Desktop Organizer?
RF
I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a system
that enables
me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
Old Win2K gets the icons scattered regularly.
TIA
RF
PS I searched pricelessware.org for "desktop organizer" and came up with
zero.
Bear Bottoms
I think of two choices:
http://www.sillysot.com/ Iconoid
http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso Launcher or
http://www.bayden.com/SlickRun/ SlickRun
You could also try Launchy
--
Bear Bottoms
Freeware Website http://bearware.info
RF
Thaaaaaaank you BB for the superquick response.
Are you always on duty? ;-)
Susan Bugher
> I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a system
> that enables
> me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
>
> Old Win2K gets the icons scattered regularly.
> PS I searched pricelessware.org for "desktop organizer" and came up with
> zero.
Please update your bookmarks. pricelessware.org hasn't been maintained
for the last several years. The newer Pricelessware site has lot of info
for you.
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
The ACF category page lists a number of subcategories that may be of
interest:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_CategoryIndex.php
You might want to start right at the top of the page:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.00DesktopManager
or perhaps further down with the apps listed here:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.10Shortcuts:Launchers;Search
Programs that have been on the Pricelessware list in preceding years are
noted (to date there is no PL2008).
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
Malcolm Hoar
>Hi Gurus,
>
>I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a system
>that enables me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
I had the same problem. This is working for me:
http://fsl.sytes.net/launcher.html
--
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| ma...@malch.com Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RF
> RF wrote:
>
>> I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a
>> system that enables
>> me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Old Win2K gets the icons scattered regularly.
>
>> PS I searched pricelessware.org for "desktop organizer" and came up
>> with zero.
>
> Please update your bookmarks. pricelessware.org hasn't been maintained
> for the last several years. The newer Pricelessware site has lot of info
> for you.
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
>
> The ACF category page lists a number of subcategories that may be of
> interest:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_CategoryIndex.php
>
> You might want to start right at the top of the page:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.00DesktopManager
> or perhaps further down with the apps listed here:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.10Shortcuts:Launchers;Search
>
>
> Programs that have been on the Pricelessware list in preceding years are
> noted (to date there is no PL2008).
>
> Susan
Thank you Susan.
You are a lady who never sleeps :-)
RF
RF
> In article <wPMtj.57843$Pv2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>, RF <R...@Den.com> wrote:
>> Hi Gurus,
>>
>> I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a system
>> that enables me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
>
> I had the same problem. This is working for me:
>
> http://fsl.sytes.net/launcher.html
>
That one does appear to have promise. Will check it out.
RF
RF
Problems. My OS is Win2000 and when I installed I had a missing DLL.
Win2000 is not mentioned anyware on the site
Back on the road again <sigh> :-)
RF
Well, I have tried all the suggestions and find them unnecessarily
complicated.
All I want is a collection of corrals on my desktop. For example, I have
a number
of files that I am working on - say letters, or similar, and all are
easy to access because
they are together in the same corral. Similarly for audio and video
programs, etc.
Other suggestions appreciated.
RF
RF
Well, I have tried all the suggestions, except Susan's list, and find
them unnecessarily complicated.
All I want is a collection of corrals on my desktop. For example, I have
a number
of files that I am working on - say letters, or similar, and all are
easy to find and access because
they are together in the same corral. It would be nice to have them
listed alphabetically in the corrals.
RF
> RF wrote:
>
>> I need something to remove the clutter from my sdesktop and get a
>> system that enables
>> me to pick the icon I need as quickly as possible.
>>
>> Old Win2K gets the icons scattered regularly.
>
>> PS I searched pricelessware.org for "desktop organizer" and came up
>> with zero.
>
> Please update your bookmarks. pricelessware.org hasn't been maintained
> for the last several years. The newer Pricelessware site has lot of info
> for you.
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/
>
> The ACF category page lists a number of subcategories that may be of
> interest:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_CategoryIndex.php
>
> You might want to start right at the top of the page:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.00DesktopManager
> or perhaps further down with the apps listed here:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/P_DESKTOP.php#1.10Shortcuts:Launchers;Search
>
>
> Programs that have been on the Pricelessware list in preceding years are
> noted (to date there is no PL2008).
>
> Susan
Phew! Susan, I'm exhausted just from reading the list
Anyone know if one of these is somewhat similar to what I described in
my email below?
TIA
RF
JohnM...@gmail.com
> Other suggestions appreciated.
I just have a folder on my desktop named My Shortcuts.
Within that folder are other folders named > Browsers, Email,
Graphics, Guitar, Music, Spam etc, etc, etc, you can have as many
folders as you like & as many shortcuts as you like within those
folders.
Ron May
> Well, I have tried all the suggestions, except Susan's list, and find
> them unnecessarily complicated.
>
> All I want is a collection of corrals on my desktop. For example, I have
> a number
> of files that I am working on - say letters, or similar, and all are
> easy to find and access because
> they are together in the same corral. It would be nice to have them
> listed alphabetically in the corrals.
> Similarly for audio and video programs, etc.
>
> Other suggestions appreciated.
Right click on desktop. Select "New > Folder." Call it "Letters" or
whatever. Drag & Drop your letters shortcut to that folder. Repeat
for "Audio," "Video," etc. They will be listed alphabetically by
default within each desktop folder.
Alternately, right click on Start Button. Choose "Explore." Create
new folders called "Letters," "Audio," "Video" etc. Quit explorer,
then drag & drop existing desktop shortcuts to the appropriate folder
on your now-expanded start menu. Works best if you have your start
menu configured for "Windowes Classic" view and small icons.
Hard to get "simpler." <g>
--
Ron M.
(I filter Googlespam)
arehrlich
RF
I tried to check this one out ==> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso
Launcher and it's
nothing like what I want. Not only that but it appears to have no
uninstall - not in Add/Rem
progs, not in the Start/Programs and not in Prog Files.
Now what?
RF
I tried to check this one out ==> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso
Launcher and it's nothing like what I want. Not only that but it appears
to have no
uninstall - not in Add/Rem progs, not in the Start/Programs and not in
Prog Files.
I used Revo Uninstaller to dump it.
RF
Many thanks Ron and John. You have the right solution. Great job!
RF
Thanks Alan for your effort but I have spent a few hours on various
progs and they
were way off the mark from what I want.
Folders will do just fine.
Ron May
> Many thanks Ron and John. You have the right solution. Great job!
YW!
JohnM...@gmail.com
> Many thanks Ron and John. You have the right solution. Great job!
No worries RF, enjoy.
John Corliss
RF, the best program I've seen to use in XP for managing shortcuts on
the desktop is Iconoid:
which BB recommended. In fact, I use it myself. It's loaded with great
features which you'll like.
--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to block all crossposts, everything
from troublemakers like Andy Mabbett, Bear Bottoms, gavin, hummingbird,
Kayman and proteanthread, and all Google Groups posts because of
Googlespam. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet, nag, share,
spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
John Corliss
Oh yeah, here's another one I use that adds the ability to quickly find
a shortcut on your Start Menu or the desktop:
http://www.planetharrington.com/products/smartstartmenu/
It works very well for this task. You start typing in the name of what
you want and as you type, the list of possibilities narrows down.
John Corliss
That's the method I use too. Whenever I work on somebody else's
computer, I rearrange the person's start menu that way (with the owner's
permission of course). When I show the owner the difference between the
"Fisher-Price-lowest-common-denominator-of-stupidity" version and my
version of the Start Menu, the response is always something similar to
"I don't understand what Microsoft was trying to do; your version is so
much more efficient."
I use this technique with the following shortcut groupings:
Audio
Canon Scanner
Communications
Communications\(my $ware fax program)
Communications\(Microsoft built in) Fax
Communications\Internet Explorer
Communications\Kerio Personal Firewall
Communications\Mozilla Firefox
Communications\Mozilla Thunderbird
Crap folders (folders I regularly delete the contents of)
Games
Graphics
A $ware CD/DVD burning suite which will go unnamed
Reference
Screen Savers
Security
System Tools
System Tools\Cleaners
System Tools\Compression
System Tools\Defragmenters
System Tools\File Related
System Tools\Fonts
System Tools\Hardware programs
System Tools\Manuals
System Tools\Registry
System Tools\System Information
System Tools\Tweakers
Video
Webpage design
Written Document
Written Document\Pdf
Written Document\(a $ware office suite)
Written Document\(an earlier version of the same $ware office suite)
And then below these categories are a few shortcuts I like to have quick
access to:
All Users Start Menu folder
Calculator
Cleaner
Notepad
WordWeb
As I said to RF though, I also use Iconoid and SmartStartMenu.
dadiOH
I am assuming your OS will let you make new (additional) taskbars and
put toolbars on them? If so, you can have virtually instant access to
dozens - even hundreds - of programs/folders/files/whatever all
catagorized in whatever manner you wish. There is a section about
this in my dandies below in "Handy Dandies - Info & Tips About This &
That".
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Bear Bottoms
LOL...yes...after all the pay is -.04 cents an hour.
miskairal
Frequent) with all your shortcuts to My Doc or somewhere. Then make a
shortcut to the folder on your taskbar (right click ->Toolbars ->New
Toolbar..). This gives you single click access to the folder without
having to go back to the desktop.
Ron May
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> That's the method I use too. Whenever I work on somebody else's
> computer, I rearrange the person's start menu that way (with the owner's
> permission of course). When I show the owner the difference between the
> "Fisher-Price-lowest-common-denominator-of-stupidity" version and my
> version of the Start Menu, the response is always something similar to
> "I don't understand what Microsoft was trying to do; your version is so
> much more efficient."
Love the "Fisher-Price" reference. <g>
My root start menu (above the divider) is:
CD-DVD
Games
Graphics
Internet
Media
Productivity
Secure
Snap Folders (see http://www.proffs.nu/snap.htm )
Toys
Utilities
Each has nested subfolders organized in ways that make sense to me and
the way I work.
I only have 8 shortcuts on the desktop. Three are exclusively for my
wife's use.
I have onlt 5 icons on my Quick Launch bar: Agent, IE7, PopSel
(program launcher), Windows Explorer and Show desktop.
Only 5 icons are visible in the system tray, one being Tray Wizard as
another launcher/existing icons manager/right-click minimize to tray
tool.
That type of setup gives me almost instant acces to any one of several
hundred often-used programs with minimal effort, yet leaves a very
clean look to the desktop.
I don't have as much control with my work laptop due to the IT Nazis,
but I customize it as best I can, and I get a kick out of watching
some of my coworkers expressions when they see me access obscure
programs or data in just a couple of seconds time. <g>
JohnM...@gmail.com
> Taking it one step more as I have done. Move the folder (mine's called
> Frequent) with all your shortcuts to My Doc or somewhere. Then make a
> shortcut to the folder on your taskbar (right click ->Toolbars ->New
> Toolbar..). This gives you single click access to the folder without
> having to go back to the desktop.
Yes, that is a good way, I do it this way as I prefer to see a full
screen to my 133 shortcut folders.
Locate the desktop folder in Windows Explorer ( in XP it is in
Documents and Settings ) Right click on the folder ( whatever you
named it ) with your shortcuts in & click on > Send To > Desktop
( create shortcut ) Now drag that shortcut folder onto the Quick
Launch bar.
To make that shortcut or any other shortcut open in full screen.
Right click on the shortcut and select Properties.
At the bottom of the screen in the box titled "Run:" select
"Maximized" and click on Apply & Ok.
http://kb.iu.edu/data/anbo.html
http://www.coolnerds.com/XP/QuickLaunch/xpQuickLaunch.htm
Krazee Brenda
>>> PS I searched pricelessware.org for "desktop organizer" and came up
>>> with zero.
>>
>> I think of two choices:
>>
>> http://www.sillysot.com/ Iconoid
>>
>> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso Launcher or
>> http://www.bayden.com/SlickRun/ SlickRun
>>
>> You could also try Launchy
>
> I tried to check this one out ==> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso
> Launcher and it's
> nothing like what I want. Not only that but it appears to have no
> uninstall - not in Add/Rem
> progs, not in the Start/Programs and not in Prog Files.
>
> Now what?
You're fucked.
BearWare
--
See Brenda's UniWorldWare
http://tinyurl.com/nm2yt
Bear Bottoms
The program works like a charm.
It installs to your "C:\Documents and Settings\name\Local
Settings\Application Data\HumanizedEnso\Enso.exe"
It also puts a start icon in your start/program menu. It runs in your
system tray on install.
It is in the add/remove programs control panel as Humanized Enso for easy
uninstall.
Both of you must be daft :)
Richard Steinfeld
> I tried to check this one out ==> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso
> Launcher and it's
> nothing like what I want. Not only that but it appears to have no
> uninstall - not in Add/Rem
Enso got my interest big-time; it's like nothing else I've seen. Note
that the company's focus is on _usability_ in their work. This really
appeals to me.
Secondly, the program appears to be _keyboard-based_. Wow! Now, this is
a like a lightning bolt: since I'm a good typist, anything that makes
me remove my hands from the keyboard to grab the mouse is a turnoff. As
I've been saying for a while here, I'm amazed by how much software has
been designed by people who can't type for people who can't type:
especially word processing programs: but I digress, huh?
No uninstall -- now, that would be a turn-off. But that's why God
invented Total Uninstall (no longer free). And who can recommend a
current uninstaller that they love?.
No fair posting a non-described link or a list: you've _got_ to love it.
No love = no look.
Richard
Richard Steinfeld
I'm using v1.4, which has no keyboard implementation whatsoever. If
having to lunch for the mouse to do everything doesn't bother you, this
is a nice program.
What I like about it is that it's got great visual customization. You
can assign any icon you like to a program, and categorize your icons any
way you prefer. You can also add any text you like to an icon, and
position and size this text at will. This is great for those programs
that you only want to get at occasionally and can't remember what they
are from their icons. It all comes together effectively and tastefully.
There's a new version out around now, and we may all like it now. If I
didn't prefer the keyboard, it would be difficult for me to abandon it.
Yes: it's good!
Richard
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> That's the method I use too. Whenever I work on somebody else's
>> computer, I rearrange the person's start menu that way (with the owner's
>> permission of course). When I show the owner the difference between the
>> "Fisher-Price-lowest-common-denominator-of-stupidity" version and my
>> version of the Start Menu, the response is always something similar to
>> "I don't understand what Microsoft was trying to do; your version is so
>> much more efficient."
>
> Love the "Fisher-Price" reference. <g>
> My root start menu (above the divider) is:
>
> CD-DVD
> Games
> Graphics
> Internet
> Media
> Productivity
> Secure
> Snap Folders (see http://www.proffs.nu/snap.htm )
> Toys
> Utilities
>
> Each has nested subfolders organized in ways that make sense to me and
> the way I work.
> I only have 8 shortcuts on the desktop. Three are exclusively for my
> wife's use.
I have a total of 31 on my desktop. What I've got there has evolved over
many years. Doesn't seem to slow down my system any. And I don't arrange
them along the left side the way MS wants to force us, I prefer to have
them arranged along the top from left to right. After all, that's the
way I read text.
> I have onlt 5 icons on my Quick Launch bar: Agent, IE7, PopSel
> (program launcher), Windows Explorer and Show desktop.
I have only two shortcuts in my Quick Launch menu, one for rebooting and
another for shutting down the system. To the left of them though, is the
SmartStartMenu toolbar, adjusted to a reasonable width.
> Only 5 icons are visible in the system tray, one being Tray Wizard as
> another launcher/existing icons manager/right-click minimize to tray
> tool.
I have six:
1. Iconoid
2. Volume
3. Kensington Mouse (an *old* mouse driver that I prefer)
4. NewsProxy
5. NVidia settings
6. Kerio
Don't use any tray tools. Try to avoid the tray as much as possible.
> That type of setup gives me almost instant acces to any one of several
> hundred often-used programs with minimal effort, yet leaves a very
> clean look to the desktop.
>
> I don't have as much control with my work laptop due to the IT Nazis,
> but I customize it as best I can, and I get a kick out of watching
> some of my coworkers expressions when they see me access obscure
> programs or data in just a couple of seconds time. <g>
It always amazes me how few people use or even know about something as
simple as, say, shortcut keystroke combinations. Yep, I also amaze
people with how fast I make things happen on a computer. I posted a
screen shot of my desktop over in alt.binaries.freeware in case you're
interested.
Man, that newsgroup has turned into a hellhole of cracks and other such
garbage. Exactly what would happen to this group if nobody ever objected
to OT posts.
John Corliss
Sorry Richard, but I don't "love" any program (except maybe Doomsday, a
freeware overlay to ID's Doom game, indicating a lack on my part) 80)>
Total Uninstall 2.35 (other than a descrete link to info about version
3, is free to use) is still available here:
http://digilander.libero.it/molearchive3/tun235.zip
The author hasn't had that link taken down but I don't know if he's
aware of its existence or not. Maybe Susan knows.
Then there's ZSoft Uninstaller which is very similar from a
functionality viewpoint to TU:
http://www.zsoft.dk/index.php?goto=software_details&prog_id=4
Snapfiles has a writeup of ZSoft which includes some Pros and Cons of
that I hadn't been aware of:
http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/ZSoft-Uninstaller/zsoft-uninstaller.html
"Pros: Keeps track of changes made during software installations;
comletely remove software installations; hide entries from the uninstall
list
Cons: Requires some technical expertise; uninstall list cannot be
sorted; tracked changes difficult to read from a text log"
However to be truthful, I've always thought that TU's UI was a little
difficult to get used to and never liked it's lack of a way to access a
help file. In fact, IIRC, I had to obtain the help file separately and
it's kind of dated but served my needs.
Most likely, the author (Gavrila Martau) dealt with these issues in the
newer payware versions but of course that doesn't do me any good since I
won't pay $30 for such a program as well as keep having to pay for each
major release. But I digress...
Frankly, I don't see why the need for such a program has to exist. There
is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why every single program made to run in Windows,
any version, should not be capable of being *completely*, note that I
say COMPLETELY, removed by simply clicking a button in the "Add or
Remove Programs" Control Panel module.
Microsoft has always and most likely deliberately, dropped the ball in
this area. That you can't easily and completely remove a program is
indicative of two possibilities:
1. Microsoft simply can't come up with the programming necessary to
monitor installations (totally implausible, or TU and ZSoft wouldn't
exist in the first place)
or more likely to serve this "hidden" agenda:
2. cluttering up a computer with orphan files and folders, conflicting
crap and bad registry entries will eventually convince the average
non-technically proficient end user that "OHMYGOD! I'd better get a new
computer with the latest version of Windows on it! This one is shot!"
The reality of having to periodically do a total reinstall of the OS,
all drivers and programs is bullshit and always has been. If Microsoft
really had these self-claimed values:
"As a company, and as individuals, we value integrity, honesty,
openness, personal excellence, constructive self-criticism, continual
self-improvement, and mutual respect. We are committed to our customers
and partners and have a passion for technology. We take on big
challenges, and pride ourselves on seeing them through. We hold
ourselves accountable to our customers, shareholders, partners, and
employees by honoring our commitments, providing results, and striving
for the highest quality."
they'd improve their OS with each release instead of making it more
obfuscated as well as difficult to configure and use. However, IMO their
value statement actually should read:
...Nah. I won't go there. Maybe somebody else can.
Krazee Brenda
> anything that makes
> me remove my hands from the keyboard to grab the mouse is a turnoff
My Ex was a piano player, keyboardist supreme. He rarely paid any attention
to me, always bang bang bang on the ivories, tip tip tip on the computer.
He said I was mousey <sigh>
Krazee Brenda
> It always amazes me how few people use or even know about something as
> simple as, say, shortcut keystroke combinations. Yep, I also amaze
> people with how fast I make things happen on a computer.
Ooooh, Johnny!!
> I posted a
> screen shot of my desktop over in alt.binaries.freeware in case you're
> interested.
Ooooh, John-John!
> Man, that newsgroup has turned into a hellhole of cracks and other such
> garbage. Exactly what would happen to this group if nobody ever objected
> to OT posts.
My Hero!
<projectile green vomit>
Krazee Brenda
> If
> having to lunch for the mouse to do everything doesn't bother you, this
> is a nice program.
blink...
blink......
wtf?
dadiOH
> There
> is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why every single program made to run in
> Windows, any version, should not be capable of being *completely*,
> note that I
> say COMPLETELY, removed by simply clicking a button in the "Add or
> Remove Programs" Control Panel module.
>
> Microsoft has always and most likely deliberately, dropped the ball
> in
> this area. That you can't easily and completely remove a program is
> indicative of two possibilities:
>
> 1. Microsoft simply can't come up with the programming necessary to
> monitor installations (totally implausible, or TU and ZSoft wouldn't
> exist in the first place)
I'm not a big MS fan - haven't been since my first exposure to them 30
years ago - but I don't feel they are at fault here. True, they could
have included a program that would monitor installs ala TU but why
should they?
To my mind, the fault lies with the software authors and their not
including a comprehensive "uninstall" file which is what the MS remove
uses. Who would think that some authors would either purposefully or
accidentally leave things out of it?
Perhaps a better word for "accidentally" would be "stupidly". A lot
of authors aren't really programmers - they learned how to write code
that "does something" but aren't aware of all the ramifications. True
programmers aren't that way but they are often so technically focused
that they misjudge the capabilities of users; IOW, what seems simple
and obvious to them isn't that way to most.
Basically, I agree with you but am placing the blame elsewhere.
AFATG, I don't like "installs" period but without them we would be
faced with (more of) a problem of multiple library files.
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>> There
>> is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why every single program made to run in
>> Windows, any version, should not be capable of being *completely*,
>> note that I
>> say COMPLETELY, removed by simply clicking a button in the "Add or
>> Remove Programs" Control Panel module.
>>
>> Microsoft has always and most likely deliberately, dropped the ball
>> in
>> this area. That you can't easily and completely remove a program is
>> indicative of two possibilities:
>>
>> 1. Microsoft simply can't come up with the programming necessary to
>> monitor installations (totally implausible, or TU and ZSoft wouldn't
>> exist in the first place)
>
> I'm not a big MS fan - haven't been since my first exposure to them 30
> years ago - but I don't feel they are at fault here. True, they could
> have included a program that would monitor installs ala TU but why
> should they?
Sorry, but it looks to me like you're playing the devil's advocate here.
I thought I covered this by quoting their stated mission goals. They've
had more than enough time to correct this problem but haven't. As I
said, this indicates either stupidity or bad intention on their part. I
don't see any other possibilities. And certainly, this kind of feature
could more easily be construed to be part of an operating system than
say, their bundled Outlook Express or Internet Explorer etc.
> To my mind, the fault lies with the software authors and their not
> including a comprehensive "uninstall" file which is what the MS remove
> uses. Who would think that some authors would either purposefully or
> accidentally leave things out of it?
>
> Perhaps a better word for "accidentally" would be "stupidly". A lot
> of authors aren't really programmers - they learned how to write code
> that "does something" but aren't aware of all the ramifications.
I would agree that software authors are *partly* to blame, but frankly,
programming languages like Visual C etc. -anything within which can be
created Windows compatible programming- should be designed to not allow
program compilation unless full uninstall capabilities are included. You
can't herd cats (the programmers) unless you have them penned up with
such a requirement.
> True programmers aren't that way but they are often so technically
> focused that they misjudge the capabilities of users; IOW, what seems
> simple and obvious to them isn't that way to most.
I would agree with that remark. And in addition, programmers seem to
also fall prey to the common delusion that "surely nobody would ever
want to uninstall my fine program anyway..."
> Basically, I agree with you but am placing the blame elsewhere.
> AFATG, I don't like "installs" period but without them we would be
> faced with (more of) a problem of multiple library files.
Certainly I can see that issue but it's largely the result of Microsoft
not doing a better job with handling dll files. Supposedly (and GOD I
hate saying anything good about it) dotnet alleviates this problem.
Regardless, I don't know how Linux works, but TTBOMK, uninstalling a
program is clean. If it's true, then there's no reason MS Windows can't
be the same. If I'm wrong, then they both need to work on this.
Regardless, the end user should be able to pop programs in and out
cleanly. That is to say, without the need of having to go through the
tedious (if you have many programs installed) process of monitoring an
installation in order to ensure that you can do a reasonably clean job
of uninstalling it later.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I place the majority of the
blame on MS and that isn't going to change.
Ron May
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> I posted a
> screen shot of my desktop over in alt.binaries.freeware in case you're
> interested.
VERY nice! The groupings at the top give it both a functional and
unique arrangement. I also posted posted some screenshots of mine
showing basic desktop, Start Menu, PopSel and Tray Wizard. Maybe
others with organizing ideas will do the same. Of course I hope they
post here with a heads up because I seldom check ABF.
> Man, that newsgroup has turned into a hellhole of cracks and other such
> garbage. Exactly what would happen to this group if nobody ever objected
> to OT posts.
It's a sewer, that's for sure. A shame, really, because it could be a
pretty good resource for this group if it was used more often for its
intended purpose. I think part of the problem is that some don't have
access to binary groups because their ISP doesn't provide it. Even
newsgroups in general are being relegated to the back burner for many
internet providers. Good free or low cost text news servers are out
there, but it's a different story when it comes to binaries.
Ron May
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> Regardless, the end user should be able to pop programs in and out
> cleanly. That is to say, without the need of having to go through the
> tedious (if you have many programs installed) process of monitoring an
> installation in order to ensure that you can do a reasonably clean job
> of uninstalling it later.
No-installs with prefs saved to .ini files in the program's directory
and that, if absolutely necessary, rely on .dll files commonly already
installed are best of all.
dadiOH
Agreed!!
JohnM...@gmail.com
> AFATG, I don't like "installs" period but without them we would be
> faced with (more of) a problem of multiple library files.
Installing a new program.
W95-W98-ME
If Install is used in Add/Remove Programs in Control Panel when adding
new programs, it will add it to the Add/Remove list.
XP
Add all installs to > Change and Remove Programs.
Control Panel > Add or Remove Programs > Add New Programs > CD or
Floppy > Next > Browse, select program to install.
John Corliss
I guess it's my biology degree, but I'm real obsessive about
categorizing things. Then SmartStartMenu came along to REALLY help me
find things quickly:
http://www.planetharrington.com/products/smartstartmenu/
It's a toolbar that searches the shortcuts on your desktop and in your
Start Menu as you type. You can configure it to look in additional
locations also.
I use it all the time.
I notice that you're using a lower resolution (1024 X 768?) on your
screen though, so maybe such a thing would take up too much space on the
taskbar (although how much space it uses is easily adjustable, since
it's a toolbar.) Or maybe it's simply not your cup of tea.
My new 19" LCD monitor (EGAD why didn't I do this sooner?) has a native
resolution of 1280 X 1024. I can put a lot of stuff on the desktop now.
Not only that, but there's room for more stuff on my REAL desktop as
well. Plenty of room for SmartStartMenu.
Ron May
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> I notice that you're using a lower resolution (1024 X 768?) on your
> screen though, so maybe such a thing would take up too much space on the
> taskbar (although how much space it uses is easily adjustable, since
> it's a toolbar.) Or maybe it's simply not your cup of tea.
1024x768 is right. SmartStartMenu looks good, but I *am* more point,
click, drag, drop mouse oriented than type-ahead. Been that way since
my early Amiga days in the mid to late 80's. <g>
> My new 19" LCD monitor (EGAD why didn't I do this sooner?) has a native
> resolution of 1280 X 1024. I can put a lot of stuff on the desktop now.
> Not only that, but there's room for more stuff on my REAL desktop as
> well. Plenty of room for SmartStartMenu.
You got me jonesin'. ;^)
John Corliss
> John Corliss wrote:
>>
>> I notice that you're using a lower resolution (1024 X 768?) on your
>> screen though, so maybe such a thing would take up too much space on the
>> taskbar (although how much space it uses is easily adjustable, since
>> it's a toolbar.) Or maybe it's simply not your cup of tea.
>
> 1024x768 is right. SmartStartMenu looks good, but I *am* more point,
> click, drag, drop mouse oriented than type-ahead. Been that way since
> my early Amiga days in the mid to late 80's. <g>
That's the beauty of it. The dropdown arrow on the right side, when
clicked on, shows a list of the possible programs and you can click on
the one you want. That list is based on how much you've typed into the
search field, and the more you type the smaller the list gets.
SmartStartMenu isn't something you'd use all the time, it's just for
those times when, in spite of all the Start Menu organizing you may have
done, you can't remember where the shortcut for a program is.
But I guess it's not your cup of tea.
>> My new 19" LCD monitor (EGAD why didn't I do this sooner?) has a native
>> resolution of 1280 X 1024. I can put a lot of stuff on the desktop now.
>> Not only that, but there's room for more stuff on my REAL desktop as
>> well. Plenty of room for SmartStartMenu.
>
> You got me jonesin'. ;^)
(OT)
If you put aside $15 a month, in a little over a year you can get a good
one. That's about three pitchers of beer a month.
You can wave your hand in front of an LCD and there is no strobing
effect. Do that in front of a CRT and it looks like and old-time movie.
Using a CRT is about like starting at a florescent light for hours at a
time. That's got to be doing some damage to your eyes, not to mention
the radiation you're most likely being exposed to.
In addition, there is no more worrying about many of the adjustments
(pincushion-barrel, side-to-side, top-to-bottom, width, height) that a
CRT requires. LCDs simply put the picture where it belongs and the
picture is far more sharp.
(/OT)
Phil
"Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in message
news:op.t6o4w...@bwwlxc1.br.no.cox.net...
They are indeed ! LOL ! (But entertaining !)
Phil
"Krazee Brenda" <brenda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:10cwnqe4un6ra.tav85nacju13$.dlg@40tude.net...
Ah bollocks - you're getting turned on - I can tell !
Brian (Groups)
> dadiOH wrote:
> > John Corliss wrote:
> >> There
> >> is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON why every single program made to run in
> >> Windows, any version, should not be capable of being *completely*,
> >> note that I
> >>RemovePrograms" Control Panel module.
>
> >> Microsoft has always and most likely deliberately, dropped the ball
> >> in
> >> indicative of two possibilities:
>
> >> 1. Microsoft simply can't come up with the programming necessary to
> >> monitor installations (totally implausible, or TU and ZSoft wouldn't
> >> exist in the first place)
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I place the majority of the
> blame on MS and that isn't going to change.
Sorry, but I just had to chime in here. To lay blame on Microsoft for
the existence of this issue is the ultimate in obsessive, compulsive
paranoia. The responsibility of building a correct and complete
uninstaller simply MUST rest with the 3rd party programmer. The OS
can't possibly know or figure out what is appropriate to remove at
uninstall time. Even if MS built in a feature to monitor installs,
would you expect it to continue monitoring running installations as
they wrote new keys/ branches to the registry? Everything would have
to slow to a crawl.
As a programmer, I can write a program with uninstall routine that
WILL COMPLETELY remove all traces from the registry and file system;
OTOH I can also write a sloppy uninstaller for the same program. It's
MY responsibility - not MS. Imagine your reaction if MS started
disallowing installations that didn't pass its uninstaller integrity
test. This would become yet another conspiracy, even though it
addresses the initial conspiracy you imagine above.
As a side note, many trial/shareware authors deliberately write
heavily obfuscated information to the registry (sometimes well after
installation/ initial run). They don't want this cleaned out at
uninstall, to ensure that a user can't simply uninstall/ reinstall
after the expiry of the trial period. MS never intended the registry
to be used in this manner - software authors concocted it... hardly
blamable on MS! This but one example. Flexibility and freedom must be
afforded the programmer, and with this comes a responsibility to do
things cleanly.
Brian
Krazee Brenda
>>> I tried to check this one out ==> http://www.humanized.com/enso/ Enso
>>> Launcher and it's
>>> nothing like what I want. Not only that but it appears to have no
>>> uninstall - not in Add/Rem
>>> progs, not in the Start/Programs and not in Prog Files.
>>>
>>> Now what?
>>
>> You're fucked.
>>
>> BearWare
>
> The program works like a charm.
>
> It installs to your "C:\Documents and Settings\name\Local
> Settings\Application Data\HumanizedEnso\Enso.exe"
Try to uninstall it. Who cares if it works like a charm?
Krazee Brenda
> We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I place the majority of the
> blame on MS and that isn't going to change.
You're a nutcase. If you didn't have GG and MSoft to hate, would you
self-mutilate?
PleaseWare?
Krazee Brenda
Doesn't take much when you are as *LONELY* as I am <sniffles>
Krazee Brenda
> I guess it's my biology degree, but I'm real obsessive about
> categorizing things.
DonnaWare.
Go for it/her.
Franklin
<ussps...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Brian, I think the issue here is that when an app is installed
Windows does not track what objects are created nor what keys are
added to the registry. If Windows did this then at a later date if
the app is uninstalled Windows would know what debris it left behind.
Third-party utilities can do this tracking. Windows could have
provided this as a native function.
John hypothesizes that it may not have been in Microsoft's interest
to spend any time or money on developing such functionality. That
doesn't seem entirely unreasonable proposition to me.
It is cumbersome to get the latest iPod to work with PCs. Apple
probably don't see PC connection as a priority because it is not to
Apple's advantage.
All this is hardly the "ultimate in obsessive, compulsive paranoia".
Brian (Groups)
>
> Brian, I think the issue here is that when an app is installed
> Windows does not track what objects are created nor what keys are
> added to the registry. If Windows did this then at a later date if
> the app is uninstalled Windows would know what debris it left behind.
That would be a nice "feature"; I agree. But it would be difficult to
decide what was writing to the registry as a matter of course e.g.
MRUs, new user settings overwriting old etc. and what registry writes
are associated with an install. It also wouldn't account for the
installed program writes during the course of program usage, which
would also become "debris" after uninstall. The only solution I could
see here is realtime registry monitoring and logging, which would slow
things right down, as I stated.
> Third-party utilities can do this tracking. Windows could have
> provided this as a native function.
System Restore was provided for this sort of thing. It's a compromise
between the quick "one off" snapshot and the grind of realtime
monitoring & logging. I agree that it doesn't provide an ideal
solution though.
> John hypothesizes that it may not have been in Microsoft's interest
> to spend any time or money on developing such functionality. That
> doesn't seem entirely unreasonable proposition to me.
>
> It is cumbersome to get the latest iPod to work with PCs. Apple
> probably don't see PC connection as a priority because it is not to
> Apple's advantage.
>
> All this is hardly the "ultimate in obsessive, compulsive paranoia
Yep, on its own it sounds like an (arguably) reasonable suggestion,
had it come from somebody without the fanatical antiMS agenda. But
added to John's litany of other MS conspiratorial stuff, it sounded
like one of the ultimate flights of fancy. I'm flabbergasted that
anybody can turn the lack of a potentially useful feature into this:
<quote>Microsoft has always and most likely deliberately, dropped the
ball in this area. That you can't easily and completely remove a
program is indicative of two possibilities:
1. Microsoft simply can't come up with the programming necessary to
monitor installations (totally implausible, or TU and ZSoft wouldn't
exist in the first place)
or more likely to serve this "hidden" agenda:
2. cluttering up a computer with orphan files and folders, conflicting
crap and bad registry entries will eventually convince the average non-
technically proficient end user that "OHMYGOD! I'd better get a new
computer with the latest version of Windows on it! This one is shot!"
<unquote>
You may well disagree, but I found this wild leap to be totally
unnatural; even disturbing that somebody could so severly twist an
"annoyance" into a sinister plot to get people to buy the latest
operating system.
Brian
Franklin
<ussps...@mailinator.com> wrote:
Brian,
Putting aside any difficulties you have with John Corliss's preferred
way of expressing himself and any motives you infer he may or may not
have, I would say that I find the substance of what John writes to be
fairly realistic.
A manufacturer deliberately disabling function in a product is not
new. Long ago, IBM was accused by its competitors of deliberately
reducing the capability of its machines - the joke was that if a
customer wanted an upgrade then all the IBM engineer had to do was
cut a particular wire which had been preventing full power.
Of course, the aggression of information systems marketing is not
something which such companies would parade in public. In their day
companies like Oracle (software), EDS (services) and Intel (hardware)
were extremely aggressive although some like Intel managed at the
same time to present a benign public face.
This is true in other industries too. Investors love aggressive
companies. But then there's always an Amgen.
Putting aside all consideratons of personal like or dislike for the
company, its products or its CEO, Microsoft remains one of the most
aggressive companies in the industry.
There was a time when Microsoft was almost in danger of turning into
a law firm which happened to sell software.
John Corliss
Do I KNOW you MF? I don't think so. So why are you running off at the
mouth like that? Let's dissect your deliberately insulting accusations:
1.obsessive compulsive
What's obsessive about what I said? Nothing. Not one GOD DAMN THING. So
obviously, your insult was intended for no other reason than to provoke
a reaction, which you have gotten.
2. paranoia
Do you even have a CLUE what that term means? It means that a person is
CONVINCED note: _CONVINCED_ that something untrue is true. In this
situation though, I clearly indicated in my post that I thought it was a
LIKELY SCENARIO. That's speculation, not "paranoia".
If you're going to criticize that speculation, then provide some proof
that it's untrue. However, unless you work for Microcrap, that's not
going to happen now, is it.
This medium of communication insulates a person in a manner that leads
them to say things that they wouldn't say IRL and face to face. It falls
upon us then, to refrain from taking advantage of this situation as you
have done in order for this group to remain on a civil toned level.
Taking advantage of the insulation as you have done though, is both
cowardly and ignorant.
Huh. I guess we're even now, aren't we.
Over and out.
Brian (Groups)
> Piggybacking to reply to Brian.
>
>
> mouth like that? Let's dissect your deliberately insulting accusations:
>
> 1.obsessive compulsive
>
> What's obsessive about what I said? Nothing. Not one GOD DAMN THING. So
> obviously, your insult was intended for no other reason than to provoke
> a reaction, which you have gotten.
>
> 2. paranoia
>
> Do you even have a CLUE what that term means? It means that a person is
> CONVINCED note: _CONVINCED_ that something untrue is true. In this
> situation though, I clearly indicated in my post that I thought it was a
> LIKELY SCENARIO. That's speculation, not "paranoia".
>
> If you're going to criticize that speculation, then provide some proof
> that it's untrue. However, unless you work for Microcrap, that's not
> going to happen now, is it.
>
> This medium of communication insulates a person in a manner that leads
> them to say things that they wouldn't say IRL and face to face. It falls
> upon us then, to refrain from taking advantage of this situation as you
> have done in order for this group to remain on a civil toned level.
>
> Taking advantage of the insulation as you have done though, is both
> cowardly and ignorant.
>
> Huh. I guess we're even now, aren't we.
>
> Over and out.
>
John
I've been reading your posts for a long time and have formed the
impression that any failing or shortcoming in MS stuff is some sort of
covert plot in your mind, hence my use of the terminology. While it
may not be "correct" usage of the expression (and yes, I don't know
exactly what constitutes the exactly correct usage) the term was
intended to convey "at every possible opportunity", "an irresistable
urge to theorize on those lines" and "always with some sinister
motive".
We all have our opinions on MS and their motives and methods... mostly
critical of same. But I just found this leap from "missing feature" to
"built-in self-destruct mechanism" a bit over the top, especially when
at some point (like this situation) the responsibility clearly falls
to the 3rd party programmer to do the housekeeping properly.
Naturally I can't prove that MS have no sinister plots up their
sleeve, any more than I can prove that I have no weapons of mass
destruction. My comment was not intended to be uncivil (as I would
judge "uncivil" in this and other usenet groups) and this IS therefore
kind of thing I would say IRL to any other (civil) person. I apologize
if the choice of terminology offended - it was not the intention.
Over and out on this one from me too.
Brian
Krazee Brenda
> A manufacturer deliberately disabling function in a product is not
> new. Long ago, IBM was accused by its competitors of deliberately
> reducing the capability of its machines - the joke was that if a
> customer wanted an upgrade then all the IBM engineer had to do was
> cut a particular wire which had been preventing full power.
Which was no joke.
Roger Hunt
<brenda...@gmail.com> writes
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:25:47 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>
>> A manufacturer deliberately disabling function in a product is not
>> new. Long ago, IBM was accused by its competitors of deliberately
>> reducing the capability of its machines - the joke was that if a
>> customer wanted an upgrade then all the IBM engineer had to do was
>> cut a particular wire which had been preventing full power.
>
>Which was no joke.
I tried that with my Volvo and it doesn't go at all now.
--
Roger Hunt
Craig
Duct tape will fix that. Works on MG's too.
-Craig
Roger Hunt
<netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> writes
aerodynamic performance by 14% while cutting fuel consumption by 46%.
--
Roger Hunt
Krazee Brenda
Hubby had an MG, he would take me out into the country at night, top down,
shift shift shift park in a cow field and call me over to the driver's
seat. No moon. I would have to climb over that high tranny tunnel and..
I think that was Hubby....seemed awfully big, cold and hard as a....
AGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Roger Hunt
<brenda...@gmail.com> writes
>On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:16:33 -0800, Craig wrote:
>
>> Roger Hunt wrote:
>>> In article <jmviuhcy8c63.1u1lg2iezbq48$.d...@40tude.net>, Krazee Brenda
>>> <brenda...@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:25:47 GMT, Franklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A manufacturer deliberately disabling function in a product is not
>>>>> new. Long ago, IBM was accused by its competitors of deliberately
>>>>> reducing the capability of its machines - the joke was that if a
>>>>> customer wanted an upgrade then all the IBM engineer had to do was
>>>>> cut a particular wire which had been preventing full power.
>>>> Which was no joke.
>>>
>>> I tried that with my Volvo and it doesn't go at all now.
>>
>> Duct tape will fix that. Works on MG's too.
>>
>> -Craig
>Hubby had an MG, he would take me out into the country at night, top down,
>shift shift shift park in a cow field and call me over to the driver's
>seat. No moon. I would have to climb over that high tranny tunnel and..
>
>I think that was Hubby....seemed awfully big, cold and hard as a....
>
>AGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
... meanwhile, an amorous cow has climbed on top of Hubby ...
--
Roger Hunt