On 26-1-2011 17:57, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> I am not sure I agree with you on this one. On most computers there is
>> one way I normally turn it 'off'. That is the one that should be
>> easily accessible, both as an icon and as button. For the special
>> cases I'd be happy with a big GUI.
>
> And Windows has that. Joel is bitching that it duplicates what's on the
> menu. He even talks about it having multiple icons in addition to the
> menu and how stupid that is.
>
>> One that asks If I want power down completely or keep everything in
>> RAM so I can reboot fast. I mean explain what the various option mean
>> other than just the sleep/hibernate/whatever labels for the options
>> that I normally don't use. And on the bottom line apply/cancel/use
>> this in the future. That should also solve the problem of accidentally
>> selecting the wrong option and going through a five minute
>> hibernate/reboot cycle to select the right one.
>
> That's precisely what Windows does.

On mine it doesn't. (I have a XP64 machine).
To be clear what I would has preferred for myself and the poor souls 
that I have to explain what is there now is:
One icon (ok perhaps two with one the equivalent of lock, windows-L) 
that I can press when I leave the machine. Right clicking brings up a 
GUI that let's me configure this and the physical power button. With 
explained options. Default should be that both act the same, but for 
knowledgeble people you might override that. I don't want a pull down 
for selection. And I definitely don't want options labelled 
sleep/suspend/hibernate.
I think that indeed some configuration is possible in the configuration 
panels (I vaguely remember doing doing just that on my laptop), but a 
quick glance there did not ring a bell. Yet another place where there is 
too much choice. Aggravated by various 3rd party programs putting things 
in there.

> It doesn't have the "use this in the
> future." You go to the control panel to set that and the actions of the
> buttons. Giving you the choice of selecting what you want it to do is
> what Joel is complaining about.
>
>> In short, I agree that this interface is stupid, but that I would have
>> simplified it in a different way. And so would you ;) Perhaps this was
>> the compromise the design team could finally agree on.
>
> I don't think the interface is stupid at all. Certainly I don't think
> there's any option there you can simply remove, except maybe "lock" vs
> "switch user", altho I can see someone in a shared-computer environment
> distinguishing those two: "lock" being "I'm in the can",

What can would that be?

>  with "switch
> user" being "I'm at lunch." (For mac users, the difference between
> "lock" and "switch user" is whether you get back to the "login name"
> prompt or the "password" prompt, either of which can trivially take you
> to the other.)

I hope it is the other way around (or a Chiasmus) . Or I would be 
confused again.

> In particular, I pick each of "log off", "restart", "sleep", "suspend"
> (which isn't even on the menu), or "shut down" at least once a week for
> each. The idea that you could eliminate those from the interface simply
> because Joel can eliminate those from *his* laptop is absurd.

I think he is mainly complaining that there is too much choice visible 
for the average use. It is OK for those that understand the differences. 
'Even' I am always confused between a couple, having to handle 
inconsistent translations on different machine does not make it easier.

Post a reply to this message