Actually, I think I can get it the way I want without hacking. I just
had to muck around a bit more to get what you just described below.
When the quick-launch icons take up the entire top row, I can drag the
bottom row of tasks to the unused parts of the top row by double-
clicking-and-dragging the manipulation bar along the left edge of the
bottom row, then dragging it to resize it. Sort of how you described.
Thanks
On May 17, 8:05 pm, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote:
> OK, I think I get it now. One thing I was just able to do here in W2K was to
> create an additional row and move the quicklaunch bar to it, and then move
> it as far rightward as I care to. When it gets short of space for the icons,
> then they start spilling over into the new row. In fact I created two
> additional rows and at the moment the 10 quicklaunch icons occupy all three
> rows and take about two inches of lateral space next to the system tray. All
> the blank area to the left is usable for minimizing open files and they
> occupy all three rows, so I think that would give you the economy you seek,
> since there is no vacant area anywhere, but I'd say the chances of this GUI
> arrangement misbehaving are about 110 percent.
>
> As of a month ago I was new to XP, and I've been finding out that you can
> pretty much duplicate the Win98/W2K GUI in every way, but with the added
> bonus that in XP you can lock the quicklaunch bar. If you can find a hack to
> do this in W2K (and I'll bet it exists), you would have a better chance of
> maintaining your settings.
>
> Paul wrote:
> > Hi, Roger,
>
> > I'm using small icons. The problem isn't that they take up too much
> > room. The problem is that the entire upper row of the taskbar
> > contains them and nothing else. Most of that row is blank, and the
> > tasks themselves are relegated to the bottom row. In contrast, in XP,
> > the task bar occupies a small rectangular space at the left side of
> > the taskbar, covering both top and bottom rows. I understand that
> > Windows 2000 is earlier than XP, but I can't imagine what the
> > designers had in mind when then put this "feature" into Windows 2000.
>
> > On May 17, 4:01 am, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote:
> >> The quicklaunch application icons come in two sizes. If you are
> >> using the larger size, then changing to the smaller size will
> >> greatly decrease the space they take up, but you would need to be
> >> comfortable with using the smaller icons (which I'm not). To see
> >> what size you have, place the pointer somewhere between the
> >> rightmost icon and the system tray, then right click it. If the icon
> >> is up against the tray, drag the whole thing to the left to make
> >> room. Mouse over "View", and the large and small options will
> >> display on the menu.
>
> >> Paul wrote:
> >>> Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that
> >>> it occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar
> >>> would occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the
> >>> full filename.
>
> >>> Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row
> >>> of the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against
> >>> the display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three
> >>> rows in order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to
> >>> prevent the quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire
> >>> row of space?
>
> >>> Thanks.