Vista or Linux. Doesn't matter.

  • Thread starter Thread starter ceed
  • Start date Start date
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:13:57 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:

> I thought you said Linux was off topic here.

Read my response in the other thread: I did not say that Linux was
off-topic as long as it has a Windows Vista angle. However, a listing of
Ubuntu or Mac OSX features would, in my opinion, be ioff topic.

--
//ceed
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:06:04 -0500, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

> They haven't really removed it. They've actually improved the whole
> thing by showing you the "breadcrumb trail".
> You just click at the appropriate point in the breadcrumb trail and you
> can go up one, two or as many levels as you like with one click.
> Better, in my opinion.
> Did you really not know about this?
> SteveT

I did know about it and have tried using it, but can not see how having to
do several operations which in the past only required one is an
improvement. It's just that having access to plain vertical navigation is
something I have used since I started using computers. Microsoft even had
that in the first UI based file manager in DOS! I even prefer to have an
"up" eleemnt above the the folder listing so I can navigate vertially
using the keyboard. You can see how that's done in Total Commander (a
popular file manager for Windows):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Total_Commander.gif

If you notice the arrows on top of each pane, they take you up one level.
Makes navigation really fast. Windows Explorer doesn't have effcient
vertical navigatin in Vista at all anymore. Mac OSX and it's Next like
approach also has very efficient vertical navigation.

--
//ceed
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:07:26 -0500, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:


>
> It's not a workaround!! It's deliberate, and Vista's new way of doing
> it.
>
> SteveT

If I need to read pages of "how to" just to move up and down in a file
system the procedures are not intuitive and efficient in my opinion. One
button pointing up is. I have no problems with you prefering to do it the
new improved way, but you (and Microsoft who otherwise did such a great
job on Vista) seem to think that should be the only way. I do not see it
that way, and want my up button back.

You know, I am almost willing to bet on it being back in the next version
of Windows! :)

--
//ceed
 
"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:op.ui9wqgnhgxuifa@localhost...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 05:51:52 -0500, Gordon
> <gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Because you don't need it. Click on the parent folder in the address
>> bar.....
>
> How do you know what I need? Do I know you? :)
>
> Absolutely all file managers has a way to move up in a file system until
> Microsoft decided to remove it.

How is clicking on the parent folder in the address bar REMOVING the ability
to go up the tree?
 
"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:op.ui90byqigxuifa@localhost...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:06:04 -0500, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> They haven't really removed it. They've actually improved the whole
>> thing by showing you the "breadcrumb trail".
>> You just click at the appropriate point in the breadcrumb trail and you
>> can go up one, two or as many levels as you like with one click.
>> Better, in my opinion.
>> Did you really not know about this?
>> SteveT
>
> I did know about it and have tried using it, but can not see how having to
> do several operations which in the past only required one is an
> improvement. It's just that having access to plain vertical navigation is
> something I have used since I started using computers. Microsoft even had
> that in the first UI based file manager in DOS! I even prefer to have an
> "up" eleemnt above the the folder listing so I can navigate vertially
> using the keyboard. You can see how that's done in Total Commander (a
> popular file manager for Windows):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Total_Commander.gif
>
> If you notice the arrows on top of each pane, they take you up one level.
> Makes navigation really fast. Windows Explorer doesn't have effcient
> vertical navigatin in Vista at all anymore. Mac OSX and it's Next like
> approach also has very efficient vertical navigation.
>
> --
> //ceed


I must have a different Windows Explorer.
The left arrow key, Enter will move up in the tree step by step.

--
Ens causa sui
Fit caedes omnibus locis
 
You might consider installing one as a virtual machine inside the other -
it's much more efficient that dual booting.
 
"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:op.ui90byqigxuifa@localhost...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:06:04 -0500, Steve Thackery <nobody@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>> They haven't really removed it. They've actually improved the whole
>> thing by showing you the "breadcrumb trail".
>> You just click at the appropriate point in the breadcrumb trail and you
>> can go up one, two or as many levels as you like with one click.
>> Better, in my opinion.
>> Did you really not know about this?
>> SteveT
>
> I did know about it and have tried using it, but can not see how having to
> do several operations which in the past only required one is an
> improvement.

Umm in the past to get to the parent of the parent meant TWO clicks of the
"up" button. In the new Vista way it means ONE click. How is that not an
improvement, or are you so wedded to the "up" button that you can't let go
of it?
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:44:49 -0500, D. Eth <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote:

> I must have a different Windows Explorer.
> The left arrow key, Enter will move up in the tree step by step.

If it does I want the version you have! :) Mine takes me back to the
previous folder I was in. If that happens to be one level up, I am taken
one level up. If I come from another folder I am taken back

--
//ceed
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:45:51 -0500, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:

> You might consider installing one as a virtual machine inside the other -
> it's much more efficient that dual booting.

That's a good idea, thanks! :) But I am going to end up with one of them
in the end. I just do not know which one I like better right now.

--
//ceed
 
"ceed" <ceed.spameater@dysthe.net> wrote in message
news:op.ui90prskgxuifa@localhost...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:44:49 -0500, D. Eth <death@thedoor.nxt> wrote:
>
>> I must have a different Windows Explorer.
>> The left arrow key, Enter will move up in the tree step by step.
>
> If it does I want the version you have! :) Mine takes me back to the
> previous folder I was in. If that happens to be one level up, I am taken
> one level up. If I come from another folder I am taken back
>
> --
> //ceed


Just tried it...mouse clicked to far away branches, then into a long branch.
The keyboard took me in direct line to /.
Did not follow my mouse click jumping around.

--
Ens causa sui
Fit caedes omnibus locis
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:44:37 -0500, Gordon
<gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> How is clicking on the parent folder in the address bar REMOVING the
> ability to go up the tree?

I didn't say the ability to move up is removed. I am saying that the
intuitive way I am used to with a dedicated button has been removed. I
just do not like that. An example is the new start menu in Vista which is
search based. However, you can still set it back to the way the start menu
worked in XP. Not so with navigation in Explorer where the up button has
been removed., I do not understand the rationale behind that.

This is from a Windows Explorer user guide: "....however the locations
have been changed a bit in favor of a breadcrumb navigation section,
meaning that as you go deeper into folders you can see the different
folders you have gone through to get to the last one but are able to
instantly click one, whether the folder was the first, middle or last one
that you browsed through to get back to it."

Read that! If that's intuitive then I admit I'm wrong an will never use an
up botton again. Shame on me! :)

--
//ceed
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:46:46 -0500, Gordon
<gordonbparker@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

> Umm in the past to get to the parent of the parent meant TWO clicks of
> the "up" button. In the new Vista way it means ONE click. How is that
> not an improvement, or are you so wedded to the "up" button that you
> can't let go of it?

I just tried it again. I clicked the up button once to get up one level.
What I do like about the new way is that you can get all the way to the
top in one click (if the path isn't too long). What's so wrong about
wanting both? I mean, it's only a tiny little modest button? I am not
"wedded" to anything but my wife, but why should I let go of it if I do
not want to? All I have been saying is that I miss it and use file
managers who still has an up button. Is that very wrong of me? :)

--
//ceed
 
ceed wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:13:57 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought you said Linux was off topic here.
>
> Read my response in the other thread: I did not say that Linux was
> off-topic as long as it has a Windows Vista angle. However, a listing of
> Ubuntu or Mac OSX features would, in my opinion, be ioff topic.
>

If someone is interested in Ubuntu, they just might like to know what it
can do. I suggest Ubuntu as an alternative to Vista. Hence, on topic.

Alias
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:55:23 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:


>
> If someone is interested in Ubuntu, they just might like to know what it
> can do. I suggest Ubuntu as an alternative to Vista. Hence, on topic.
>
> Alias

I use Linux Mint (Ubuntu based) together with Vista, so I know they
compare! :)

--
//ceed
 
ceed wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:55:23 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If someone is interested in Ubuntu, they just might like to know what
>> it can do. I suggest Ubuntu as an alternative to Vista. Hence, on topic.
>>
>> Alias
>
> I use Linux Mint (Ubuntu based) together with Vista, so I know they
> compare! :)
>

Mint is a bit too close to Windows for my taste.

Alias
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:08:22 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:

> Mint is a bit too close to Windows for my taste.

I like to be able to play media out of the box, and it sets up my whole
laptop without me having to do a thing (very different from when I set up
my first Debian laptop back in 98!). In Vista I need to install all kinds
of drivers to get things to work. In Mint it's all up after a 30 min
install! :)

So much for being OT... :)

--
//ceed
 
ceed wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:08:22 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:
>
>> Mint is a bit too close to Windows for my taste.
>
> I like to be able to play media out of the box, and it sets up my whole
> laptop without me having to do a thing (very different from when I set
> up my first Debian laptop back in 98!). In Vista I need to install all
> kinds of drivers to get things to work. In Mint it's all up after a 30
> min install! :)
>
> So much for being OT... :)
>

I may give Mint a whirl when the new version comes out.

Alias
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:04:06 -0500, Non Sequitur! <only@rret.com> wrote:

> A Guy made a simple add on for explorer that adds an up button. He sells
> the button for $5
> thousands have downloaded it...

I would pay a lot more than that for an "Up" button. You guys who do not
need it should sell it to me! :)

--
//ceed
 
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:22:01 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com> wrote:

> I may give Mint a whirl when the new version comes out.
> Alias

I'm using the XFCE (XFCE: now that's a desktop environment that really
shines!) community edition. I do not know how different that is from the
standard one.

--
//ceed
 
Alias wrote:

> ceed wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 09:13:57 -0500, Alias <iamalias@gmailremove.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought you said Linux was off topic here.
>>
>>
>> Read my response in the other thread: I did not say that Linux was
>> off-topic as long as it has a Windows Vista angle. However, a listing
>> of Ubuntu or Mac OSX features would, in my opinion, be ioff topic.
>>
>
> If someone is interested in Ubuntu, they just might like to know what it
> can do. I suggest Ubuntu as an alternative to Vista. Hence, on topic.
>
> Alias

You are verifiably sick in your head!
Oh and thanks for verifying that fact!...LOL!
 
Back
Top