 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
Diff'rent strokes... For me personally, I quickly get irritated whenever I
have to do something in XP (like use Moray - I simply can't get it going
well under wine) and I have to leave the happy cocoon of KDE 4 for a few
moments.
XP, 7 or Vista feels dated and slow. Granted, that is in standard "as
installed" versions, with no tweaks or additional apps. I find KDE much
better and faster on Fedora 11.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stefan Viljoen wrote:
> I quickly get irritated whenever I have to do something in XP
I just had to replace my monitor today. I got a nice new widescreen thingie
to work with, etc. And I discovered something interesting.
I'm annoyed by bad design, not by the difficulty of accomplishing a task.
It annoyed me that the connector for the old monitor took 3 minutes to get
disconnected because it was screwed down and the designer of the connector
put an unmovable flange a quarter inch over the screw.
It didn't annoy me at all that the new connector wouldn't fit thru the hole
in the desk I'd drilled and it took me half an hour of work with a file to
enlarge it the 2mm it took to slide the connector through.
It doesn't bother me that it takes an hour to back up the laptop. It bothers
me that opening "my computer" takes 30 seconds because all the drives for
the developers are shared over the same internet connection they're
streaming sample video over to hundreds of testers.
I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I never
realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Stefan Viljoen wrote:
>> I quickly get irritated whenever I have to do something in XP
>
> I just had to replace my monitor today. I got a nice new widescreen
> thingie
> to work with, etc. And I discovered something interesting.
>
> I'm annoyed by bad design, not by the difficulty of accomplishing a task.
>
> It annoyed me that the connector for the old monitor took 3 minutes to get
> disconnected because it was screwed down and the designer of the connector
> put an unmovable flange a quarter inch over the screw.
>
> It didn't annoy me at all that the new connector wouldn't fit thru the
> hole in the desk I'd drilled and it took me half an hour of work with a
> file to enlarge it the 2mm it took to slide the connector through.
>
> It doesn't bother me that it takes an hour to back up the laptop. It
> bothers me that opening "my computer" takes 30 seconds because all the
> drives for the developers are shared over the same internet connection
> they're streaming sample video over to hundreds of testers.
>
> I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I never
> realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
I feel much the same. "My" equivalent irritation with Linux that I can admit
to though is - erm... I don't have a name for the phenomenon.
Whenever I'm at work, and for some reason the internet connection goes down,
for no reason I can fathom, MySQL control center starts taking a minute
(literally - 60 seconds, I've timed it!) to open any MySQL table on the
machine. Conversely, emacs takes up to two minutes to start.
I've done /sbin/ifconfigs as a test once, and I can't see that -anything-
passes over the ethernet connection that is relevant. I've not etherealed
yet, probably need to.
However, the moment connectivity is back (I can ping something, anything on
the internet) my MySQL control center starts working at "instant" speed
again, and emacs starts instantly as well.
I've searched the hell out this, but nobody I've so far been able to find
that responded to posts, or nobody else I could google about, have ever
experienced this phenomenon.
I only use direct IP's no symbol resolution is required by either emacs or
MySQL control center. MySQL control center is setup to connect to the local
127.0.0.1 port, emacs is only used to edit files in the local home folder
(so no network pauses or anything seem to be involved.)
Obviously it MUST have something to do with DNS then? But I can find no
literature or mention of -WHY- this happens with my desktop.
It irritates the hell out of me, but apparently -only- my machine, with my
kernel (2.6.18.1) experiences this.
If it IS, in fact, DNS, I've not been able to find how to turn that kind of
timeout delay (which I think it must be) off somehow, without my system
refusing to do DNS queries entirely.
Mostly Linux has chosen to be friendly with me (the old "UNIX is picky whom
it makes friends with") but this is one thing that clouds the waters of our
relationship.
--
Stefan Viljoen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> The scroll-wheel-switches-desktops thingie Warp is so fond of I find
> actually quite annoying, can't think of how anyone might like it - as it
> has the scroll wheel change functionality dramatically depending on what
> the mouse cursor is currently hovering over.
On the contrary, I find Windows' behavior with the mouse wheel absolutely
irritating.
*Of course* the mouse wheel behavior should depend on where the cursor
is currently, exactly in the same way as *clicking*. I'm accustomed to use
the mouse wheel in the exact same way as I use the other mouse buttons:
I point where I want the scrolling to happen, and roll the wheel, and I
expect that thing I'm pointing at to scroll, in the exact same way that
if I point to something and left-click, I expect that thing to be selected,
or if I right-click for a context menu for the pointed thing to pop up.
When Windows refuses to do this, it's extremely irritating. I constantly
find miself scrolling something else than what I want to scroll because
Windows refuses to scroll what I'm pointing at.
Having to click on something before you can scroll it with the wheel is
not only useless, but also can cause unwanted behavior because none of the
mouse buttons simply *selects* the window you click on. If you click on an
active element, that element will also be *activated*, possibly performing
an unwanted operation by mistake. And no, I don't want to have to click on
the title bar of a window before I can scroll it with the mouse wheel.
Thus it's not surprising that I find switching desktops with the mouse
wheel quite natural: If I "scroll" the desktop background, it jumps to the
virtual desktop in that direction.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Having to click on something before you can scroll it with the wheel is
> not only useless, but also can cause unwanted behavior because none of the
> mouse buttons simply *selects* the window you click on. If you click on an
> active element, that element will also be *activated*, possibly performing
> an unwanted operation by mistake. And no, I don't want to have to click on
> the title bar of a window before I can scroll it with the mouse wheel.
On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
On some apps.
Some other apps override that behavior, making it useless, since you're
never sure if a click will activate an element or not (depends on whether
that app overrode the click-through behavior or not).
Why does Apple get *almost* everything right? The details they get wrong are
usually *very* annoying.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
> sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
That bugs the crap out of me when Mac programs run on Windows. Indeed, I
can't imagine why you'd want it to work that way.
I looked at 3 or 4 "scroll what I'm pointing at already!" programs when I
moved to Vista, and none of them work right.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Is God willing to prevent phrogams, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing, to prevent phrogams?
Then he is malevolent.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> > On Mac, clicking on an inactive window brings it to the front without
> > sending the click to the application code, so it won't activate elements.
> That bugs the crap out of me when Mac programs run on Windows. Indeed, I
> can't imagine why you'd want it to work that way.
> I looked at 3 or 4 "scroll what I'm pointing at already!" programs when I
> moved to Vista, and none of them work right.
What really irritates me is Windows Explorer in this regard. For example,
if I select a directory from the folder view on the left, and the directory
contents then open on the right, if I try to scroll the file listing, it
just scrolls the folder view on the left. And the other way around. In this
case there isn't even any "title bar" to click in order to select the
proper scrollable view. You have to click *on* the view, and be careful
to not to click on something you don't want to.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Also, which moron decided that clicking something twice on the task bar
> should minimize it? I never *ever* want this to happen!
Actually, it's not clicking twice hat triggers this - it's clicking on
an item that has the focus. So if an item already has the focus,
double-clicking will just minimize and restore, effectively doing nothing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible schrieb:
> Maybe I'm biased because on my ancient PC, minimising and maximising
> windows is quite a slow operation... But, in general, I never minimize
> windows at all. (Except to reach the desktop.)
... and they have even a dedicated shortcut in the taskbar for that.
So yes, minimizing windows is more of a nuisance, typically.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> I saw a demo of a drag-and-drop idea I've been lusting after ever since.
>
> If you pick something up to drag-and-drop it, then move diagonally over
> the corner of a window, it peels the window down like you're curling
> down the page of a book so you can see what's behind it and drop your
> thing there. You could do drag-and-drop between multiple full-screen
> windows that way.
That'd be cool, indeed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
