, in general, does not know how to handle it. I have found that it is unstable, and it is impossible to move windows from one desktop to another.

I currently use Enhanced Vitual Desktops available from on Windows2000 SP4 and have had no problems moving windows between desktops. I have had explorer.exe crash and all the tray icons disappear and EVD is still running along fine, switching desktops brings the tray icon back. I have switched terminal windows, putty sessions, Outlook, Firefox, Thunderbird, and Sunbird windows without issues.

Chop

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Chop]

Dammit! Slashdot ate my link!
EVD

Chop

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[The Tyrant]

Windoze has handled multiple desktops (on multiple monitors) really rather well for quite some time, it shouldnt take much of an effort for someone at ms to extend this to multiple desktops you can alt-tab between (or some such)... then again, its often the things that seem logically so easy to do in windoze that are nigh on impossible.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[weapon]

What about the start menu? at home i have to run the screen at 1024x768 to fit the program files to the screen, at 800x600 some programs cannot fit, change it to what linux has, sorted by type of program rather than by publisher

I know this is not up to MS but to the software publishers, but if microsoft started doing it others will tag allong

Weapon

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Synbiosis]

You know you can change it yourself, right?

Just Right-click on program files and choose open.. Then you can create a folder called 'Media Players' and pop WinAMP, Realplayer, foobar2000, etc.. into there, one called 'internet' with Thunderbird, Firefox, IM clients, etc... It's what I do, and my program files takes up no more than 1/8th of my screen @ 1024x768.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[cgenman]

The best desktop expansion you can do for windows is get additional monitors. Most video cards will allow you to plug in a second monitor, usually one analog and one DVI. A cheap DVI connector and a used monitor can be had for about 30 bucks. Add a cheap PCI secondary video card, Two DVI connectors, and three new monitors and you have all of the desktop that you'll ever need for about 150.

I had pretty much constant problems with the multiple virtual desktop setup in XP, but the multiple monitor support in applications is pretty good these days.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

FWIW, I can second this. The local computer store we bought our office PCs from for a while happened to be installing a video card with a second port. Once when we upgraded a few people there were some spare 17" monitors lying around, and one of the guys tried hooking it up to his XP box to see how Windows coped with a second screen. The answer was that it coped very well, as did the applications in almost all cases, and he (and now several other colleagues) became an instant convert. Having a real second monitor makes using virtual desktops feel like the cheap hack it basically is.

Those of us who got stuck with corporate standard clone Dell boxen, which have a really cheap video card without the second port, are suitably impressed. ;-)

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[LeaInShadow]

I use 2 monitors with 4 virtual desktops.... Of course I'm lazy and hate re-opening programs. **puts in her vote for Litestep**

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Anonymous Coward]

goScreen is a virtual desktop manager for Windows. I've used this for a few years and it's always been stable for me.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the start menu? at home i have to run the screen at 1024x768 to fit the program files to the screen, at 800x600 some programs cannot fit, change it to what linux has, sorted by type of program rather than by publisher

Oh. My. God. Are you fucking retarded?! I always knew that most slashdot readers were next to useless when it comes to running windows but this is ridiculous.

Re:Win XP Power Toys

[weapon]

Yes I know I can do that, but I dont as i rarely use XP and it would confuse the rest of my family, but it would be better if the programs were already organized like that. It is a commen sense thing, but most people don't konow how to change their start menu. I am not talking about this from a Power users perspective but a general users perspective.

Weapon

What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the subject:

...longingly look to the not only beautiful, but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface.

Gee, you think the submitter might be a tad pro-Mac?

The stage is set....let the carnage begin!

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[pmc]

What? The "...forced to use..." was not enough of a hint?

I really don't know why the editors bother.

Oh, wait. They don't.

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, this has got to be the WORST "Ask Slashdot" that I've EVER seen.

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're new here, aren't you?

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[jessecurry]

I don't really find this to be a troll, the poster states that they have to use a certain operating system at work, stated that they find this OS to be very difficult to use, and then let us know which OS they enjoy using. This way any replies will direct them to solutions that move their user experience towards the experience they have using OS X.
Despite which OS you've decided you like to use you really can't say that OS X isn't easier for a computer novice to use. Having provided computer instruction to all ages of people using both Windows and Mac OS I can say that I had to give far less direction to those using the Mac.

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[pmc]

I don't really find this to be a troll

Then, with respect, you would not know a troll if it ripped out your eyeballs and licked your brain.

Re:What a wonderful troll of a subject.

[zero_offset]

Despite which OS you've decided you like to use you really can't say that OS X isn't easier for a computer novice to use.

Yeah, actually I can. I know two formerly-computer-averse "regular people" who couldn't manage to get much useful done under OS X on their shiny new Macs, but who rather quickly "got it" when I brought an XP laptop to them. Both have since ditched their Macs. As a bonus, they're much happier that their PC's are so relatively inexpensive.

I'm not saying "TEH MAC SUX" or anything extreme like that, but the assumption of UI superiority has, in my opinion, never been proven with any especially compelling authority. It is my opinion that the Mac superiority thing is primarily a result of very careful MARKETING efforts.

The Mac isn't bad, but it isn't a miraculous plateau of UI wisdom, either.

Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[robolemon]

One of my biggest pet peeves is that if I make the Windows XP taskbar 2 rows tall instead of one, the start button only takes up the top row instead of spanning both or taking up the bottom row.

This results in a spot underneath the start button that has no use. This also breaks the shortcut of clicking on the bottom left corner of the screen to access the start menu.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

"Make it NOT look like froofy pastel crap that makes people violently ill!"

If you right click in there, you can access the toolbar access stuff without bringing up the properties of that particular icon. That's not to say I disagree with you, but rather just pointing out that it's not completely 100% useless. (That's typically where I go when I either need the task manager or to unlock the taskbar.)

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Destoo]

Task manager: Shift, Control, Escape.

Taskbar should be one row.
System tray icons should be "Always Hide" by default, not "hide when inactive" for new ones.

And now that I have a laptop for work, I use two independant taskbars. (ultramon does it, there are probably other vendors)

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

"Task manager: Shift, Control, Escape."

Alt + Ctrl + Delete does it too, but sometimes I want to use my mouse. (Like when I'm using my TabletPC in slate mode, for example.)

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you replied to the wrong post. Here you are

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

Actually, I replied to the right post, I made the wrong quote. Guess I didn't hit ctrl+C properly.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Jherico]

Taskbar should be one row.

No, the taskbar should be however the user feels more comfortable with it. I prefer two rows, with two quick launch toolbars on the left side, one for work apps, one for non-work apps.

Say what you want about the Windows UI. In my opinion it is far better than the OS X UI, NOT because of its inherent functionalty, but because its far more customizable than the Mac UI. The Windows UI also does a passable job supporting keyboard shortcuts in a consistent way, and making more of the UI accessible from the keyboard.

The Mac theory of UI seems to revolve around Apple knowing the right way to do something. But different people end up working with the UI in different ways. There's never just one right way to do a thing with something as complex as an application or an operating system.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had mod points I would give you some because you are spot on. I only use the mouse when I am browsing the web or reading a document, I prefer to use the keyboard, and WinXP is INSANLY consistent.
Except of 'course when I'm forced to use the worst "colaboration" software ever developed, Lotus Notes, the writers of-course adopted the "I know best" mentaility and removed all consistency. (For example, the top bar has a Edit, and a Text menu, and a Tools button in the frame when writing an email, guess where the Spell Checker is... My first guess, right click, NOPE, then tools, spell checking is a tool, Nope that menu has Folder Options in it (I"M WRITING AN EMAIL!!), Text, text MUST have it, nope it's in the edit menu... goddamn morons... sorry.

/rant

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[spectral]

And if you want it to refresh the view you're in, do NOT hit F5. It's F9, for some unknown fucking reason. F5 locks Lotus Notes, so now you need a pw to unlock it.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

"The Mac theory of UI seems to revolve around Apple knowing the right way to do something. But different people end up working with the UI in different ways."

On the flip side, though, this philosophy makes it considerably easier to support the user. If people re-map their kb shortcuts and the locations of their icons, it's considerably harder to tell or show somebody how to do something in particular.

I run into this problem with Lightwave, sometimes. When they went from version 7 to 8, they remapped a bunch of the kb shortcuts. 'u' used to be Undo, but then they made it ctrl+z. So when it comes time to write documentation for LW (or a plug-in made for LW, which I recently did...), I had to write documentation for both LW 7 and 8. If LW had followed Apple's lead, the documentation and tutorial part would have been easier.

I'm not saying Apple is right or wrong or that Newtek should follow their lead, rather I'm simply pointing out that it's not all bad. It really depends on your target audience. In Apple's case, I think it works for them. It also makes their job of automating stuff a lot easier. I recently installed a wireless router for my cousin, I was shocked at how easy that was. "Oh lookie, I found a wireless router. Would you like me to talk to it? Well, here's what I need..."

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[b-baggins]

Trying to be all things to all people is the best way to wind up being totally useless to everyone.

Pick the best way for the most people and make that your baseline. Third-party developers will fill in your gaps if there is sufficient market.

In the case of OS X, there is Drag Thing and Path Finder.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Jherico]

On the flip side, though, this philosophy makes it considerably easier to support the user.

If its at the expense of me being able to customize the UI to fit my style, then I don't want it. This 'easy to support' philosophy is reflected in the commentary you frequently get when you move from another OS to Mac and complain about a bit of UI shear. 'You'll get used to it.' I don't want to get used to it. I want to be able to make the computer respond to what I'm already used to.

If LW had followed Apple's lead, the documentation and tutorial part would have been easier.

Instead Newtek followed the windows lead, where undo is typically Ctrl-Z.

In Apple's case, I think it works for them.

And for the subset of computer users who naturally adhere to Apple's UI philosophy. In the end I think it limits their market.

You'll forgive me if I'm not more incisive, but I've had a couple beers since my last post. In the end its probably the case that people are always going to be most comfortable with whatever interface they've used the longest. I own a mac and I use it on a daily basis. But I'm still more comfortable with my windows UI, for all of its quirks, because I've been using it for decades now.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

"If its at the expense of me being able to customize the UI to fit my style, then I don't want it."

That's fine for you, however OSX (and Windows) are mass-market products.

"Instead Newtek followed the windows lead, where undo is typically Ctrl-Z."

Lightwave pre-dates Windows 95. It didn't even start on the PC. There was no lead to follow. The change would have been harfum at nearly any point in its life.

"And for the subset of computer users who naturally adhere to Apple's UI philosophy. In the end I think it limits their market."

I see your point. Not sure I agree with it, but I don't totally disagree with it either. On the one hand, I agree that limiting the usefulness of the UI sucks ass. I mean, the job of a computer is to work as efficiently as possible. On the other hand, what good is a mass-market OS if somebody cannot easily be shown how to work it?

It really is a middle-ground sort of situation, not an extreme either way.

G'nite. :)

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Frizzle Fry]

Alt + Ctrl + Delete does it too,

On XP Home yes, but not on XP Pro. It brings up that menu where one of the choices is task manager so after ctrl-alt-del you need to tab (or arrow) over to it and hit enter. A lot more keystrokes than crtl-shift-esc.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[jonadab]

> Taskbar should be one row.

Yeah, it wouldn't be completely *worthless* then or anything, considering each entry would be the minimum size, so you wouldn't be able to tell one window from another, and in addition they wouldn't all fit.

When I used Windows as my main desktop, I settled on putting the taskbar on the left edge, sized to about a third of the screen, so there was room for three columns of task list buttons, and set to autohide so it didn't take up a third of the screen permanently. This was rather suboptimal, but it seemed to be the best I could do.

For some reason, I seem to have a lot fewer windows open on my Gnome system. (No, it's not because of task grouping -- I have that turned off, as I dislike it.) One reason is tabbed browsing, of course -- it didn't exist yet (in any browser) back when I used Windows. But I think the big reason is that with a decent command shell, I no longer need to use a graphical file manager all the time, so that's about twelve or so Windows Explorer windows I don't have open, because I do all my file management from either one of the terminal windows (which correspond to command windows I had open in Windows) or else in eshell in Emacs (which, again, is something I also had open in Windows). Gimp2 helps also, because with the docking I get by with just one more windows than the number of images I have open (so, usually two windows instead of six or so).
Hmmm... I guess maybe the difference is not so much Windows versus Gnome as it is three years ago versus now. I guess the Windows Explorer windows are the only difference I've discussed that is platform-related really -- and that one will theoretically go away in Longhorn, when the spiffy new command shell is introduced.

There is also the minor difference of not having a start menu and quicklaunch on the left (but that only makes room for about one more window) and system tray on the right, so the task list takes up the entire bottom panel. ISTR having twelve or fifteen items in my system tray on Windows 95, just to get up to a basic level of functionality. Come to think of it, I don't know that that's really necessary in recent versions of Windows, at least not to that extent.

Eh, what do I know? Trying to compare Mandrake 9.2 to Windows 95 isn't fair. Forget I said anything.

I'm still not sure about the universality of the practicality of having a one-row taskbar in all cases, though.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[jonadab]

> Say what you want about the Windows UI. In my opinion it is far better than
> the OS X UI, NOT because of its inherent functionalty, but because its far
> more customizable than the Mac UI.

If you like a customizeable UI, you really should have a look at Gnome.
Screenshot:
http://www.bright.net/~jonada b/screenshot.png

My favourite feature is the ability to have panel drawers (visible as the icons with little white arrows in their lower-right corners, on the left panel), each of which can contain a full row of icons; this completely obviates the need for icons on the desktop, entirely removing the need to minimize stuff all the time. But in general, the Gnome UI is *way* more customizeable than the Windows one. You'll notice I've removed the Gnome foot (equivalent of the Start button/menu), because I never use it.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay. On top of the $130 I spent on Panther, now I get to spend $30 on DragThing so it's usable without being annoying. I'm sure glad Apple has an easier to support OS because of this though.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[drsmithy]

This results in a spot underneath the start button that has no use. This also breaks the shortcut of clicking on the bottom left corner of the screen to access the start menu.

There are non-novice users out there that actually *click* on the Start Menu ?

/Always uses the Windows key on the keyboard...

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[way2trivial]

right click the taskbar, select 'task manager'

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[b-baggins]

If you don't like it, don't use it, but don't sit there and try to claim some non-existent moral superiority about it.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

Uh, are you sure about that? XP Pro is what I'm using.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[91degrees]

Newbie.

My keyboard doesn't have Windows keys.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Chyeld]

Say what you want about the Windows UI. In my opinion it is far better than the OS X UI, NOT because of its inherent functionalty, but because its far more customizable than the Mac UI.

The ironic part of this statement, is that when I was still in college and using Macs (System 7- System 8 days), the Mac GUI was almost like Play Doh to me. Give me two floppies and 10 min with any of the Macs in the computer labs and the next person to sit down at the computer wouldn't even recognize it as an Apple Computer. When I graduated, realized I couldn't afford my Mac habit and went to the PC, one of the things I sorely missed was the ultra customability that the Mac provided. I've yet to see anything for Windows that provided the ease of extending/customizing the base OS as Extensions for the Mac and was only with XP that you started geting the ability to do themes as well as you could with System 7.5 and Kalidescope.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Jherico]

[It] was only with XP that you started geting the ability to do themes as well as you could with System 7.5 and Kalidescope.

Not quite true. It was only with XP that Microsoft really started promoting theming and intentionally giving hooks to developers to write theming engines. However, Stardock provides theming software for windows for that predates XP for quite some time.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Jherico]

I'm actually using Gnome right now as its what I run as my primary OS on my work computer (the easiest way to keep corporate IT sticky fingers and policies off my desktop). However I find that Gnome and X apps in general are still fighting a war between Windows UI conventions and Unix ones, and as a result of this lack consistency, especially in the keyboard shortcuts area. I praise Gnome and GTK for combatting this to some extent, but all in all the linux desktop still isn't all the way there.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but Stardock isn't Microsoft.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly don't find Windows XP to be easier to customize than a Mac or any of the various Linux distros. They are all about the same now for customization. It all depends on the environment you are familiar with, how much the new relates to the old, and how open you are to trying a new environment that is different.
That said, I think XP needs a desktop pager, and it needs to get rid of that default teletubby look. Those would be improvements.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Frizzle Fry]

Yes I'm sure. I'm on an XP Pro machine. I just hit ctrl-alt-del and it brings up "Windows Security" where the options are Lock Computer, Log Off, Shut Down, Change Password, Task Manager and Cancel.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[NanoGator]

Err. But I'm using XP pro, and Alt + CTRL + Delete brings up Task Manager. I'm not messin with you, and I'm not confused about which OS I'm using. So... err... hehe.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Frizzle Fry]

Hmmm look at this:
http://www.winguides.com/forums/showflat.php?Cat=& Board=genwinxp&Number=38254&page=20&view=collapsed &sb=6&part=

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Iam8up]

I believe it's both ways in both Windows XP and Pro. Pro, I know for a fact, you can have both the default ctrl+alt+delete command to open the task manager, while if you change the way you login (Control Panel -> User Accounts) to the non-basic format, it will open up windows security. As I said, I'm not sure if the Home release has this option.

Re:Start button doesn't stay in the bottom left

[Frizzle Fry]

Yeah. From reading the discussion at the link I posted, I that is definitely true. I initially assumed it was a home vs. pro difference because I get "windows security" at work and the task manager at home, but apparently I was wrong and it is related to the login thing.

Virtual Desktops

[christophe.vg]

using VirtuaWin

Useability?

[billh]

Switch to classic mode
Turn off menu delays
Turn off every other stupid effect
Install unix command line tools
Never use IE or Outlook
Install some decent fonts

It might not be as pretty, but it is more functional.

Re:Useability?

[daeley]

You know, if you just installed linux, it would take care of all of those in one fell swoop.

Well, except for the decent fonts thing. ;D

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

The questioner noted that he was required to use Windows at work. Your jumping in and yelling "Lunix! Lunix!" doesn't help.

Re:Useability?

[billh]

Well, that used to be true.

I've got the bitstream vera fonts and some other installed on my laptop (Gentoo), and I now can't stand going back to Windows because of the horrible fonts. Once you forget how fonts are 'supposed to look', you'll realize how ugly the MS default fonts are.

Re:Useability?

[FidelCatsro]

Couldnt agree more , the last couple of years has seen a real upsurge in the eye candy linux has to offer(can't wait for Cairo) In my eyes the FreeDesktop world has long since surpassed windows in GUI gloss (although if you mix and match GTK /Motif/QT aps its hard to get a solid look and feel) .

The only thing i find the freedesktop still cant hold a candle to (and this is just right now , as projects such as cairo are really showing promis) is OS X .Even if you dont like the GUI you can apreciate the wonderfull rendering and smoth near seamless design of cocoa .

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither does your (seemingly) intentional mispelling of Linux (you wrote Lunix twice)

Re:Useability?

[nickos]

"Install some decent fonts"

I like to bash MS as well, but Georgia and (especially) Verdana are lovely (read more here). Verdana-Regular-8 is a great non-antialiased font that I use for everything (including coding).

An aside - why do so many coders insist on using non-proportional fonts in their editor of choice (we've come a long way from text-mode displays)? Proportional fonts are more readable and take up less horizontal space on the screen. Try it!

Re:Useability?

[Glonoinha]

Proportional fonts make it difficult to eye-ball character columns, particularly if you are want to keep string lengths under a certain length.

With fixed space fonts you can put one of these : //345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 123456789012345678901234567890
for an 80 character wide ruler, cut it and paste it as necessary into your code and Voila! instant width chart (make it whatever size you want.)

I have also found that my head OCR's faster with certain fonts (Courier 10 point, San Serif 10 or 12 point) than in all the fruity variable width fonts.

That said, I have grown to like Verdana too.

Re:Useability?

[nickos]

Each to their own I spose, but why would you want to keep string lengths under a certain length?

The only argument I could think of as to why people would want to use non-proportional fonts is so that they can line up text after non-whitespace characters on a line. IMHO this is a small price to pay for the increased readibility and better use of space. I suppose they're good for ASCII art though...

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither does M$, or Micro$oft, or micros~1, or winblows etc.

Re:Useability?

[zelphior]

not necessarally. All our (winxp) computers at work are locked down pretty well, not even any games on them, to increse productivity. we're not even allowed to install any extra software without requesting special permission. I've been known to slip a knoppix or ubuntu cd in from time to time just to get a break when the boss isn't looking.

Re:Useability?

[FLAGGR]

OSX is pretty and functional, both 100 times than anything you could do with windows.

Re:Useability?

[Glonoinha]

Good reasons for fixed width fonts :
Formatting text that is sent to the console (I program a bit in the Unix environment.)
Making the code header (documentation) neater
ASCII Pong, ASCII art
Comparing similar, yet different lines of code (particularly if the front of the line of code is different, but parts of it are the same.)
Using the editor as a cheapo word processor.
Consistent formatting on different machines (some applications give tab characters different widths.)
And most importantly : OCR'able print-outs of the source. Don't laugh, it happens.

As for keeping the string length under a certain size:
Console output (80 chars on some Unix terms).
Fixed record sizes (ie, faking data in or out of a database)
Not having the code wrap on my printout, because I use a code formatter that draws lines between all the loops and having a line wrap destroys the illusion.

Re:Useability?

[Photar]

There is a tool called dl-color that lets you view small icons on the desktop or tiles if you swing that way.

Re:Useability?

[ibman]

I have the the ClearType option turned on my CRT. It makes a huge difference on 19" monitors. The font smoothing makes regular fonts look like someone's chicken scratch.

Re:Useability?

[jonadab]

> I like to bash MS as well, but Georgia and (especially) Verdana are lovely

I like Georgia and Verdana as well. Also Andale Mono. At work, I have them on my checklist of stuff to install on every new Windows system. Occasionally a new Windows system comes with either Georgia or Verdana already installed, but so far in my experience never both, and never Andale Mono. I don't know if this is the OEMs screwing things up or what, but I always have to track them down -- formerly at MS Typography, these days at corefonts.sourceforge.net instead -- and install them myself. (And people wonder why the Core Fonts initiative never succeeded in getting all the world's webmasters to rely on those fonts being installed. The webmasters' own systems probably didn't have them half the time.)

Other things on my new-Windows-system install checklist include TweakUI, Pegasus Mail, a decent browser (these days usually Firefox), OpenOffice, ActivePerl, the lastest Acrobat Reader, a recent Java vm, and the CommandPromptHere powertoy. Microsoft *ought* to bundle at least half of that (specifically, TweakUI and the CommandPromptHere should just be standard, and the Core Fonts of course, and I'm sure MS could reach an agreement with Adobe on acroread, and there's no excuse for not including a decent browser in any modern OS these days, and runtimes for Perl and Java are standard in every other OS I think, so MS really needs to get on the stick in terms of these things; and if MS doesn't, the OEMs should at least make some attempt to fill in the most glaring gaps; it's pathetic how worthless a new computer is out of the box, until you download umpteen updates and enhancements, all of which are free downloads and most of which presumably could have been included by the manufacturer if they would just do so).

Re:Useability?

[jonadab]

There are some things I use fixed-width fonts for exclusively, notably email and all source code (both markup and programming languages). Mostly I use either Andale Mono or Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, although for some things I still use bitmapped screen fonts.

> I have also found that my head OCR's faster with certain fonts (Courier 10
> point, San Serif 10 or 12 point) than in all the fruity variable width fonts.

Courier is one of the ugliest, most bletcherous font families in the history of the universe. Especially Courier New. I can't *stand* Courier New. For fixed-width, I like Andale Mono or Bitstream Vera Sans Mono. Lucida Console will do in a pinch, if neither of the others is installed for some bizarre reason.

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice troll but I'll bet you that my Windows box can not only outperform that Macintrash of yours, but also run ANYTHING you can and thousands more.

It's on now...

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, let 5 users login to your machine from remote terminals and start compiling a helloworld.c into an a.out binary.

Windows loses, Mac wins.

Let 2 users login remotely, start an editor, modify helloworld.c, save it, and then output the file to their own console to view their changes.

Windows still loses.

Anything where more than user might need to hit a box and run apps on it, not just spool print jobs or save files to a file server is not possible in Windows unless you go spend way too much money and buy yourself a Citrix system. The cost won't be justified when compared to any desktop Linux or new Macintosh system.

Depends on what you do with that cheap Windows box as for how useful it is. If your experience is limited to games, almost all the games out now look just as good and run just as fast on a Mac as they do on Windows. This "runs more than Macs" argument isn't as convincing as it used to be.

Re:Useability?

[Curmudgeonlyoldbloke]

...and turn off that incredibly annoying Search Puppy!

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am forced to use WinXP on my laptop, because installing Linux od Dell Latitude family is a pain (it's possible of course, but I need to work instead of loosing time with kernel recompilations and tweaking around in order to get suspend work due to slugish nVidia drivers). I found this config extremely usefull:

• WinXP
• + Cygwin
• + blackbox port to Win32 (bblean branch)

Re:Useability?

[Anonymous Coward]

Proportional fonts are more readable and take up less horizontal space on the screen.

I've heard that claim a lot, but I disagree. Fixed-width fonts are much easier to read. It might be me. I get fatigue much faster trying to read proportional fonts. Anyway, so you know, your claim is not true for everyone.

win XP needs a contextual helper...

[xutopia]

It would be cool if this helper would popup whenever you are doing something and show you ways to do things better. Oh and it could look like some smart guy too which would make it really cool!

Re:win XP needs a contextual helper...

[Nathan Forget]

Or better yet... a paperclip!

Re:win XP needs a contextual helper...

[scupper]

Oh and it could look like some smart guy too which would make it really cool!

Perhaps like Hannibal Lecter?

Re:win XP needs a contextual helper...

[magefile]

Heh. I hate Clippy, but I would definitely pay a couple bucks to replace it with a Hannibal Lecter-type character.

Windows interface is good

[Zarxrax]

I just change everything so it looks and feels pretty much the same as win98. get rid of all the "user-friendly" crap that just gets in the way, and everything behaves exactly how I want it to, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[LazloToth]

Truly, if you're into function over form, the Win2K interface is far more refined than the prettier, but painfully illogical backwards step that became XP. I am amazed, yet not surprised, at the number of people who are barely competent enough to create a desktop icon, but manage to figure out how to return to the "classic" style. I hope the next Windows interface will be a return to crisp function and logical work flow.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[Nathan Forget]

I hope the next Windows interface will be a return to crisp function and logical work flow.

I assume when you say crisp function and logical workflow you mean giant title bars.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[digitallife]

Imagine wasting the entire side of the screen to a clock?? Who the hell thought that was a bright idea?

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[NanoGator]

"Truly, if you're into function over form, the Win2K interface is far more refined than the prettier, but painfully illogical backwards step that became XP. I am amazed, yet not surprised, at the number of people who are barely competent enough to create a desktop icon, but manage to figure out how to return to the "classic" style. I hope the next Windows interface will be a return to crisp function and logical work flow."

Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by 'painfully illogical backwards step'? For basic folder stuff, etc, XP's not that much different. The difference is mostly cosmetic. The start menu is questionably better or worse, depending on how you drive. It's great if you use 10 apps requently, it's an extra step if you blow past that. The Control Panel... er... I have no idea what they were thinking with that, but you're a click away from bringing it back.

Err okay I was just babbling for a moment. When you switch from XP's default to classic view, the main change to it is cosmetic, not functional. (Unless you can correct me on that, which I'd appreciate.) You still have your min/max/restore/and close Icons etc.

In the mean time, what XP does offer you is the ability to lock the taskbar. That little feature suddenly makes the toolbar a far more interesting UI tool. There's actually a lot you can do down there, but I don't think most people bothered with a whole lot because you could accidently drag it and mess up the order of everything.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[TripMaster Monkey]

Oh sweet baby Jesus...

If this is actually what Longhorn looks like, I'm going to shoot myself in the head. I have to support this crap.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[Elwood P Dowd]

It's not. Just like alpha-XP didn't have Luna, alpha-Longhorn isn't going to have their final look and feel. If only so that you can instantly tell whether you are using release software.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[satanami69]

I just velcro a clock to the physical monitor and do away with the lost screen real-estate. You have to wonder why no one ships a monitor that has that included.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[jonadab]

> Can you elaborate a little bit on what you mean by 'painfully
> illogical backwards step'?

I don't know for sure what the other poster meant, but I can elaborate on what *I* think of when I think of painfully illogical backwards steps in the WinXP UI, as compared to Win9x. I think of opening up Windows Explorer windows only to find that, instead of showing you the contents of the folder, it shows you something else. I think of going to Explore view only to find that, when I click on a folder in the tree view at left, instead of just highlighting that folder and showing me the contents, it takes away the tree view at left and shows something entirely different, and after fifteen minutes of fiddling I eventually find that the way to get the Explore view back involves changing which sidebar is checked in some menu. I think of even *more* stupid checked-by-default options under View->Folder Options that I have to uncheck to keep Explorer from hiding various things from me. (Windows 95 had *none* of these; Windows 98 had the ones for hiding the file extension, and I think hiding the full path. I suppose Longhorn will have about three dozen of them for hiding everything up to and including the fact that you're using a computer at all, like some kind of demented two-dimensional Matrix clone trying to keep you from becomming self-aware.) I think of a My Network Places that, unlike Network Neighborhood in Win98, does not actually show you the computers in your workgroup on your local network unless you first go through Entire Network and then Microsoft Windows Network and then click on your workgroup. Three extra steps, and even then frequently it cannot be made, through any amount of rebooting or network-reconfiguring, be made to see one-half to one-third of the other Windows computers on the network, for no apparent reason, even though the ones it can see can see the others, and vice versa, and Samba on Linux has no trouble seeing all of them. (Reinstalling Windows XP is the only way I've discovered to fix this. I think running the Network Configuration Wizard is a common cause of this problem, but I haven't tracked down the precise details.) I think of a start menu that pushes all the programs another whole level deeper into the hierarchy, for no good reason. I think of a control panel that is completely reorganized, to be twice as unintuitive as ever and scare newbies even *more*, pretty icons notwithstanding. (They could have introduced prettier icons without dorking with the arrangmenent...) I think of menu items that mysteriously disappear, so that every other time you use a menu you have to hunt down a small double-arrow thingydoo just to get your menu entries back. I think of little pop-up tooltip-like things that jump out of the system tray every seven or eight minutes and bug you with questions that either A) don't require any action or B) are confusing to end users or C) both. (The worse offenders here are security-related things; as near as I can determine, the *only* way to avoid having WindowsUpdate and NAV pester the user incessently is to disable them completely; they both have a "just do it and don't bug me option", but if you turn said option on, it still bugs the user all the time. So desktop sysadmins are essentially forced to disable all security-related features, which is not really what they want to do, but you *can't* have every desktop user calling you up three times a day to come deal with these things.) I could go on, but I think this paragraph is long enough now.

WinXP has memory protection, which is really important, plus filesystem-level permissions, which are nice to have, so in that respect it's a much better option than Win9x. And it has better hardware/driver support than Win2000, and some UI enhancements as well. But it sure is not without its stupid idiotic changes nobody would ever conceivably want. And yeah, most of the really horrid ones can be turned off, but I can definitely see where the other poster is coming from.

Re:Want improvement in XP? Go back to Windows 2000

[magefile]

Because I'm too lazy to set a clock, especially when DST rolls around (and I don't live in Indiana). Because then I can set computer alarms and not wonder whether the alarm isn't going off because the non-computer clock is 5 minutes fast or because something broke.

I've got an idea!

[OmgTEHMATRICKS]

Make it NOT look like froofy pastel crap that makes people violently ill! That's a good first step.

Re:I've got an idea!

[skadus]

A patched uxtheme.dll and about 2 or 3 minutes at DeviantArt will clear that right up.

I agree, though. Luna and Royale look godawful. I'd love to see them recruit a better artist for some themes later on. Maybe they can make a cool Sci-Fi theme that looks like the one in Minority Report (just saw it this weekend, otherwise I'd think of a better movie/interface design).

Re:I've got an idea!

[NanoGator]

"Make it NOT look like froofy pastel crap that makes people violently ill!"

Err okay. The XP default scheme, though quite bold, is not pastel. (It's more like Fisher Price. :P)

In all seriousness, it's not all that bad. I discovered that my biggest beef with that color scheme wasn't the colors used, but the wallpaper. I turned that black, and suddenly XP's interface isn't so bad. What's nice about it is that it's rather easy to tell which window is active or blinking. The difference between orange and blue is quite striking. Green is a nice highlight color as it has a decent contrast against blue.

I can understand the screenshots not looking so appealing, but having used it for a while now, I actually kind of like it. (Especially after getting rid of that damn wallpaper.) I wish by default the titlebars were smaller, but their color choice is fine.

Re:I've got an idea!

[timothv]

You can make the titlebars smaller in the Display/Appearance tab.

Re:I've got an idea!

[NanoGator]

"You can make the titlebars smaller in the Display/Appearance tab."

Heh yeah, I know. :P I just meant by default so the screenshots wouldn't look so fruity.

Re:I've got an idea!

[Mikito]

I like to make Windows look a little like NeXTStep, using mostly greys and blacks, and using a splash of color to make the active window really stand out.

The XP default color scheme just irritates me. I find the liberal use of bold colors too distracting for my taste.

Re:I've got an idea!

[xgamer04]

The XP default scheme, though quite bold, is not pastel. (It's more like Fisher Price. :P)

I remember reading on a helldesk board where some guy didn't know what version of Windows he was running, so he just said "the one that looks like Legos".

Re:I've got an idea!

[NanoGator]

"I remember reading on a helldesk board where some guy didn't know what version of Windows he was running, so he just said "the one that looks like Legos"."

Heh. Alternatively, imagine asking him what version of the Linux kernel he was using.

Re:I've got an idea!

[magefile]

He'd probably say, "I don't know. Uh ... the last one before Linus stopped using BitKeeper, I think".

cygwin

[tadd]

... and as mentioned above, windows powertoys, and a whole bunch of firefox extentions

The task bar has more in it than you realize

[NanoGator]

One of my biggest usability changes in XP came from unlocking the taskbar and making effective use of the tabs inside it. No, I'm not just talking about Quicklaunch here. You can add different folders, including My Computer. For example, right now I have my drive letters exposed. I can right click on the C:\ drive and do a properties to get an idea of how much space I have left. I have two optical drives so at a glance I can see what discs are in there. (The name of the disc is put in place of the title.) I also have a 'shortcuts' folder I made (sort of like Quicklaunch) with a shortcut to that folder. Why is this useful? A.) it's easy to get at that folder so I can add remove stuff. B.) I'm constantly changing folders or files so I can quickly add stuff.

In short, I've made effective use of shortcuts etc using the taskbar. I don't have to do near as much folder surfing. On top of all that, the interface is pretty simple provided you know to unlock it first.

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[klui]

I have such a links attached to my taskbar, too. The reason why we need it is because Windows doesn't have a favorite folder menu/button in the open/save dialog boxes. It sure is a pain because not all applications remember your last accessed folder. The last accessed folder is nice, but not as nice as a favorites (Mac OS 9/X).

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[Photar]

Um try again, you can do that in windows 2000 heck even windows 98.

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[NanoGator]

"Um try again, you can do that in windows 2000 heck even windows 98."

If you want to be technical, Windows 95 could do it if you had IE4 installed.

The reason why it came up with XP (in my case) was that you cannot lock the taskbar unless you have XP. If you can't lock it, then it's far too easy to f'up the carefully constructed task bar. I know, it's irritating because I use 2k at home and XP at work.

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[Photar]

Locking the task bar is indeed a handy feature, but what I don't like is if you want just a few icons next to the start button, but you want to get all the space, when you lock the task bar there is wasted space so you have to unlock is and slide it in till the last icon is hidden a bit then lock it and if the icon doesn't pop out you have to "schooch" the divider out a little again. Very annoying, especially when programs add extra icons down there.

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[way2trivial]

yes it does.
tweak ui lets you change the items on the left
from 'my computer' 'my desktop' ' my documents' etc to anything you want.

you can also do it directly with the registry

MS-Office applications (recent versions at least) have it as an option to add a common folder right from the open/save dialog box... and it's list of 5 on the left is separate from all other programs open/save dirs

I have my left list to include network shares..

I also have one pseudo mapped drive that I change on the fly for every project I work on.. when I'm making a dvd, I might use nero, studio, adobe photoshop elements, ms publisher, word, and epson's print cd program, before I start the project, I change my mapped 'x' drive to a folder for that project, and save all my different programs output to the 'x' drive (which is a folder on my local data harddrive) and each file type gets saved with the project.. if I have to re-create it, it's all right there, if I need drive space, I pick a project folder that has sufficiently aged, and delete it.

Re:The task bar has more in it than you realize

[gseidman]

So I discovered something really nice in Win2K (and probably earlier versions, too). You can put the contents of a folder in the taskbar. In fact, on of the default toolbars you can display from the contextual menu is the contents of your Links folder (%USERPROFILE%\Favorites\Links). That alone is pretty useless, but folder shortcuts make it useful. You see, when you click on a normal shortcut to a folder in a folder toolbar, it just opens the folder. If it's a folder shortcut, however, it gives a menu with the contents of the folder (and submenus for subfolders, etc.).

First, you have to realize that folder shortcuts are a horrible, crackheaded hack. There are also some gotchas with copying, moving, or deleting them that are better covered elsewhere. With that understanding, here's how you make one. A folder shortcut is nothing but an ordinary folder that contains an ordinary shortcut named target.lnk, a Desktop.ini file with appropriate contents, and has been made read-only. To make a folder shortcut:

1) Create a folder with the name you want the folder shortcut to have, and in the folder you want it to be in. (It's safer not to have to move or rename it later.)

2) Create a shortcut to the target folder, name it target.lnk, and place it in the folder-shortcut-to-be.

3) Create a Desktop.ini file in the folder-shortcut-to-be with the following lines:

[.ShellClassInfo]
CLSID2={0AFACED1-E828-11D1-91 87-B532F1E9575D}
Flags=2
ConfirmFileOp=0

4) Open the properties for the folder-shortcut-to-be, make it read-only, and hit Okay.

If you open the properties again, you will see that it is a folder shortcut. You may need to logout and log back in, or even reboot, to have it show up properly in the taskbar.

Unfortunately...

[Tsunayoshi]

I remember reading somewhere, sometime ago (so take with a grain of salt) that the "windows classic" theme was not going to be included with Longhorn, only the XP theme for a "unified look & feel"

Stop interrupting me!

[fsck!]

It shouldn't be possible for a dialog box, especially one from another application, to steal keyboard focus. It's bad enough that the dialogs are usually very poorly written. I was afraid of "sheets" the first time I heard about them in OSX, but that plus the bouncing dock icons really makes it a lot easier to focus on what I'm doing. The hundreds of little icons, sliding boxes and word ckouds in the system tray need to be completely rethought.

Next I guess I would say that bitmapped icons should be dumped in favor of vector based ones for readability at higher resolution.

Re:Stop interrupting me!

[doctormetal]

It shouldn't be possible for a dialog box, especially one from another application, to steal keyboard focus.

It is really annoying, but you can prevent an application from stealing focus. It is a setting in tweakui.

Re:Stop interrupting me!

[Blakey Rat]

... which doesn't work for a lot of applications.

But at least it tries.

Re:Stop interrupting me!

[MrScience]

As others have mentioned, Tweak UI to the rescue.

"General - Focus - allows you to stop applications stealing focus ie. taking over your screen. You can set it so the tab flashes indefinitely or a finite number of times. "

Re:Stop interrupting me!

[Chris Pimlott]

I agree, I've thought the exact same thing. Not only is it annoying to be interrupted, but if you're in the middle of typing something, it's quite easy to end up dismissing the dialog box without even seeing what it is. Then you have to go look through all your open programs and try to deduce what it could have possibly been. Often there's no way to figure out what it was.

It wouldn't be too hard to solve this problem for most cases. Just check if the user has typed something or used the mouse in the last second or so (user adjustable). Then you can be relatively sure you're not interrupting something.

Re:Stop interrupting me!

[fsck!]

You just reminded me of an idea I had a while back. There has got to be some way to hijack the MFC call (or whatever, I'm no Windows expert) that most apps use for dialog boxes, and write the text of the dialog to a log that can be recalled later. Even better, try to capture what button was pressed to dismiss it.

And there shouldn't be any way to close dialog boxes without selecting one of the options. In other words, no close buttons on the title bar. Why should there BE a title bar, for that matter. It's impossible to come up with a non-redundant title for a dialog (unless you just use the name of the app that generated it, which would be nice).

Different themes are available...

[WebHostingGuy]

XP Themes

This site has a lot of window dressing (pun intended) to change the look and add a few items to XP to customize your interface.

what the?

[drac0n1z]

Did Microsoft infiltrate /. to ask us nix-users how to better the Longhorn interface?

Re:what the?

[FidelCatsro]

Having seen some screenshots of Longhorn I really must say a resounding "Dear God No"..
well actualy i would say "yes" they asked someone who was looking to bring MS down

ObjectDock

[Lazyhound]

Porblem solved.

Re:ObjectDock

[Anonymous Coward]

"Porblem solved."

• Great! Now who's going to tackle our spelling porblem?

Re:ObjectDock

[Synbiosis]

I never understood people who loved the dock. It's always struck me as an inferior, albeit prettier substitute for the taskbar.

First, you have to scrub along to get the names of any window. Granted, you're given thumbnails of each window, but unless you're running at 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor, it doesn't help you tell the difference between two image-less word or excel documents.

Expose helps this quite a bit, but I find that the taskbar is much faster. And in the case that I want to see a picture of what I'm working on, the Alt-Tab powertoy provided by MS does the job.

I've used ObjectDock (and YzDock) on and off for a year, and I find myself uninstalling it after about a week of use. It either became a glorifed quicklaunch bar or a glorified system tray, both of which the taskbar is much better suited for.

The only thing that made it close to anywhere as useful as the taskbar was the addition of the start menu plugin, but then I realized I had just recreated the taskbar in a prettier, less useful fashion.

IMHO, Windows still has the best programs interface. The Start menu and the taskbar are the best way to deal with programs. That's why KDE and GNOME imitate it, rather than the dock. That, and Apple comes down on most people who try to create an interface like it (See YzDock). I believe Stardock talked with Apple before releasing their product, though.

Personally, I've use OS X, Linux, and Windows on a regular basis, and I always find myself coming back to Windows. Sure, it may not have Quartz Extreme, but I find its combination of program variety and usability to be perfectly suited to my needs.

Re:ObjectDock

[Anonymous Coward]

You fail it.

Re:ObjectDock

[Frodo Crockett]

The problem with ObjectDock is poor marketing. They try to sell it as some whiz-bang eye candy app (and it does have several useless features) when it's really a fantastic replacement for the start menu and taskbar.

Observe: Exhibit A and Exhibit B

There are other things you can do with it, but those are the most functional. My only complaint is that you cannot make a tabbed bar behave like an OS9 popup folder.

Re:ObjectDock

[drsmithy]

Expose helps this quite a bit, but I find that the taskbar is much faster.

Much as I dislike the Dock, I can't think of many scenarios where the Taskbar would be faster than Expose (assuming you'd done something reasonably clever and mapped it to a mouse button).

Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

If you go installing a ton of crap on your Windows machine, then you won't learn how to use Windows on everyone else's machine, which works pretty damn well. Learn the system, and it's not too bad. It blew my mind once when Anand of Anandtech tried to claim that MacOS X had better keyboard shortcuts than Windows. I love MacOS, but Windows has keyboard accessibility completely nailed.

What Microsoft has done:

Windows-D hides all your apps.

Windows-R brings up the run window.

The only things I've changed:

ctrl-alt-g puts focus in the Google Deskbar.

The Google Deskbar is a part of a side-docked not always-on-top toolbar with my quicklaunch & desktop, with large icons that I can use like a dock. So no matter where I am, ctrl-alt-g gives me access to the stuff I don't want cluttering my taskbar.

If it's always-on-top, then you can't use fitts the way that XP is designed for, which is fantastic.

I'm pretty happy with the setup. My only complaint with Windows is that the text-editing shortcuts aren't the same as MacOS, so my fingers do all the wrong things when I'm typing on either system. Both operating systems have passable text-editing key commands, I just can't learn either one since they're different. If only they both had emacs-mode, I'd just learn it the emacs way.

Anyway, here's a picture of how it works out for me on xp. That's what it looks like when I've popped up my toolbar with ctrl-alt-g.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[larien]

Couple of others:

Windows-E - bring up explorer window
Windows-M - Minimise all windows (seems to be same as Windows-D which I didn't know about).

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Windows-D is a toggle. Hitting it a second time brings everything back.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[ctr2sprt]

I can't speak for how OSX does things, but I agree that keyboard shortcuts in Windows are pretty solid. My main beef is that so many user apps don't implement them properly or at all.

It's possible to control every aspect of a Windows computer (except MMC, dammit) from the keyboard. Except for third-party apps, which are often broken - but you can't blame MS for that. Most keyboard shortcuts have been Windows-standard since the 3.0 days, it's not MS's fault that so many developers are too lazy to implement them.

I would like visual feedback a la MacOS (or Firefox, for that matter) for typeahead find in folders though. But oh well, I type fast enough for it not to be a problem.

Also, are the clipboard shortcuts really different? I seem to remember they're Option+ZXCV, which is not terribly different from Ctrl+ZXCV. It's some vendor-agnostic usability standard; I remember IBM making a big deal of it back in the OS/2 days, when Windows (3.0) wanted you to use Ctrl/Shift+Insert and Shift+Delete for copy, paste, and cut, respectively. (They still work, try them out.)

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Clipboard shortcuts are the same, but line up, line down, word forward, word back, move/select, paragraph up, paragraph down, &c. are all different. Since it's the only way to do it right on both systems, I wind up using the arrow keys a lot, and only memorize the move/select character/word modifiers. I trip up even there.

MMC is so weird. I can't tell if they've got their own scheme for how things should work, or if it's just missing a billion important features. I suspect that it's missing.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[stevey]

I've always used the state-shortcuts instead:

Windows + m == Minimize all apps.

Windows + Shift + m == Revert the minimization.

I guess I've learnt that Windows+D is easier to reverse though!

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[TechnoPops]

Likewise, doing Windows-Shift-M does the same thing.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Huh. There's still some kind of difference, although I'm not sure what:

Windows-D flickers on hide
Windows-M is solid

Windows-D flickers on reveal
Windows-shift-M flickrs more on reveal, only barely. Er, maybe not.

This is now extremely nitpicky, but based on the slightly different behavior, I bet there's stuff I'm not noticing.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[dr.badass]

Windows may have very small number of good shortcuts, but overall, they're pretty half-assed. Yeah, you can minimize all windows, but you can't minimize one app's windows. You can open the Run box, but you can't get Properties. It feels like the people that chose the shortcuts haven't ever spoken to the people that designed the GUI.

I don't have a Windows box handy, but the one the most baffles me is the window/app closing shortcut : Alt+F4.

What sort of freakish mutant flipper must one have to find that even remotely comfortable? When I started using a Mac, I like many was overjoyed that the strokes for two of the most common actions (with app and window closing *separate*, like God intended) were perfectly positioned (Cmd+W / Cmd+Q for the under-initiated).

It all goes back to my overall theory that Microsoft's UI is designed by mutant flipper-people.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

alt-space n
alt-space c

Very handy. Anything you can do with a mouse can be done with a keyboard. You can get properties with the menu key (right click key ?) which is next to the right hand ctrl key on my keyboard.

There are plenty of things that I don't know how to do with the keyboard on Windows, but that's because I don't know Windows very well.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[UnrefinedLayman]

Windows-D shows the desktop. It's the equivalent of the quick launch "Show Desktop" icon. It doesn't actually minimize the windows, it just brings the desktop to the front. Pressing it again undoes the action.

Windows-M actually minimizes each window.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Anonymous Coward]

As You just prooved, these shortcuts are not configurable, poorly designed (what do You need minimizing all windows, when You have virtual desktops) and what do You do to find them? Check all the combinations bruteforce... ;D Try out KDE ones and You'll see how far from good shortcuts windoze is.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[MrScience]

Windows-M minimizes all windows; this cannot be undone without restoring windows one-by-one.
Windows-D shows the Desktop. Doing it again resets all windows to their prior position.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[ConceptJunkie]

Before MMC, all the system stuff was scattered all over the place in an inconsistent and confusing way.

With MMC, it's the same, just harder to navigate. I agree with you that it's just plain horrible. It's seems that MS just can't be bothered with a lot of things.

And with 40 billion dollars and thousands of supposedly smart people working absurd hours, you would think someone at MS would have figured out by now that message boxes that ask Yes/No questions should not have "OK" and "Cancel" as the only choices.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[ConceptJunkie]

Alt-F4 made a whole lot more sense when the function keys were on the left... where God intended them to be.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[CAR912]

Alt+Enter seems to work pretty good to get an object/file's properties.

Ctrl+escape for the start menu (or the wonderful windows key)

I always use alt+tab, alt+space n, and windows+d as well.

Perhaps it is alt+F4 so people don't accidentally hit it and then go "oh sh*t, what have I done?"

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Lord Omlette]

*cough*

Uh, thanks for the Windows-D tip. I'm embarrassed I didn't know about that. ^^;;

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Vryl]

M doesn't always minimize things. D *always* does.

Stupid windows with dialogue boxes that can't be iconised and don't turn up in the the start bar.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[UnrefinedLayman]

...again, Windows-D doesn't minimize anything. It brings the desktop to the front. Windows-M actually minimizes windows, which is why windows that can't be minimized aren't affected.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Vryl]

Right you are.

The madness of doze gets to me sometimes. Why can't you minimize everything?

Gnome has 'iconify' last time I looked. How hard can it be?

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Photar]

Actually in Mac OS X you can customize and remap hotkeys for any app. For example in firefox there are no hot keys to toggle the bookmarkbar or the navigation bar, you can go into the keyboard control panel and make hot keys for that.

Oh, and for OSX you have:
F11 Slide all windows off the screen
F9 Tile all open windows. Then brings one to the front when you click it.
F10 Tile all windows for a particular app.

Another nice thing OS X lets you do is:
[CMD] + ` This switches between windows of the current application.

if you first do
[CMD] + [tab] then do [CMD] + ` it switches the other direction, which is far better than [alt] + [shift] + [tab]

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

I know. Dunno what that refers to in my post, or how it relates at all.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[nachoboy]

You can open the Run box, but you can't get Properties.

Which Properties dialog are you referring to? If you want the System Properties box, it's Win + Break. If you want the properties of the currently selected item (file in Windows Explorer, etc), use Alt + Enter. Or you can use the "context menu" key (typically to the immediate left of the left Ctrl key) + r. If you don't have a Windows keyboard, Shift + F10 is the equivalent of the context menu key.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[jpop32]

A few that I find very useful:

F2 - rename an object
alt-enter - open properties tab

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[drsmithy]

I don't have a Windows box handy, but the one the most baffles me is the window/app closing shortcut : Alt+F4.

Alt+F4 is actually a legacy shortcut (like the old Ctrl+Ins, Shift+Del and Shift+Ins for Copy, Cut & Paste) from the Windows 3.0 & OS/2 days. You can blame IBM for them.

The *correct* "Quit" shortcut key is Ctrl+Q.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Photar]

Crap. Musta replied to the wrong post. Sorry.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Heh. Sorry to get all up in your grill :)

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Elwood P Dowd]

That's kindof fascinating. How did you figure that out?

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[liveevil]

Win + D is reversible. Hit it once to show desktop, then again to bring everything back. Win + M is not reversible, it just minimizes all the windows.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[Photar]

So problem I would have probably done the same.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[portscan]

Windows-L locks the screen.

Re:Use the system, don't fight it.

[UnrefinedLayman]

It's documented in the Help. If you have Windows XP, it's this entry:

ms-its:C:\WINDOWS\Help\keyshort.chm::/keys_general .htm

Without the space.

Some thoughts

[Tamerlan]

I do not install any kind of "Window blinds", it's just a waste of time. Windows already hace nice and usable interface by default. The only tuning I do - I enable ClearType fonts. I also have many "quick start" icons, iTunes toolbar and I have my LCD screen turned into portrait mode (nvidia driver does the 90 deg rotation)

Get rid of the annoying pop-ups

[nick_danger]

It seems that Windows is always popping something up on the screen that forces the user to stop what they're doing to acknowledge before they can continue. And most of these pop-ups are totally meaningless. At times getting anything done with Windows is like playing a game of "Whack-a-mole".

To be fair, not all of the annoying pop-ups come from Windows itself. Norton is really bad about popping up windows that say nothing more than "I'm here to completely interrupt your work to let you know that everything is just fine. Please click here to make me go away for a little while." However, it is a larger problem with WinXP if only because it's become an accepted practice among the software vendors.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong (wait -- this is Slashdot -- someone will correct me mercilessly if I'm wrong) but doesn't the Mac have pretty well defined UI guidelines that cover things like this?

Re:Get rid of the annoying pop-ups

[Ratbert42]

Nothing like being in the middle of typing an email and getting a popup like "Would you like to install this unsigned control from xxyyz.com?" just before you press enter.

Re:Get rid of the annoying pop-ups

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong (wait -- this is Slashdot -- someone will correct me mercilessly if I'm wrong) but doesn't the Mac have pretty well defined UI guidelines that cover things like this?

You are wrong.
wrong
wrong
wrong
wrong.
Mercilessly, completely wrong.
W-R-O-N-G.
Old people in Korea aren't that wrong.
In Soviet Russian, the mistakes wrong you.
Cowboy Neil isn't even that wrong on the poll.
I for one, welcome our new masters, because they wouldn't be that wrong.
Just imagine a Beowulf cluster, all with the wrong answer.

2600 has already covered this

[StarWynd]

A while back there was an article in 2600 about how to "Hack the Look" of Windows. Take a look at the articles here and here.

Pet peeve: file open dialog

[lightspawn]

* auto-switch to "list" view whenever opened, regardless of the last view setting

* auto-sort the "details" view by name, regardless of the last sort setting

* auto-switch to top of list in "details" view - that may arguably the correct behavior but when opening files in the same directory from the same application I want the dialog to remember the scrollbar position to make going over a long list of files and opening some of them less annoying.

Is there any open source (or at least free) software that can fix these problems? Is there any software that fixes the last one?

At least Microsoft figured out by now how to make file dialogs resizable so we can see more than 6 or 12 files at the same time.

Re:Pet peeve: file open dialog

[klui]

I could never understand why sort by name in details separates folders from files. How can I change this? It's one of the most stupid thing ever. I mean, sort by name, not by type.

StrokeIt

[bzBetty]

Out of all the little tools I've come across for windows the one I miss the most on other computers is strokeit http://www.tcbmi.com/strokeit/ "StrokeIt is an advanced mouse gesture recognition engine and command processor." I do pretty much everything using gestures now, closing windows, minimizing, starting explorer, changing song in winamp..... I get really frustrated when the computer doesn't have it install, guess it's kinda a double edged sword.

Strokeit and Trip

[FrenZon]

I find stroke-it to be invaluable after some jigging of the default settings. It's a mouse-gesture recognition system, and can be configured to do just about anything (although I mainly use it for open browser, open explorer and close window.

I also use trip regularly, but I wrote it, so I'm quite biased.

Re:Strokeit and Trip

[Elwood P Dowd]

Any reason to use trip rather than the google deskbar?

Re:Strokeit and Trip

[FrenZon]

Any reason to use trip rather than the google deskbar?

It doubles as a run prompt, and can be used to access services other than google. It also doesn't stay resident in memory.

That said, Trip's not for everyone.

Re:Strokeit and Trip

[Elwood P Dowd]

That certainly counts as a reason. Good stuff.

Like asking for ways to improve RMS's grooming

[Anonymous Coward]

habits. Your suggestions are not welcome and will not be followed.

OS X is retarded.

[Anonymous Coward]

but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface.

No, many elements of OS X are ABSOLUTELY RETARDED. Case in point:

(1) Who do I have to beat to death to get a REAL "maximize" button in OS X? Depending on the situation, "maximize" does one of the following:

* Slightly rearrange the window.
* Make the window smaller.

Instead you have to drag the window up to the top-left corner of the screen - THEN drag the bottom-right of the window out to fill the screen.

OS X defenders say that the system is doing what IT THINKS I want, which usually is "give me a little bit of a bigger view". Preview and Finder are the worst culprits here. I have a nice big screen and I want to see AS MUCH CONTENT AS POSSIBLE. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I WISH OSX WOULD STOP PRETENDING THAT IT KNOWS WHAT I WANT!

(2) The dock.

Seems like it might be a good idea, no? Except that when you have stuff on there, it takes up a significant portion of the bottom of the screen. Because the icons are all square (and if you want a hope in hell of reading any text on them), you can't make them really small. I want to tell the dock "take up the entire bottom edge of my screen, but don't be so damn tall". So I end up telling it to hide, then get frustrated when it takes it's own sweet time paging in when it pops up after not being used for a while.

Forget dock-like utilities for Windows, I want a Taskbar-like utility for OS X.

(3) Horribly inconsistent keyboard mappings for text editing in various applications. This speaks for itself, but I don't want to rant too much.

(4) Menus at the top of the screen.

Because dynamic user interface elements are SO useful and intuitive! I LOVE tooling my mouse up to the top of the screen whenever I want to click on a simple menu! Thanks, Apple!

Virtual Desktops

[Anonymous Coward]

The one thing I *need* is virtual desktops. There are a number of options for this feature, one of which is microsoft power tools. I have tried that and found it lacking. What I use is Virtual Dimensions v1.0. I love it. Without some sort of virtual desktop I would probably go insane trying to use Windows.

More information when copying files!!!

[Richard Steiner]

When I drag and drop a folder C:\FOO in Windows Explorer to any destination, all it says is

"Copying From 'FOO' to 'FOO'"

in the status dialog.

Which drive did I drop it on? It doesn't say.

Where in the tree on that drive is FOO actually being copied? The message given is the same even if I drop it in radically different places, so there's no way I can tell if I dropped it in the wrong place.

And why not provide some sort of file count or byte count instead of the simplified "x seconds remaining"?

Who designed that status dialog???

Re:More information when copying files!!!

[ConceptJunkie]

Who designed that status dialog???

I don't know, but in 10 years, the only improvement they've made has been to change the progress bar to show the progress of the whole transfer rather than each file... and it was a long time before the time estimate was anywhere approaching accurate. I remember the NT 4.0 days where it would say 15 seconds for 10 minutes. In fact, sometimes it still does that.

And in 10 years, you would think someone would take an hour to fix the thing so that when a long copy fails, it doesn't just throw up its hands and say "Screw You!", but allows you to retry, after making space on the disk or whatever.

But no, minor improvements like this are apparently beyond MS's desire... or skill. Explorer locks up on me on almost a daily basis. It sucked in Windows 95 and 10 years later it still sucks. Rather than writing 800 million lines of code for Dot Net, which is so complicated no one can even explain what it is, why not just fix the simple usability problems we've been plagued with since the DOS days.

But improving your product doesn't further your monopoly, unless you can use those improvements to force upgrades... I guess.

Re:More information when copying files!!!

[drsmithy]

Who designed that status dialog???

People who know that for 99% of users, "X of Y bytes copied" is meaningless, but "2 minutes remaining" is not.

Re:More information when copying files!!!

[Richard Steiner]

So make it an option. They have many options in the Filemanager already that toggle features that mean nothing to the typical user.

Things I can't live without...

[phallstrom]

Putty for SSH
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/

CTRL-CAPS Lock Switcher
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/source/ctrl2cap. shtml

Obvious

[fixer007]

Go to an all command-line interface.

Add "Find Parent" to each shortcut's context menu.

[Richard Steiner]

OS/2 had this over ten years ago, and it still isn't an option in Windows. It's sometimes nice to be able to quickly open a program's original directory to look at documentaton or whatever.

...and how about a bundled icon editor?

[Richard Steiner]

OS/2 had this. I *like* creating custom icons for my programs and folders.

PowerPro

[Anonymous Coward]

PowerPro, even if you don't have the chops to really get into it (once I got multiple desktops I didn't bother getting deeper into it).
It's been around for a long time, it can do amazing things according to the testimonials, and works just fine on XP for me.
http://powerpro.webeddie.com/

Turn it off

[klui]

My advice: turn it off. I do it on all my machines that I'm forced to run XP. Also turn off the fade, slide, etc. animations.

Its default theme's minimize, maximize, and close boxes are way too big. Does MS think everyone needs glasses? The other thing is that they're much too close together and it is easy to click one when you meant something else--unlike OS X where the widgets are further apart.

See? Functional after that. I do admit that I use ClearType. First time I did it on an LCD I thought something was wrong with the display because of the color fringes it adds.

thats all??

[Simon]

Mate, you're not even trying if that is all you can come up with. :-)

Try on:

* doesn't show the full path to the current directory!

* it seems you can't modify the big shortcut buttons on the left hand side of the dialog to point somewhere useful.

* you can't directly type in the directory you want.

* there is no way of entering a custom "filter by filetype" pattern. (eg. *.py)

* it always seems to forget its size and/or position between uses.

* when a model dialog (like the file dialog) is open, you can't even move the parent window. It's blocked completely. grrr.

--
Simon

Re:thats all??

[TechnoPops]

* it seems you can't modify the big shortcut buttons on the left hand side of the dialog to point somewhere useful.

Download the TweakUI PowerToy. It let's you change those to whatever you like.

* you can't directly type in the directory you want.

Sure you can. Just put your cursor in the file name box and type away. It'll even autocomplete for you.

* there is no way of entering a custom "filter by filetype" pattern. (eg. *.py)

Ditto with this. Type *.py in the file name box, hit enter, and all your Python files will only show up.

Re:thats all??

[Simon]

> > * you can't directly type in the directory you
> > want.
>
> Sure you can. Just put your cursor in the file
> name box and type away. It'll even autocomplete
> for you.

You type the directory in at a completely different place on the dialog than where the current dir is displayed, which doesn't make sense... but anyway, I guess you are right.

> > * there is no way of entering a custom "filter
> > by filetype" pattern. (eg. *.py)
>
> Ditto with this. Type *.py in the file name box,
> hit enter, and all your Python files will only
> show up.

nope, not on vanilla XP. The file dialog in Word and Textpad won't let me do that... :-/

--
Simon

Re:thats all??

[Anonymous Coward]

You've always been able to do this, as far back as I can remember (windows 3.x)

You could even do it with DOS. >> dir *.ext

Sounds like you need a dummies book.

Maximise/close buttons!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a newbie miss the maximise button and hit the close button instead. Newbies don't have very good mouse skills.

Putting a destructive button a single pixel away from a non-destructive, often-used button is a hideous mistake that somebody should have been fired for.

At the very least, let me configure systems to put it on the other side of the title bar. KDE lets me do this.

How many users need access to the menu that the left-hand button brings up anyway? Why can't they right-click on the title bar to get the menu instead?

Windows "window manager"...

[nickos]

Get MS to untie us from the Windows "window manager" so that we can run 3rd party ones or write our own. I'd love to get rid of the raise-on-focus policy (if anyone knows how to do this I'd love to know about it)...

Re:Windows "window manager"...

[Codename_V]

Seems like tweakui or whatever the heck it was called had a 'focus follows mouse' option.

Re:Windows "window manager"...

[nickos]

Yeah, I know about that, I was thinking of something more like what the Amiga used to do whereby clicking on a window would not bring it to the front, and a windows Z-order could only be changed by clicking on a button on its titlebar - very useful once you got used to it...

Re:Windows "window manager"...

[themuffinking]

Boom.

LiteStep.

Re:Windows "window manager"...

[mvdw]

I, too, would love to get rid of the raise-on-focus of windows. I like my X-window system, where I can set focus-follows-mouse, raise-on-click. To type something in a window, I only have to put the mouse over the window, and it doesn't hide what was originally in front.

Another of my least-favourite aspects of windows is the ability of apps to dictate whether their windows can be changed in size. Sometimes I *like* to resize a window/dialog box, even if the original designer doesn't believe I should be able to. Web pages are a prime example of this; some web pages won't resize under windows, but I can change them no problems under Linux.

Re:Windows "window manager"...

[nickos]

Nope, that's a shell (explorer.exe replacement).

Consistency and Integratioin.

[mabinogi]

The two things that people love to say is Windows' advantage are actually things they do really badly.

Why can't I rename the recycle bin, when I can rename "My Computer", "Network Places" and "My Documents?"

Why don't I have a "send to" context menu on items in a zip folder?
In fact, why do zip files act nothing like regular folders at all when explorer presents them as if they are.

Why do control panel items open up in a dialogue style menu, when you've navigated to them via a web style interface?

Why does MS-Office _always_ have a totally different look and feel to any existing windows version at the time of its release?

Why can't I open from and save to WebDav and ftp from any application?

Why can I use windows networking paths (being able to "cd //servername/sharename") in cygwin of all things, but not in cmd.exe?
I think they had to actually try to make that one not work, as fopen() in Windows will accept those paths.

Microsoft loves to introduce an idea - and then not follow through with a complete and useful implementation, but they'll still use their half arsed useless implementation as an example of how innovative they are.
Innovation is all very well, but it does you fuck all good if you have the worst implementation of your own idea.

Windows could be an absolutely excellent environment if only Microsoft finished half of what they started.

Re:Consistency and Integratioin.

[Jherico]

In fact, why do zip files act nothing like regular folders at all when explorer presents them as if they are.

Because zip folders are a new feature and aren't as polished as everything else.

Why does MS-Office _always_ have a totally different look and feel to any existing windows version at the time of its release?

Well, that's hardly a failing of the OS is it? But in point of fact, the release cycle of Office, arguably one of the most used applications on windows besides IE and games, allows the microsoft team to experiment with additional UI polishing efforts. You'll frequently notice the well recieved changes in Office finding their way in to the next version of Windows.

Why can I use windows networking paths [...] not in cmd.exe?

In point of fact you can. If I say 'copy \\server\share\foo.txt c:\' it will work fine, as long as I'm able to authenticate against that share. Granted, you can't change to a network directory unless you mount it somewhere, but I'm pretty sure that's the case on Mac and Unix as well.

Microsoft loves to introduce an idea - and then not follow through with a complete and useful implementation,

This is actually a common problem with developing features in software. You can make a feature, and you can decide its not popular enough to not warrant further effort, but got help you if you ever remove a feature. When you add a feature to software, keep that in mind, because somewhere out there, no matter how bad the feature is, will love it, use it, and scream bloody murder and never upgrade again if you remove it.

Re:Consistency and Integratioin.

[nachoboy]

Why can I use windows networking paths [...] not in cmd.exe?

In point of fact you can. If I say 'copy \\server\share\foo.txt c:\' it will work fine, as long as I'm able to authenticate against that share. Granted, you can't change to a network directory unless you mount it somewhere, but I'm pretty sure that's the case on Mac and Unix as well.

One thing you can do if you really like to change directories to network paths is use pushd instead of cd. pushd supports \\server\share terminology - it will auto-map a drive (as long as you have permissions, of course) and put you there.

It's left as an exercise for the reader to create a command script to automatically substitute pushd for cd when moving to a network share.

Re:Consistency and Integratioin.

[SpinyManiac]

I know it's not in the GUI, but it is possible.
I'm probably stating the obvious, but it's here:
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\CLSID\{645FF040-5081-101B-9F08-0 0AA002F954E}
The (Default) string is the one you want.

Re:Consistency and Integratioin.

[great om]

Why can I use windows networking paths (being able to "cd //servername/sharename") in cygwin of all things, but not in cmd.exe?
I think they had to actually try to make that one not work, as fopen() in Windows will accept those paths.

I actually discovered a fix for this while doing some scripted batch file installs: try using pushd \\nwname\share (it will mount the share as a drive automagically and then cd to it, stupid work around, but it works)

-

Two Apps and Few Tweaks

[JPyObjC Dude]

GoScreen virtual desktop
- Well written little app.
- Does not lock up like msvd
- Has Sticky windows ...
- I have 10 vd windows - I know alot but I have alot of windows. By using arrow keys in combination with `ctrl-windows-alt` -or- `window-alt` I have 8 easy to remember windows. Nice thing about this setup as well is that it works on _most_ laptops and apple comps.
- I cannot live without my virtual desktop. I use the mouse about half of what I used before and I rareyl hit the maximize or minimise buttons anymore.

True Launch Bar
- Can have kde'ish taskbar menus
- Not even OSX has something like this
--- Although if Mac could figure out a way of doing this I'd be mucho felice
- The plug-ins are cute but not very stable but he overall usabilty improvement is mind boggling
- I don't use desktop menus or the start menu any more.
- Quick launch are only needed for 4 apps - Show desktop, Explorer (with konquorer icon), Firefox and an FTP gui

Moving task bar to left hand side of the screen is also a good move for real estate. I tend to do this with the dock in OSX as well and it makes the user interfaces *somewhat* similar.

I just use native styles. I find XP styles are too bloated. I totally believe in less is more with UI's.

JsD

Nvidia Owners Only

[nuintari]

Nvidia Nview is pretty handy for the X junkie who has to live in windows.

It can do a very nice on mouse over auto raise, sloppy focus style. It needs more options for people who are yused to a different type of mouse focus. But for those who prefer sloppy, its there.

MS Power Toys include a virtual desktop manager, but it sucks. Nview has a much better one, that has far fewer bugs (but it does have them), and is _much_ faster.

Then there are the little features, which include, but are not limited to: shading (minimize to title bar), throwing (toss a window accross the screen and watch it stick to the opposite edge), and true transparency (for those with massive cpu time to waste).

But of course, you non Nvidia people miss out.

Mac OS is not so hot

[pyrotic]

not only beautiful, but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface

Excuse me? Since when was rendering metalic textures for half your windows either efficient, or functional? OK, GPU might make it less inefficient, but it's hardly the simplest thing to render to a screen. And it gets worse when you try to work out WHY the windows are metal. Why is my web browser metal, but my FTP program not?

And don't get me started on the "traffic lights" window closing buttons. Apple wrote the book on colourised user interfaces (Inside Macintosh), which they then ignored. They also had a good section in that book on Fitt's law, and how stuff in a fixed position at the edge of a screen is easiest to mouse to. So they stick the dock floating somewhere at the base of the screen, at variying positions depending on how many apps you have open. OK, expose is nice, font rendering is good, admin is less of a chore than with traditional unix, but I really wish they'd bothered reading their own guidelines from the 80s. Humans still only use 2 eyes and 1 mouse, it's not as though faster CPUs have rendered WIMP obsolete. Man, it almost makes me long for Motif.

Taskbar default

[r00k123]

The taskbar's default position should be on the left-hand side of the screen, not the bottom. Here's why:

1. Having the bar at the bottom uses up vertical space, esp. when it's two units high or more. Reading stuff on a screen requires much more vertical space than horizontal. Moving the bar to the side frees up vertical space and results in less scrolling.

2. You can fit WAY more quicklaunch buttons without affecting how much taskbar room you have for running programs. Quicklaunch buttons are a blessing and I can't live without em.

3. You also get way more room for the hooks for running programs that show on the taskbar (can't think of a better way to describe them). They stack vertically and you can fit dozens more than when the taskbar is horizontal.

Seriously, once you move the startbar to the side and get used to it, you'll keep it there forever. Give it a shot if you haven't tried it.

Re:Taskbar default

[obeythefist]

I'm much more jealous of my monitor's real estate than you are! I autohide the task bar. That way I don't see it unless I need it at the bottom of the screen. You can bounce the mouse down to the bottom of the screen to bring it up, or hit the windows key to make the start menu pop up. This has all the benefits of maximinising your real estate.

Admittedly, you do miss out on the additional space for extra "hooks" or "tasks", and the system tray space (but I also despise filling up the system tray with meaningless apps that like chewing up my system resources, I keep a clean windows whenever I can).

Re:Taskbar default

[cookiepus]

The taskbar's default position should be on the left-hand side of the screen, not the bottom. Here's why:

Obviously, whatever works for you is the way to go... but I don't believe your arguments are compelling:

1. Having the bar at the bottom uses up vertical space, esp. when it's two units high or more. Reading stuff on a screen requires much more vertical space than horizontal. Moving the bar to the side frees up vertical space and results in less scrolling.

Whenever you need to read something which requires vertical space, you will probably need to scroll pages anyway. You can easily do it with page down / spacebar / whatever. Also, you only have to do it whenever you reach the bottom of the page. So decreasing your vertical space a few pixels is not a huge deal. On the other hand, if by taking up horizontal space you force yourself to have to scroll sideways, that sucks - because you'd have to do it more frequently than every page.

2. You can fit WAY more quicklaunch buttons without affecting how much taskbar room you have for running programs. Quicklaunch buttons are a blessing and I can't live without em.

Because you start off with taking up much more screen real estate...

3. You also get way more room for the hooks for running programs that show on the taskbar (can't think of a better way to describe them). They stack vertically and you can fit dozens more than when the taskbar is horizontal.

Again, this generally means that you're taking up more area than you did otherwise.

I have a folder on my system which has subfolders with shortcuts. The folder is a quick-lunch on the taskbar. It has a little arrow on it, which then has all my shortcuts in it. It's like a mini-start button

Re:Taskbar default

[SorcererX]

I agree, I started using the taskbar to the right side of the screen back when I got a 22" CRT and realized that when visiting webpages.. it's a lot more efficient to keep the taskbar to the left or right hand side. I use the same approach on XFCE4, Mac OS X as well as Windows.

Re:Taskbar default

[drsmithy]

You can fit WAY more quicklaunch buttons without affecting how much taskbar room you have for running programs. Quicklaunch buttons are a blessing and I can't live without em.

Once you've embraced the new XP Start Menu's recently-launched-programs list, Quicklaunch icons become an anachronism.

Re:Taskbar default

[miller701]

Agreed. I used to hate the new XP interface in its entirety. I've warmed up to that part of it now that I've upped the number of apps to 9 instead of the usual 4. (same for Office since about '97)

Folder windows still suck.

I find OS X to much better (but not perfect).

Re:Taskbar default

[ntilde_cr]

holy crap I had never done it, and actually it's great. You're totally right. It's a pain in the ass that once you open up more that 4 or 5 different things in XP, those little hooks start getting all piled up. With the taskbar on the left. You can have up to 15 little hooks without them getting staked one on top of the other. thnx for the tip

Re:Taskbar default

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, put it on the right.

Many moronic Windows software vendors will assume that the upper-left screen coordinates (0,0) are always free - therefore you won't mind when they start their application up there, right?

The windows from such vendors will often render UNDER the taskbar, forcing you to move the window out from under it before using the application in earnest (since many useful items are on the window's left hand side).

The right side of the screen does not have these problems, but still offers all the benefits of screen area, etc. that you identified.

It does take some getting used to, but not as much as Fisher Price!

About Windows-M

[devphil]

Windows-M minimises.

Shift-Windows-M restores all the things that were previosuly minimised by Windows-M.

Bash

[pete-classic]

Cywin. Bash. Lovely.

-Peter

obviously...

[XTbushwakko]

you are all missing the most importang feature in OSX, kompose!

If it's Mac you want...

[NetCynicism]

Aqua Dock

I also like and use Desktop Sidebar when I have to boot to XP.

Address bar in task bar.

[knisa]

One of the first things I do when I'm on a new 2000 or XP box is add the address bar to my task bar. (Right click on task bar | toolbars | Address). From there, you can type almost any command you like. I almost never use the start menu now; I just click into the address bar and type winword (or soffice -writer). You can also just type a URL to go directly to it, type c:\ to go straight to the root of c: in explorer, cmd to get a command prompt, or lusrmgr.msc to open user manager.

I often use it while telnetting to network devices (go to address bar, type telnet 10.x.x.x). It really can't be beat, and nobody does it.

Steve

Re:Address bar in task bar.

[Photar]

Thats cool. [win]+[r] isn't too bad though.

I like it for commands now. Thats nice. I was worried that if I used it for a url that it would open IE but if Firefox is your default browser its opens urls in firefox.

I also use a couple batch files to simulate the ssh and telnet command with putty:

ssh.bat:
start " " "c:\putty.exe -ssh %1

telnet.bat:
start " " "c:\putty.exe -telnet %1

put those bat files somehwere in the path and you're set. :)

Re:Address bar in task bar.

[P-Nuts]

You can also just type ... lusrmgr.msc to open user manager.

lusrmgr.msc really reads far too easily like Luser Manager. I was dissapointed to find out that the L probably stands for local.

Re:Address bar in task bar.

[Anonymous Coward]

I must be no one!
Asshole!

Embed web pages in your taskbar

[samrolken]

An often-missed feature of Windows is the fact that you can embed anything on the web into your taskbar. If you find documents appropriately-sized, this can make it easy to add live information to the taskbar.

If you're locked out

[magefile]

If you're locked out of installing stuff & changing Control Panel options, you can still do a few things to make it better. I've installed both Firefox (with a shitload of extensions) and Openoffice.org on my network drive, even though you usually can't install stuff on the user accounts where I am. Firefox needs to be set up as portable firefox (Google it), but other than that, it works great.

It sucks, though, when the program you're using requires that you access C:\ to use plugins ... most folders are accessible through the start menu bug, but a few of them are actually (amazingly, given how the techs @ my school usually do things) locked down.

And on a related note

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Also check out the many useful tools available from SysInternals. These guys are serious Windows hackers and know how to integrate tightly with the internals. For general use, Process Explorer is a must-have replacement for task manager, and many of the others are useful if you're working in the areas they concern. And they give them away free, and a fair bit of source code too, bless them.

Re:And on a related note

[reika]

The blue-screen-of-death screensaver is hilarious!

Programming fonts

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I've spent a long time trying to find a decent programming font that's not tiny but still distinguishes the usual similar characters clearly. (My eyes aren't good enough, particularly when running at the high res I prefer for other reasons, for all these single-figure-square bitmap jobs.)

I did try several proportional fonts for a while, including Verdana, but it just proved too difficult to keep the code tidy. Too many things I read and write take up more than one line, and we try to keep things as inherently messy as multi-line statements as readable as possible using good alignment conventions.

FWIW, at the moment, I'm using Bitstream Vera Sans Mono in quite a large size (something like 12pt IIRC). Neither Courier variations (too light) nor Lucida Console (too heavy) were really working for me.

Re:Programming fonts

[eric2hill]

I went looking for a new set of fonts for my workstation a year or so ago. I wound up purchasing Pragmata (fixed-width) and Sys (proportional) from FABRIZIO SCHIAVI DESIGN. These two fonts have completely replaced nearly every other font in my Windows box, including the default system fonts.

Traysaver

[chalkoutline]

I found a really useful little tool called TraySaver. It allows you to minimize any running program to the tray, and hide any unhidable icons from the system tray, including its own icon. Without it I feel swamped by the countless icons Windows forces me to keep, including the 'Safely Remove Hardware' dialog asking me if I want to disconnect my USB modem. Uh, no.

Isn't this obvious?

[BritneySP2]

Bash under Cygwin. Functional and beautiful!

For something a bit more serious and sweeping...

[leonbrooks]

...try this.

Explorer... RIP

[Eric Pierce]

Hands down best Explorer replacement I've found (of course, it's not too tough to out do Explorer - God awful app).

xplorer2 - http://zabkat.com/

It's a powerhorse, dual pane file browser with a gazillion keyboard shortcuts that replace so much tideous mouse clickity-clicking.

Note: there's a free "lite" version for personal use.

Browsable folder shortcuts.

[complete loony]

At work there are a bunch of folders on the network I have to use all the time, but there are too many to map network drives, and they are buried deep in folder heirachies. So here's a tip for you.
Use the My Network Places folder to create a link to any remote location.
Copy and Paste this folder to any other folder on your PC.
The real folder (not the one you see in explorer) contains a shortcut called target.lnk.
Using a dos window you can replace this shortcut with a shortcut to any folder you want, even a local one. (also useful if you need to hide a folder from any casual observers, as the real contents of that folder will never be visible from explorer...)
So now I've got a quick launch folder with a dozen of these folders in it that I can use to browse to all the crap on the network that I need to use regularly.

A big list

[Darth_Burrito]

For me, the biggest problems with the windows UI are the things that are missing.

• Programming editor with syntax highlighting, something like editplus.
• An industrial grade database (msde but with a usable interface)
• centrally manageable Apt-get like software package management.
• Remote Desktop access on XP Home
• SSH client & server
• A little choice for common applications (web browsers, email).
• A scripting environment that doesn't suck.
• A command line environment that doesn't suck.
• Outlook deserves it's own wing in the museum of usability nightmares.
• Network places was a horrible idea. Now no one knows how to find anything on a network if it's not a shortcut in network places.
• XP is lousy at search on so many levels. Example find-text-in-files doesn't show you the context of the matching text. Even searching by filename is very slow.
• The OS litterally hides things from users. Abstracting complex ideas is good. Information hiding can be good. But you shouldn't hide information that a user is going to need at some point. For example, people need to access those hidden application data directories all the time because, go figure, that's where a lot of applications keep their data. Yet they are both hidden and buried.

Re:A big list

[mvdw]

Outlook deserves it's own wing in the museum of usability nightmares.

Amen to that, brother.

Re:A big list

[SpinyManiac]

CREdit works for me.

litestep

[flabbergast]

When I was running WinXP on a 1.3Ghz Celeron M laptop, even with all the gui stuff turned off, it still ran slow. I blame the Intel Extreme 2 shared video. Anyways, I installed litestep because I had read its amazingly efficient. It effectively replaces your shell. It behaves much like a light weight X-windowing system.
For more about replacement shells, check Shellfront

YzDock

[poppen_fresh]

I use TGT Soft's Style XP to display different themes, but my main UI addition to XP is YzDock. Its development has been stopped by Apple's legal team the last time I checked, but you can still find it.
Basically, it's a dock just like in OSX, and it's incredibly customizable, supporting things like the recycling bin, etc.

Good Tools

[Gigs]

True Launch Bar is a great quick launch replacement with menus and many plugins.

True X-Mouse Gizmo Gives you X-windows like cut and paste in windows. a bit buggy IMO. I use a macro enabled mouse now for the same functions.

AutoHotKey Script Windows GUI, just plain Great!

Stardock friends at work use some of their tools. Looks like you can redefine just about anything with their toolset.

Stop your fucking whining!

[Anonymous Coward]

Awww, little faggot, forced to use Windows XP? Poor baby. Some countries don't even have computers. Or you could have been born without arms, you whining little faggot. You are just another LinSux zealot who raves incestantly about the steaming pile known as LinSux, the worst OS ever written. Die, zealot, die!

Wow...

[schon]

You know, when I tried KDE 3.2, that's the *first* thing I noticed - dialog boxes (and even new app windows, if a bunch are launched concurrently) don't steal focus.

I'm surprised that Windows still allows this.

My biggest gripe

[Dracos]

The thing that annoys me constantly about Windows is that it automatically makes a selection out of any editable text that gets clicked on. File -> Save As, click on filename (argh) click again to clear the selection, maybe click again to get the cursor in the right place so I can type just before the filename extension.

That's not just an XP thing. If I'm forced to use XP, I immediately turn off the silly Fisher Price plastic window decorations. And the mouse shadow. And the menu fading. Generally, I get rid of the eye candy, which only seves to distract the user from the flaws in the interface.

GeoShell

[FreeForm Response]

This topic shows up about once a year, and I always make it a point to pimp my favorite productivity enhancer, GeoShell.

GeoShell is a shell replacement, which means it runs instead of your taskbar and start menu. You can easily replicate those if you really like them, but I much prefer the flexibility of having individually-docked "GeoBars", which are completely customizable. For instance, along the top of my screen I have a GeoBar showing all my drives for easy access, a GeoBar with system and network traffic monitors and a clock, and a GeoBar with my QuickLaunch folder. Add the GeoBar in the bottom-right corner for running tasks and the system tray, and I'm set. You can also create menus which can be triggered by GeoBar icons, mouse clicks, and even keyboard shortcuts, such as my running tasks menu (Win+T) and my QuickLaunch menu (Win+Q).

I apologize; I tend to ramble. Feel free to ignore what I was saying, but do go check out the Screenshots archive to see just how flexible and customizable you can get. =)

P.S.- If anybody knows of a window manager for Linux that affords this level of customization, please drop me a line. I've tried Kahakai, Fluxbox and XFCE, but none of them are quite what I'm looking for.

sad.

[St. Arbirix]

Wtf? Where are all the Litestep comments?

Since apparently no one's heard of or uses it, Litestep is like fluxbox on Windows and precludes the need for explorer.exe to be running.

Here's an installer.
Here's a module site.
Here and here are some themes for it.

Seriously people. If only the lightweight Linux desktop environments were half as pretty as Litestep.

Use an alternative shell

[Ankle]

Rather than using explorer, replace it with LiteStep or another of the F/OSS shells avialable for Windows. Litestep has come has come a long way as have some of the themes, I can recommend Non|Step.
Some LiteStep related links:
LiteStep 0.24.7 RC installer
Plenty more, just use google. :) LiteStep 0.24.6 RC3 core (You'd need this update after installing as the installer hasn't been updated in awhile.)
Forums & Modules

Re:For something a bit more serious and sweeping..

[emc]

that's cute.

I'd agree, except for the fact that he said 'improving'. He did not mention a requirement to remove compatibility with most applications, nor request that it become sluggish.

OSX on windows

[jackbird]

OS X skin for WinXP

format c:

[zufar]

is the best utility to improve windows overall. Why would /. be a place for free market research for MS?

even better, get answers from slashdot!

[RMH101]

C: "It looks like you're trying to write a letter!"
You: "How do I format this?"
C: "M$ WinBLOWS! l33t s3cret@r13s use OPENOFFICE!"
you could really run with this one...

Re:even better, get answers from slashdot!

[Darth_Burrito]

Perhaps one of the reasons I like clippy is that I make intelligent use of him. Asking the office assistant "How do I format this" makes about as much sense as using a hammer to brush your teeth.

In Outlook 2003, if you give the assistant your query, you get a bunch of gibberish. However, if you just type in "format text", you get several relevant results (changing font, changing to plain text/rtf/html, etc). I guess what I'm saying is that the knowledge base behind clippy is incomplete but useful and that I don't mind having an avatar interface.

Your gonna hate MS's next move...

[haplo21112]

...our contacts at MS have informed us that the final version of "longhorn" will dump the windows "classic" interface intoduced in win95. The XP style will be the default from this point forward.

Re:Add "Find Parent" to each shortcut's context me

[SpinyManiac]

I install the Windows 95 Target PoweerToy. It works under XP.
It gives you a Target sub-context menu. The first item is Open Containing Folder.

are you sure?

[way2trivial]

Anything you can do with a mouse can be done with a keyboard.

I'd actually like to know how I can set multiple files that are apart in a selected state with a keyboard.

I can hold shift and arrowkey around to select multiple files, but if they are not adjoining, I can't do the equivelant of a Ctrl+click to add a file to the files already selected...

Re:are you sure?

[Elwood P Dowd]

fwiw, yes:

Select the first file that you're interested in. Use ctrl-arrow to navigate to the second file you'd like to select. Hit the spacebar to select it. Both items will remain selected, and you can continue selecting new items with ctrl-arrow.

Dunno if there's any way to select them without arrowing through everything, like typing the name of the file.

Re:are you sure?

[way2trivial]

and a bow with a flourish is delivered unto you this day,

Thank you good sir, your instruction has proven valuable indeed, I stand corrected, and happily so!

Screen Real Estate

[CompVisGuy]

One of the main differences between the Apple UI and the Windows UI (and an area in which the Apple UI is vastly superior, IMHO) is the policy taken on screen real estate. The Windows model is clearly incorrect, and the approach has been copied in many free UIs (e.g. GNOME, KDE).

Imagine you have just bought a brand new LCD monitor. It was expensive, and you don't want to have paid for under-utilised pixels:

You use Windows, and open a typical Windows app. Your desktop now looks like this:

• At the bottom of the screen is the taskbar, which takes up around 1/20th of the vertical height of the screen.
• At the top of the screen you have the title bar for the app, another 1/20th.
• Next down is the menu bar for the app, another 1/20th of the screen height.
• Next down is the toolbar for the app, another 1/20th of the screen height.

We have now got 16/20ths (80%) of the screen height left to actually display app-specific content. Now let's see what a typical app displays.

• The app uses a multiple document interface (MDI), so we have yet another title bar, losing another 1/20th of the screen height.
• Below the title bar is a a ruler, or some other kind of widget bar. That's another 1/20th.
• At the bottom of the MDI window, there is a status bar. Another 1/20th gone.

Now we actually get to see the document that the user wants to work on. It occupies just 65% of the screen's vertical real estate.

Horizontal real estate is generally not wasted as much, and there's more of it to begin with. Often there will be some kind of vertical shortcut bar to the left.

The problem is obvious. We've spent a few hundred on that new LCD monitor, and Windows has wasted almost half of it in the vertical direction.

The Apple solution is to use a single menu bar at the top of the screen that changes, depending on the currently-active application. Windows-style MDIs are not used, saving space. Status bars at the bottom of the screen are rarely used, saving more space. The Dock is too big by default, at around 2/20th - 3/20th of the screen's vertical height. I make it dissapear (just as one can do with the Window's taskbar).

Windows also has a system tray, that every 3rd party software vendor feels compelled to populate. So the horizontal screen real-estate in the task bar is wasted. XP 'solves' this by making rarely-used items vanish, but this is a bit of a strange solution: the 3rd party vendor is saying "here is something the user should know about" and the OS's UI is saying "this isn't important".

I would like to see future UIs make minimal demands on the screen real estate, leaving as much as possible to the user and their applications.

Get used to it?

[teddlesruss]

XP and Windows are valid operating systems, and there are more boxen running some form of Win than probably all the other boxes put together.

Like it or not, trying to turn a Wintel box into an Apple is not going to happen.

Where I work originally made their software to run on SG machines. Guess what? We are now a Windows shop because all our customers couldn't wait to throw out expensive O2s and Indis and Indigos in favour of standard Wintel.

Get used to it...

General Usability

[UnknownSoldier]

1. Problem: In the File Open Dialog, there is a left column showing common locations. Why can't one drag Folders into this to make their own "favorite" directory list? This should be supported out of the box.

Mac OS X does a very good job with this. Just drag a folder in Finder to the left, and it creates a shortcut / link to the one dragged in, that other applications see as well.

2. Problem: The text in a Window Title stretched all the way across a window. This wastes a lot of valuable screen estate, especially one a big monitor.

Soluion: Anyone who has used BeOS knows how one could drag the Window "Tabs", making it VERY easy to have multiple windows taking up the same physical space and easily select among them.

3. Problem/Solution: A way to remap the dam CAPS key so it _does't_ change the upper/lower case state. I wanted it treated just like any other key. I have my CAPS used in gaming, but when I go to type messages to others, half the time the text is lower case, the other half, upper case. Very Annoying.

4. Stop the Automatic Focus Switching!! Ever have an app bring up a dialog box, another app brings the focus up (i.e. low batteries in mouse), but you can't find the orginal child dialog, because it is BEHIND the parent window?!! Clicking on the parent, SHOULD bring focus to the child dialog!

5. More control over skinning, supported out of the box. I should be able to use any .bmp, or .jpeg for the UI elements. Also give me a few options where the buttons are, i.e. close ('X') button can be left or right, the ability to disable borders, etc.

6. All dialog boxes should support resizing. Some of the text fields are too small, especially one that contains a path. It's a little ridiculous on a big monitor I'm forced to used a tiny dialog box.

Peace

Re:Add "Find Parent" to each shortcut's context me

[Richard Steiner]

Sure, but that isn't the base product. I can downoad an X server for Windows as well, but that doesn't mean that Windows supports X. :-)

Re:Add "Find Parent" to each shortcut's context me

[SpinyManiac]

I can't argue with you, but at least it's available.
What bothers me is why something so useful isn't part of Windows, especially since it was released nine years ago.

Two rows, right on

[Hecatonchires]

At home I use two rows, at work three. I often have _many_ windows open. Being able to see the name of the window I'm switching to is good

One word: Opus

[XenonOfArcticus]

I'm a former Amigan, and we had a file manager tool called Directory Opus that was the king of all file managers. It goes for usability, especially for power users.

Now they have a Windows version, and I bought it as soon as I heard about it:

http://gpsoft.com.au/

I have yet to find anything that can touch it. Seriously. If you have to use windows, go download the demo, but I warn you, once you see what it can do, and how powerful and customizable it is, you won't want to give it up. Plus, they're a bunch of really good, hardworking chaps, who listen to what their users want. I don't get any benefit from plugging their software, but I want everyone to know about it. Death to Explorer!

Messages should not be gone forever

[Thunderbear]

Apparently each and every program needs to pop up an infobox in the lower right corner when it needs to tell me something, and allow me to click on it to do some relevant action.

If you miss that window, it is gone forever, and with it the opportunity to click on whatever it said.

I'd like a facility that allows the user to see what has happened in that lower right corner, and do whatever could be done at that time. AND enforce that all program should use that interface so that their messages was logged.

HEY EVERYONE LOOK HERE IM AWESOME

[Anonymous Coward]

shortcut for new folder!! jesus christ how long must we wait???

folders that i can't delete until i restart explorer and sometimes restart the whole pc

the folder refresh bug where you have to open another window to see your files

built in tools like smart file renamer, alarm clock...

explorer being able to handle thousands of files, hundreds of thousands of files
or even just a few hundred media files

the ability to show folder sizes in a window besides the recycle bin

better ways to organize folders.. select a group of files and create a folder around them..

a smarter way to sort filenames in explorer.. a smart renamer tool would make this option less useful but imagine if files could be sorted by a number text string in the filename, not alphabetically but like.. "group by similar name strings"

a right click menu that doesn't stall when i put the mouse over "send to"

look at a tool like servant salamander or windows commander.. all that stuff should be built-in to begin with

personally i think the OS itself is fine, the underlying components seem to be working ok

the problem here is explorer.exe.. its buggy, slow, not exactly full of features, you cant configure it

come on microsoft, just open source that ONE COMPONENT of your OS and everything will be fine!

yeah i know i can get explorer replacements, i bet thats the whole point of this question, but i just want the built-in GUI to not suck ;D

I wonder...

[knappz]

Do they offer fluxbox for Windows? *snicker snicker*

Ten biggest UI "problems"

[mrsbrisby]

I can't get Windows to do these things without writing programs to a poorly-published API.

1. Alt-drag for moving windows (middle or right-drag from border)
2. Double-click opens new copy instead of existing window- this is just wrong. God why would I want two copies of Visual Studio open?
3. No button to reach window-list (os/2 ctrl-esc) - that Task Manager bastard doesn't count.
4. Stop programs from stealing focus (put a delay between popup and autofocus- say, 250msec)
5. Nobody selects "blocks" in the command prompt. Give us xterm-style line selects
6. If Win,R brings up the run-prompt, and I run Remote desktop Administrator, then Win,R should still bring up the run-prompt. Number "recent applications" instead.
7. Put site-icons on toolbars and in the window list. Scarring them is okay, but everyone uses them now, so let's tell our little blue-e's apart.
8. Let me drag with the right-mouse button without pretending I'm a lefty.
9. Those damned bubbles popping off the notification area should go away if I ignore them long enough. If I click the "X" on them, and they're informational, they should never come back.
10. Let me unplug things like pcmcia cards and usb dongles without getting yelled at _OR_ make the "unplug/eject" button bigger. Much bigger. 64x64 minimum, my hands shake and my eyes are bad.

I dare someone to tell me all of these things are possible if I download some untrustworthy software- if I had a Windows machine, I would never put anything on it except officially sanctioned software- just as on my FC3 machine, I don't install anything except from the Fedora software catalogs.

Knoppix

[ONOIML8]

I carry a Knoppix CD with me at work. That is by far the best thing to do if you're forced to use Windows. Just drop the disk in and restart the machine. Trust me on this, you've never seen Windows run so good.

The other option is to carry a set of Mandrake install disks. Takes a little longer but it gives a better long term solution.