Why after decades of Windows development won't opened windows maintain their
set positions but instead continue to revert to other positions? In the
case of IE the window size does remain a constant but something continues to
upset its position. The position upset is not caused by closing the first
instance of a window down first before other instances of IE for
instance--that always upsets the first instance position of the window. I
think there are many things that come along more important to spend
man-hours on fixing but ignoring a real solution to something this obvious
for so long a time I cannot condone. Size and position of a primary
window's location ought to stick as sure as one's Home Page remains what you
have set for it.

Equally annoying and unexplained is why some windows like MSConfig that can
display a number of columns of data depending on what you are looking at in
it have never been able to resize (or position) at all to properly display
the data.

For me these are two really disgusting oversights. I wonder why, if Windows
has a Registry that no one seems to care how it gets used or how large it
grows, it can't be used to lock in window locations, sizing, expansion,
configuration, etc. data, and keep these window parameters from reverting
back to something less?

[url]http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70819-windows-explorer-folder-view-settings.html[/url]
See the section titled
Increase Folder View Cache Memory :



--
Windows 7 RC
[url]http://get.live.com/wlmail/overview[/url]
[url]http://download.live.com/wlmail[/url]

"Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
news:u$v6c44EKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Why after decades of Windows development won't opened windows maintain
> their set positions but instead continue to revert to other positions? In
> the case of IE the window size does remain a constant but something
> continues to upset its position. The position upset is not caused by
> closing the first instance of a window down first before other instances
> of IE for instance--that always upsets the first instance position of the
> window. I think there are many things that come along more important to
> spend man-hours on fixing but ignoring a real solution to something this
> obvious for so long a time I cannot condone. Size and position of a
> primary window's location ought to stick as sure as one's Home Page
> remains what you have set for it.
>
> Equally annoying and unexplained is why some windows like MSConfig that
> can display a number of columns of data depending on what you are looking
> at in it have never been able to resize (or position) at all to properly
> display the data.
>
> For me these are two really disgusting oversights. I wonder why, if
> Windows has a Registry that no one seems to care how it gets used or how
> large it grows, it can't be used to lock in window locations, sizing,
> expansion, configuration, etc. data, and keep these window parameters from
> reverting back to something less?[/color]

Why, after all these years, does that silly "slow double click means rename"
annoyance remain?
I mean, really, how often do we want to rename a file and how hard is it in
that case to right click?
I haven't tried 7 yet. Have those clowns carried this annoyance over too?

***

"Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
news:u$v6c44EKHA.1540@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Why after decades of Windows development won't opened windows maintain
> their set positions but instead continue to revert to other positions? In
> the case of IE the window size does remain a constant but something
> continues to upset its position. The position upset is not caused by
> closing the first instance of a window down first before other instances
> of IE for instance--that always upsets the first instance position of the
> window. I think there are many things that come along more important to
> spend man-hours on fixing but ignoring a real solution to something this
> obvious for so long a time I cannot condone. Size and position of a
> primary window's location ought to stick as sure as one's Home Page
> remains what you have set for it.
>
> Equally annoying and unexplained is why some windows like MSConfig that
> can display a number of columns of data depending on what you are looking
> at in it have never been able to resize (or position) at all to properly
> display the data.
>
> For me these are two really disgusting oversights. I wonder why, if
> Windows has a Registry that no one seems to care how it gets used or how
> large it grows, it can't be used to lock in window locations, sizing,
> expansion, configuration, etc. data, and keep these window parameters from
> reverting back to something less?[/color]

"DaveD" <dd@dd.dd> wrote in message
news:Oxr$Oz5EKHA.4316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Why, after all these years, does that silly "slow double click means
> rename" annoyance remain?
> I mean, really, how often do we want to rename a file and how hard is it
> in that case to right click?
> I haven't tried 7 yet. Have those clowns carried this annoyance over too?[/color]

Good one. This hasn't as recent a problem for me as it was since I've
changed over to starting programs with just a single click. But you are
right. Just right-clicking to the menu to rename is the only way I do it.
I'm posting this stuff in a thread in the Windows 7 forum because M$ isn't
going to fix these little things in Vista. And I'd like to hope that
Windows 7 has fixed them--but has it?

"Dave" <Dave@beepbeepbeepbeep.com> wrote in message
news:%23rlpk%234EKHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> [url]http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70819-windows-explorer-folder-view-settings.html[/url]
> See the section titled
> Increase Folder View Cache Memory :[/color]


This whole tutorial looks interesting. Thanks. I was even intrigued with
the "Click here to fix Vista Errors and optimize Vista performance" at the
top of the tutorial. Unfortunately it doesn't run/work in Vista
64-bit--only 32-bit. Another story of my life... Why did I install 64-bit?
So far it has served no purpose I've cared about but has gotten in the way
of many things.

MSConfig is a dialog box. They aren't resizable.

Programs are responsible for setting their own positions.

--
..
--
"Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote in message
news:%23Fl2MP6EKHA.5780@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "Dave" <Dave@beepbeepbeepbeep.com> wrote in message
> news:%23rlpk%234EKHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>
>> [url]http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70819-windows-explorer-folder-view-settings.html[/url]
>> See the section titled
>> Increase Folder View Cache Memory :[/color]
>
>
> This whole tutorial looks interesting. Thanks. I was even intrigued with
> the "Click here to fix Vista Errors and optimize Vista performance" at the
> top of the tutorial. Unfortunately it doesn't run/work in Vista
> 64-bit--only 32-bit. Another story of my life... Why did I install
> 64-bit? So far it has served no purpose I've cared about but has gotten in
> the way of many things.[/color]

On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 11:48:13 -0700, "Susan" <UCE@null.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"DaveD" <dd@dd.dd> wrote in message
>news:Oxr$Oz5EKHA.4316@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Why, after all these years, does that silly "slow double click means
>> rename" annoyance remain?
>> I mean, really, how often do we want to rename a file and how hard is it
>> in that case to right click?
>> I haven't tried 7 yet. Have those clowns carried this annoyance over too?[/color]
>
>Good one. This hasn't as recent a problem for me as it was since I've
>changed over to starting programs with just a single click. But you are
>right. Just right-clicking to the menu to rename is the only way I do it.
>I'm posting this stuff in a thread in the Windows 7 forum because M$ isn't
>going to fix these little things in Vista. And I'd like to hope that
>Windows 7 has fixed them--but has it?[/color]

It's tied to your click speed. If you can't double click fast enough,
then adjust the double click speed in the CP -> Mouse.

One man's flaw is another man's feature (or more clearly: why should
they change something that's fully customizable to meet everyone's
needs and has been working well since about 1995?)

<.> wrote in message news:%23L1zyh8EKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> MSConfig is a dialog box. They aren't resizable.
>
> Programs are responsible for setting their own positions.[/color]

Then put MSConfig in a different box that is resizable. Bother!

Well, I've had my fill for now. Nothing changes. It just gets wrapped
different every time.

Too bad it always goes the way M$ wants it to go and there is always a good
excuse.

<.> wrote in message news:%23L1zyh8EKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> MSConfig is a dialog box. They aren't resizable.
>
> Programs are responsible for setting their own positions.
>
> .[/color]

I shouldn't get depressed about Windows and M$ over someone known by just a
'.'. I wonder if one can use ' '?

On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:52:30 -0700, Susan wrote:
[color=blue]
> <.> wrote in message news:%23L1zyh8EKHA.4004@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> MSConfig is a dialog box. They aren't resizable.
>>
>> Programs are responsible for setting their own positions.
>>
>> .[/color]
>
> I shouldn't get depressed about Windows and M$ over someone known by
> just a '.'. I wonder if one can use ' '?[/color]

hey, that's my nickname!

Felmon