KVR told me "Nested Quotes have reached cataclysmic proportions in your post. Please revise and try again!", so I had to remove the original quotes.
Mushy Mushy wrote:Dont give a toss, I dont use them.
You don't have to.
Doesn't annoy millions or even billions of other users even on other operating systems.
But it annoys you.
Mushy Mushy wrote:Nup, but we're meant to be progressing arent we? If it does the same thing as something 2mm below it, why include it?
Two words: anal phabets.
Oh, and internationalization.
Mushy Mushy wrote:Ridiculously busy. Busiest day of the month for me, and i'm forced to fart around finding sh!t.
Forced to click on a clock ... when it, being a clock, already does what it's supposed to?
I'm sorry I asked this rhetorical question, wasn't nice of, me because I guess it did make things personal which -hard to belive, I know- wasn't my intention.
Mushy Mushy wrote:So did XP. Alt-tab scrolled through all open windows and kept recent ones together to flick back and forward between. 7 has this too obviously so I dont see any benefit whatsover to grouping them.
XP did not group items the way Win7 does.
In XP, ALL opened instances of the same program were displayed in their own discrete taskbar button ... and it was even wider than the Win7 one, because it also displayed the name of the program. What a careless waste of space is that.
If you "grouped" the buttons, it just reduced all the program's buttons into one list, no previews, no visual variation between main window, sub window and dialog, no nothing. Saved space, but 1) the grouped task icon in the task bar still had a name label that took away holy space, and 2) wasn't very efficient.
Mushy Mushy wrote:It's a work PC so I want it business like and functional. I don't need all this fluffy graphics and this See More Info About Person A social media rubbish (granted that is from Outlook)
I already told you how to turn back the clock design-wise.
And the way programs are designed iiiisn't really a contra for Windows itself, is it.
I had to pay for the cup holders, the clock, the ashtray, the glove compartment, the spare wheel, the radio antenna and the back seats in my car - even though I never intend(ed) using them.
Didn't want them, but couldn't have the car without, they just came with it.
Bugs the hell out of me.
Does that make my beautiful shiny Alfa 159 a "POS, FFS"?
(The fact that it's an unreliable Italian car does, but that's beside the point.
Mushy Mushy wrote:No, havent done that. Will look now. Thx.
Those are the ones that annoyed me most, apart from the one with the resizing windows, so I thought I should mention them.
Mushy Mushy wrote:Yep, as have I. If we're going down that path I started on DOS.
Now we're down it, my first own PC was a C64 ... but this is about Windows 7 being so much worse than XP, isn't it? So DOS or CP/M are not really relevant.
Mushy Mushy wrote:If you read the original post, this is my work PC which died and they rebuilt it with 7. I had no say in the matter.
Then don't despair, tell your boss how you feel about your working conditions.
See how he feels about it, maybe he agrees with you and offers to get an XP license for your machine, they don't cost much.
I'm not pulling your leg.
My boss actually did agree with me when he got me a brand-new notebook that still had Vista running on it, although Win7 was already available. I asked him if he'd really expect me to work with an operating system as sluggish, bug-ridden and instable as Vista ... and he said "no way, thought it had Win7, I'll get you a license right away".
Can't hurt asking.
Mushy Mushy wrote:Outdated? Says who. Are 19th century railroads outdated? No, because they work for the task at hand. This PC uses Outlook and Excel exclusively. XP was perfectly adequate.
Did you notice the past tense in your own sentence?
Exactly, but so would Win 3.1 be.
Excel and Outlook worked on that, so why not just use 3.1?
I'm sure it would be a lot more straight-forward than Win7.