 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> clipka wrote:
>> Another thing bothering me about KDE4 is its standard of
>> single-clicking a highlighted item to activate it, but they can't be
>> blamed for me being so accustomed to the Windows Way,
>
> That really hasn't been the "Windows Way" since they came out with
> Active Desktop 10+ years ago. If you want that behavior on Windows, you
> can turn it on too. (I thought it had been the default at least since
> 2000 or XP.)
It used to be the default when they first introduced it, but I can't
remember having seen it actually used by anyone anywhere, so I'm pretty
sure they quickly changed it back. (Can't say from my own installations;
maybe they ask and I just choose double-clicking as a subconscious
reflex reaction, maybe they default to double-clicking without asking;
what I can tell for sure though is that they don't just default to
single-clicking. Vista and 7 may be yet different though.)
>> Ah well, and did I mention that KDE4 uses a totally different font
>> size in a XDMCP login than it does when logged in locally?
>
> Don't fonts always come from the local machine? Or did they fix this in
> X by now?
I have no idea. I just noticed that old Debian "Etch" 4.0r5 Gnome got it
right without me intervening, while openSUSE KDE4 messes up.
>> And my, this one-click-to-activate thing is more addictive than I
>> thought... I guess I'll turn it back on again...
>
> any explorer window: Tools->Folder Options->General... in Windows.
> And yes, it's much more handy, especially if there's easily found areas
> of the screen where clicking does *not* select anything.
KDE4 (at least the Dolphin file manager does it right by giving
somewhere on the icons to click on in order to select instead of
activate. Not sure whether I really want it on in Windows, due to a lack
of such sugar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
Can't say anything about that, 'cause I'll possibly never ever give it a
chance again :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New schrieb:
> I knew I got pissed easily at pretty trivially annoying stuff, but I
> never realized it was trivial *needlessly* annoying stuff that did it.
Yeah, same here I guess.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp schrieb:
> 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.
Mind you, what I find rritating is not the fact that the mouse wheel
events are routed to the application that happens to be pointed at right
now - I do see the logic, and could get used to it. What I find
irritating is the functionality it has when routed to the desktop. First
because the functionality is pretty much different, and secondly because
it may also affect what actually /is/ under the mouse cursor, as the
next turn of the wheel will bring up a different desktop with different
windows at different places. So that if for instance I scroll one
desktop too far, I may not be able to instantly scroll back, and may
have to find some empty desktop space first.
> 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.
Yes, but normally just turning the wheel the other direction without
moving the mouse an inch will scroll the same control right back.
With the desktop, you may be in for a surprise there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> 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.
--
Best Regards,
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ah, while we're ranting anyway...
Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
/too/ difficult to implement, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> nemesis schrieb:
>> waiting for the "Blender sucks" daily povray newsgroups bash tomorrow.
>
> Can't say anything about that, 'cause I'll possibly never ever give it a
> chance again :-P
whew, that's a relief. Hope you don't use the Gimp either. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 18:16, Warp wrote:
> 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
Windows Explorer tends to irritate me in all regards.<G>
How I missed Norton Commander. Linux saved me with its spinoff midnight
commander.
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/17/09 23:16, clipka wrote:
> Ah, while we're ranting anyway...
>
> Why the **** does /no/ graphical user interface provide a way to
> rearrange the running programs in taskbar?! I mean, that shouldn't be
> /too/ difficult to implement, right?
After having used my current WM for over 5 years now, I have to ask:
Why do y'all need a taskbar anyway?
Seriously.
I have many windows open, I don't need the taskbar. My Alt-Tab behavior
is good and fast enough (and with virtual desktops, I rarely have more
than 2 windows open in the same desktop - unless I'm doing image
processing or something).
When I minimize, I get a nice mini-screenshot of the window at the
bottom of the screen. Makes it really easy to select it. With my current
settings, I can't move them around. I could enable a setting that lets
me move the minimized icon anywhere on the screen, so in principle I
could rearrange (roughly infinite degrees of freedom).
Of course, this whole minimized icon relies on the fact that I have no
icons on my desktop. Which brings me to the next question:
Why do people have icons on their desktop? I guess if you want to have
access to some file *really* fast, it's convenient. However, if I go
down that road, the whole desktop is full inside of one month. I've been
doing fine with an iconless desktop for all these years now.
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis schrieb:
> whew, that's a relief. Hope you don't use the Gimp either. ;)
Not yet :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
