why did some of the icons change?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by alan, Nov 12, 2009.

  1. alan

    alan Guest

    I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed today
    that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance: the round
    firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin of the white
    rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white rectangle. Only
    half those shortcuts changed like that and they still work correctly.

    I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would cause
    only half of them to change their appearance?
    alan, Nov 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. alan

    alan Guest

    "Jordon" <> wrote in message
    news:hdhlhp$c3g$-september.org...
    > alan wrote:
    >> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    >> after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed today
    >> that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance: the round
    >> firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin of the white
    >> rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white rectangle. Only
    >> half those shortcuts changed like that and they still work correctly.
    >>
    >> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >> cause only half of them to change their appearance?

    >
    > Are they ones you've used since the upgrade?


    They've all been used since the upgrade . . .
    alan, Nov 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. alan

    Jordon Guest

    alan wrote:
    > I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    > after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed today
    > that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance: the round
    > firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin of the white
    > rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white rectangle. Only
    > half those shortcuts changed like that and they still work correctly.
    >
    > I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    > cause only half of them to change their appearance?


    Are they ones you've used since the upgrade?

    --
    Jordon
    Jordon, Nov 12, 2009
    #3
  4. "alan" <> via
    news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:

    > I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    > after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed today
    > that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance: the
    > round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin of
    > the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white
    > rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed like that and they still
    > work correctly.
    >
    > I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    > cause only half of them to change their appearance?


    'Cause the other half just didn't, and the final half won't ever
    -- unless you do it manually with the mouse right click trick or
    someone or something does it for you or to you or with you.

    Out with the old Firefox and in with the new things to get used to...

    HTH.

    --

    I AM Bucky Breeder, (*(^; ;
    and on the 'AWESOMENESS METER'
    I am about two clicks better than 'TOTALLY';
    furthermore, I used to want a late-night talk-show so
    I could secks all the wimmins -- Darn YOU, Letterman!

    <Back to Rohypnol from the online Canadian pharmacies...>
    Hmmm... If I had that show, could those be tax deductable?...

    "Stupid is as 'Lookout' does." --Forrest Gump's Mamma

    Repent! The end is near.... So, smoke 'em if you got 'em.
    Bucky Breeder, Nov 12, 2009
    #4
  5. "alan" <> wrote in
    news:hdhlln$e8j$-september.org:

    >
    > "Jordon" <> wrote in message
    > news:hdhlhp$c3g$-september.org...
    >> alan wrote:
    >>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to
    >>> websites and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5
    >>> yesterday, I noticed today that half of those icons have a
    >>> slightly different appearance: the round firefox symbol, which
    >>> extended a bit beyond the left margin of the white rectangle, is
    >>> now smaller and in the center of the white rectangle. Only half
    >>> those shortcuts changed like that and they still work correctly.
    >>>
    >>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what
    >>> would cause only half of them to change their appearance?

    >>
    >> Are they ones you've used since the upgrade?

    >
    > They've all been used since the upgrade . . .
    >


    Probably your Icon Cache simply got screwed up. Rebuilding an Icon
    Cache is easy. Go to the "Re-create the ShellIconCache file" section
    in the following KB article:

    "Icons randomly change to different icons"
    <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/132668>

    HTH,
    John
    John Wunderlich, Nov 12, 2009
    #5
  6. alan

    alan Guest

    "John Wunderlich" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CC17FEA9B4ACwunderpsdrscray@138.125.254.103...
    > "alan" <> wrote in
    > news:hdhlln$e8j$-september.org:
    >
    >>
    >> "Jordon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hdhlhp$c3g$-september.org...
    >>> alan wrote:
    >>>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to
    >>>> websites and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5
    >>>> yesterday, I noticed today that half of those icons have a
    >>>> slightly different appearance: the round firefox symbol, which
    >>>> extended a bit beyond the left margin of the white rectangle, is
    >>>> now smaller and in the center of the white rectangle. Only half
    >>>> those shortcuts changed like that and they still work correctly.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what
    >>>> would cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>>
    >>> Are they ones you've used since the upgrade?

    >>
    >> They've all been used since the upgrade . . .
    >>

    >
    > Probably your Icon Cache simply got screwed up. Rebuilding an Icon
    > Cache is easy. Go to the "Re-create the ShellIconCache file" section
    > in the following KB article:
    >
    > "Icons randomly change to different icons"
    > <http://support.microsoft.com/kb/132668>
    >
    > HTH,
    > John


    thanks, John . . .
    alan, Nov 12, 2009
    #6
  7. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    "alan" <> wrote in
    news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:

    > I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    > after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed today
    > that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance: the
    > round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin of
    > the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white
    > rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed like that and they still
    > work correctly.
    >
    > I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    > cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >

    Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing what
    the shortcuts are *of*, no one can give you a better answer.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 12, 2009
    #7
  8. alan

    Aardvark Guest

    On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:34 +0000, chuckcar wrote:

    > "alan" <> wrote in
    > news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:
    >
    >> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites and,
    >> after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I noticed
    >> today that half of those icons have a slightly different appearance:
    >> the round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the left margin
    >> of the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the center of the white
    >> rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed like that and they still
    >> work correctly.
    >>
    >> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >> cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>

    > Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing
    > what the shortcuts are *of*,


    Read much? The OP stated clearly *what* the *shortcuts* are *of*.

    > no one can give you a better answer.






    --
    Elmo McElroy: If I wanted cuisine, I'd have gone to Paris
    Felix DeSouza: You can still go to France. It's full of pricks. They hate
    Yanks too. Do you fancy a bite, or what?
    Elmo Mc Elroy: Yeah, all right.
    Aardvark, Nov 13, 2009
    #8
  9. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    Aardvark <> wrote in
    news:No1Lm.6848$2:

    > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:34 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
    >
    >> "alan" <> wrote in
    >> news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:
    >>
    >>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites
    >>> and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I
    >>> noticed today that half of those icons have a slightly different
    >>> appearance: the round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the
    >>> left margin of the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the center
    >>> of the white rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed like that
    >>> and they still work correctly.
    >>>
    >>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >>> cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>>

    >> Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing
    >> what the shortcuts are *of*,

    >
    > Read much? The OP stated clearly *what* the *shortcuts* are *of*.
    >

    And what *exactly* was the extension of the shortcuts? And *don't* say
    html or htm. You don't know even that.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 13, 2009
    #9
  10. alan

    alan Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CC1D276E263Dchucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > Aardvark <> wrote in
    > news:No1Lm.6848$2:
    >
    >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:34 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
    >>
    >>> "alan" <> wrote in
    >>> news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:
    >>>
    >>>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites
    >>>> and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I
    >>>> noticed today that half of those icons have a slightly different
    >>>> appearance: the round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond the
    >>>> left margin of the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the center
    >>>> of the white rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed like that
    >>>> and they still work correctly.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >>>> cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>>>
    >>> Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing
    >>> what the shortcuts are *of*,

    >>
    >> Read much? The OP stated clearly *what* the *shortcuts* are *of*.
    >>

    > And what *exactly* was the extension of the shortcuts? And *don't* say
    > html or htm. You don't know even that.


    Shortcuts to websites don't have "extensions", do they?
    alan, Nov 13, 2009
    #10
  11. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    "alan" <> wrote in
    news:hdifkg$8h6$-september.org:

    >
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9CC1D276E263Dchucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >> Aardvark <> wrote in
    >> news:No1Lm.6848$2:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:34 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "alan" <> wrote in
    >>>> news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites
    >>>>> and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I
    >>>>> noticed today that half of those icons have a slightly different
    >>>>> appearance: the round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond
    >>>>> the left margin of the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the
    >>>>> center of the white rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed
    >>>>> like that and they still work correctly.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >>>>> cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>>>>
    >>>> Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing
    >>>> what the shortcuts are *of*,
    >>>
    >>> Read much? The OP stated clearly *what* the *shortcuts* are *of*.
    >>>

    >> And what *exactly* was the extension of the shortcuts? And *don't* say
    >> html or htm. You don't know even that.

    >
    > Shortcuts to websites don't have "extensions", do they?
    >

    Actually they're *all* .lnk but the url almost always ends in one. That's
    the extension I was referring to.

    How come you don't just use favorites?

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 13, 2009
    #11
  12. alan

    alan Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CC1E3FADEECFchucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > "alan" <> wrote in
    > news:hdifkg$8h6$-september.org:
    >
    >>
    >> "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9CC1D276E263Dchucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >>> Aardvark <> wrote in
    >>> news:No1Lm.6848$2:
    >>>
    >>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:13:34 +0000, chuckcar wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "alan" <> wrote in
    >>>>> news:hdhkuh$88a$-september.org:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I've got a few icons on my desktop which are shortcuts to websites
    >>>>>> and, after having upgraded from Firefox 2.0 to 3.5 yesterday, I
    >>>>>> noticed today that half of those icons have a slightly different
    >>>>>> appearance: the round firefox symbol, which extended a bit beyond
    >>>>>> the left margin of the white rectangle, is now smaller and in the
    >>>>>> center of the white rectangle. Only half those shortcuts changed
    >>>>>> like that and they still work correctly.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I've noticed no problems at all, but was just curious --- what would
    >>>>>> cause only half of them to change their appearance?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> Beacause they're different. Short of icon cache corruption or knowing
    >>>>> what the shortcuts are *of*,
    >>>>
    >>>> Read much? The OP stated clearly *what* the *shortcuts* are *of*.
    >>>>
    >>> And what *exactly* was the extension of the shortcuts? And *don't* say
    >>> html or htm. You don't know even that.

    >>
    >> Shortcuts to websites don't have "extensions", do they?
    >>

    > Actually they're *all* .lnk but the url almost always ends in one. That's
    > the extension I was referring to.


    Really? That's odd ---- of the 9 that I have, only *one* ends in an
    extension. And that happens to be .html.

    >
    > How come you don't just use favorites?


    Because I'm lazy. There are a few websites I may access very frequently,
    and they may change frequently depending on my interest of the moment so
    it's not worthwhile prioritizing them on my bookmarks list; a couple of
    clicks on a desktop icon is so much less work than a couple clicks to get on
    the internet, then a click to access favorites ("bookmarks" in my case),
    then a couple wheel spins to find the goddam bookmark , then another click
    to get to it.

    Are you one of the folks who has an irrational aversion to having something
    on the desktop?
    alan, Nov 13, 2009
    #12
  13. On 11/13/2009 9:21 AM alan expressed the following: -

    >>>
    >>> Shortcuts to websites don't have "extensions", do they?
    >>>

    >> Actually they're *all* .lnk but the url almost always ends in one. That's
    >> the extension I was referring to.


    Shortcuts to URLs have .url extension. You can check using dir command
    in Command Prompt. The only way I figured was to right click on Desktop
    and select New>>Shortcut and following through the wizard.

    >
    > Really? That's odd ---- of the 9 that I have, only *one* ends in an
    > extension. And that happens to be .html.


    Possibly, the icons for .url and .html are set differently. If you need,
    you can set it via properties or Folder Options>>File Types dialog.

    >
    >>
    >> How come you don't just use favorites?

    >
    > Because I'm lazy.

    <snip>

    > Are you one of the folks who has an irrational aversion to having
    > something on the desktop?


    There is nothing irrational about preferring a minimalist desktop, but
    consider using a launcher like Launchy that indexes your favorites. You
    can invoke it anytime. You need not do Show Desktop and you can type a
    few letters of the url or even the page title (need not be the first few
    letters) and you should be able to launch firefox directly with the site.

    HTH
    --
    Diabolic Preacher
    As Is
    Diabolic Preacher, Nov 13, 2009
    #13
  14. alan

    alan Guest

    "Diabolic Preacher" <> wrote in message
    news:hdjmq1$13r$...
    > On 11/13/2009 9:21 AM alan expressed the following: -
    >
    >>>>
    >>>> Shortcuts to websites don't have "extensions", do they?
    >>>>
    >>> Actually they're *all* .lnk but the url almost always ends in one.
    >>> That's
    >>> the extension I was referring to.

    >
    > Shortcuts to URLs have .url extension. You can check using dir command in
    > Command Prompt. The only way I figured was to right click on Desktop and
    > select New>>Shortcut and following through the wizard.
    >
    >>
    >> Really? That's odd ---- of the 9 that I have, only *one* ends in an
    >> extension. And that happens to be .html.

    >
    > Possibly, the icons for .url and .html are set differently. If you need,
    > you can set it via properties or Folder Options>>File Types dialog.
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> How come you don't just use favorites?

    >>
    >> Because I'm lazy.

    > <snip>
    >
    >> Are you one of the folks who has an irrational aversion to having
    >> something on the desktop?

    >
    > There is nothing irrational about preferring a minimalist desktop, but
    > consider using a launcher like Launchy that indexes your favorites. You
    > can invoke it anytime. You need not do Show Desktop and you can type a few
    > letters of the url or even the page title (need not be the first few
    > letters) and you should be able to launch firefox directly with the site.
    >
    > HTH


    Thanks for the suggestion, but I like my system better. Launchy sounds like
    a bells-and-whistles gadget that actually ends up involving more effort. I
    don't mind icons on my desktop and don't want to have to remember which few
    letters I need to type in nor do I want to bother indexing yet another
    bookmark list or letting some utility do it for me. To each is own, though.
    Thanks again
    alan, Nov 13, 2009
    #14
  15. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    "alan" <> wrote in
    news:hdil4f$ck4$-september.org:

    >> How come you don't just use favorites?

    >
    > Because I'm lazy. There are a few websites I may access very
    > frequently, and they may change frequently depending on my interest of
    > the moment so it's not worthwhile prioritizing them on my bookmarks
    > list; a couple of clicks on a desktop icon is so much less work than a
    > couple clicks to get on the internet, then a click to access favorites
    > ("bookmarks" in my case), then a couple wheel spins to find the goddam
    > bookmark , then another click to get to it.
    >
    > Are you one of the folks who has an irrational aversion to having
    > something on the desktop?
    >

    A rational one, yes. The desktop is a background you place windows on. In the
    unix world the desktop scrolls in both directions. To several screen sizes
    each way. This would make it impractical to do such a thing as you would then have
    to scroll back to get to the icon, whereas a simple left click produces the main
    menu. Windows fill space and why MS never thought that a scrolling desktop
    wouldn't be necessary is beyond me. Certainly windows 1 had it.

    I am not adverse to using menus, however I am adverse to giant buttons
    that serve no useful purpose when a simple menu bar would serve and do
    more. There are different methodolgies used when writing software that by
    their method imply usage. If a program has an equivalent to favorites,
    when I'm using it, I see no reason to do otherwise than use it.


    There's a lot of bad ideas in software and a lot of inefficient habits one can
    adopt. Shortcuts on the desktop is one. At the least you have to minimize all
    the windows to get to it. Pretty pointless when the favorites are one branch
    away off the start menu. However the *way* the favorites has been changed is bad
    too. Back when IE 5 came out, they removed the "explorer" organizer from it. Big
    mistake. They had three: one for the menu, one or IE and the explorer itself. Perfectly
    good idea they just threw away.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 13, 2009
    #15
  16. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    ~BD~ <> wrote in
    news::

    > chuckcar wrote:
    >> At the least you have to minimize all
    >> the windows to get to it.

    >
    > Perhaps it has slipped your mind that if one presses the 'Windows' key
    > (between Ctl and Alt) and the 'D' key simultaneously, ALL windows are
    > minimised leaving one's complete desktop plain to see?
    >
    > Doing it again put all windows back to how they were.
    >
    > If you never actually knew that, now you do!
    >
    > HTH you ....... and maybe others too.
    >

    As opposed to one click and doing things the way windows intended. Not
    exactly an improvement.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 14, 2009
    #16
  17. alan

    alan Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CC399CDC19A8chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > ~BD~ <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> chuckcar wrote:
    >>> At the least you have to minimize all
    >>> the windows to get to it.

    >>
    >> Perhaps it has slipped your mind that if one presses the 'Windows' key
    >> (between Ctl and Alt) and the 'D' key simultaneously, ALL windows are
    >> minimised leaving one's complete desktop plain to see?
    >>
    >> Doing it again put all windows back to how they were.
    >>
    >> If you never actually knew that, now you do!
    >>
    >> HTH you ....... and maybe others too.
    >>

    > As opposed to one click and doing things the way windows intended. Not
    > exactly an improvement.


    You want one click? Put the "show desktop" icon on your taskbar . . .

    BTW, I'd rather do things the easiest possible way, which is not necessarily
    "what windows intended"

    What's your objection to having icons on your desktop? Are you just a
    neatness freak?
    alan, Nov 14, 2009
    #17
  18. alan

    chuckcar Guest

    "alan" <> wrote in
    news:hdn7o4$a2h$-september.org:

    >
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9CC399CDC19A8chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >> ~BD~ <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> chuckcar wrote:
    >>>> At the least you have to minimize all
    >>>> the windows to get to it.
    >>>
    >>> Perhaps it has slipped your mind that if one presses the 'Windows' key
    >>> (between Ctl and Alt) and the 'D' key simultaneously, ALL windows are
    >>> minimised leaving one's complete desktop plain to see?
    >>>
    >>> Doing it again put all windows back to how they were.
    >>>
    >>> If you never actually knew that, now you do!
    >>>
    >>> HTH you ....... and maybe others too.
    >>>

    >> As opposed to one click and doing things the way windows intended. Not
    >> exactly an improvement.

    >
    > You want one click? Put the "show desktop" icon on your taskbar . . .
    >

    It already is. I hardly ever use it. Besides, that doesn't launch a
    website, whereas the favorites do.

    > BTW, I'd rather do things the easiest possible way, which is not
    > necessarily "what windows intended"
    >
    > What's your objection to having icons on your desktop? Are you just a
    > neatness freak?
    >

    I already explained that. If you choose to do things differently, that's
    up to you, but it *is* less efficient.



    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Nov 15, 2009
    #18
  19. alan

    alan Guest

    "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns9CC3C5D316239chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    > "alan" <> wrote in
    > news:hdn7o4$a2h$-september.org:
    >
    >>
    >> "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Xns9CC399CDC19A8chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >>> ~BD~ <> wrote in
    >>> news::
    >>>
    >>>> chuckcar wrote:
    >>>>> At the least you have to minimize all
    >>>>> the windows to get to it.
    >>>>
    >>>> Perhaps it has slipped your mind that if one presses the 'Windows' key
    >>>> (between Ctl and Alt) and the 'D' key simultaneously, ALL windows are
    >>>> minimised leaving one's complete desktop plain to see?
    >>>>
    >>>> Doing it again put all windows back to how they were.
    >>>>
    >>>> If you never actually knew that, now you do!
    >>>>
    >>>> HTH you ....... and maybe others too.
    >>>>
    >>> As opposed to one click and doing things the way windows intended. Not
    >>> exactly an improvement.

    >>
    >> You want one click? Put the "show desktop" icon on your taskbar . . .
    >>

    > It already is. I hardly ever use it. Besides, that doesn't launch a
    > website, whereas the favorites do.
    >
    >> BTW, I'd rather do things the easiest possible way, which is not
    >> necessarily "what windows intended"
    >>
    >> What's your objection to having icons on your desktop? Are you just a
    >> neatness freak?
    >>

    > I already explained that. If you choose to do things differently, that's
    > up to you, but it *is* less efficient.


    Less efficient?
    Your way:
    Access the internet: (start menu, internet) --- click start, move mouse,
    click internet
    Access bookmark: click Bookmarks, scroll down, click desired site.
    ***Total movements: 4 clicks, 1 mouse movement, 1 scrolldown (or more)

    My way:
    Access site: double click on desktop icon (may sometimes be necessary to
    click "show desktop" icon in task bar)
    ***Total movements: Minimum 2 clicks, maximum 3 clicks.

    Explain how 4 clicks is more efficient than 2 or 3 clicks.
    alan, Nov 15, 2009
    #19
  20. alan

    Aardvark Guest

    On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:58:40 -0800, alan wrote:

    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9CC3C5D316239chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >> "alan" <> wrote in
    >> news:hdn7o4$a2h$-september.org:
    >>
    >>
    >>> "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Xns9CC399CDC19A8chucknilcar@127.0.0.1...
    >>>> ~BD~ <> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>> chuckcar wrote:
    >>>>>> At the least you have to minimize all the windows to get to it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Perhaps it has slipped your mind that if one presses the 'Windows'
    >>>>> key (between Ctl and Alt) and the 'D' key simultaneously, ALL
    >>>>> windows are minimised leaving one's complete desktop plain to see?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Doing it again put all windows back to how they were.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> If you never actually knew that, now you do!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> HTH you ....... and maybe others too.
    >>>>>
    >>>> As opposed to one click and doing things the way windows intended.
    >>>> Not exactly an improvement.
    >>>
    >>> You want one click? Put the "show desktop" icon on your taskbar . . .
    >>>

    >> It already is. I hardly ever use it. Besides, that doesn't launch a
    >> website, whereas the favorites do.
    >>
    >>> BTW, I'd rather do things the easiest possible way, which is not
    >>> necessarily "what windows intended"
    >>>
    >>> What's your objection to having icons on your desktop? Are you just a
    >>> neatness freak?
    >>>

    >> I already explained that. If you choose to do things differently,
    >> that's up to you, but it *is* less efficient.

    >
    > Less efficient?
    > Your way:
    > Access the internet: (start menu, internet) --- click start, move mouse,
    > click internet
    > Access bookmark: click Bookmarks, scroll down, click desired site.
    > ***Total movements: 4 clicks, 1 mouse movement, 1 scrolldown (or more)
    >
    > My way:
    > Access site: double click on desktop icon (may sometimes be necessary
    > to click "show desktop" icon in task bar) ***Total movements: Minimum 2
    > clicks, maximum 3 clicks.
    >
    > Explain how 4 clicks is more efficient than 2 or 3 clicks.


    See that cloud of dust? That's what chuckie left behind as he exited this
    thread.



    --
    Elmo McElroy: If I wanted cuisine, I'd have gone to Paris
    Felix DeSouza: You can still go to France. It's full of pricks. They hate
    Yanks too. Do you fancy a bite, or what?
    Elmo Mc Elroy: Yeah, all right.
    Aardvark, Nov 15, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Re: Why did you change?

    , Jan 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    316
  2. Why did Google Change its Interface?

    , May 17, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    684
  3. don

    Why did my PC clock change

    don, Oct 28, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,825
    Blinky the Shark
    Oct 31, 2007
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,032
    pcbutts1
    Dec 6, 2007
  5. Tony Neville
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,592
    steve
    Sep 22, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page