Control Panel

[Panic]

I didn't like the way Control Panel displays. I found that it opened in
Category View and I liked the old way where you could view each item
separately. Near the upper right there is a little View By window. If it
says Category View click on the arrow head on the right and choose Large
Icons or Small Icons. Yay! Now it looks the way I'm used to and is easier
for me to use.
Try it.

 

[rfdjr1]

I didn't like the way Control Panel displays. I found that it opened in
Category View and I liked the old way where you could view each item
separately. Near the upper right there is a little View By window. If it
says Category View click on the arrow head on the right and choose Large
Icons or Small Icons. Yay! Now it looks the way I'm used to and is easier
for me to use.
Try it.

Wow, thanks for that! I didn't like the way it opened up either.

 

[Joe Morris]

Wow, thanks for that! I didn't like the way it opened up either.

Has anyone found a way to make Windows 7 sort the control panel names in
columns instead of rows when in "icon" mode, other than by making the window
so narrow that it has only one column?

Joe Morris

 

[SC Tom]

Has anyone found a way to make Windows 7 sort the control panel names in
columns instead of rows when in "icon" mode, other than by making the
window so narrow that it has only one column?

Joe Morris

I didn't know that could be done in any version. Well, not automatically,
but I guess if you wanted to take the time, it could be done manually in XP.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Has anyone found a way to make Windows 7 sort the control panel names in
columns instead of rows when in "icon" mode, other than by making the window
so narrow that it has only one column?

No, but if you find a way, be sure to post it!

 

[Jeff Layman]

No, but if you find a way, be sure to post it!

Another change forced on us by Microsoft for reasons only they know.

Ah, no, I think I _do_ know the reason. They are moving everything from
word-based to icon based. Eventually, there won't even be a keyboard. Who
needs letters when you do everything with icons?...

 

[SC Tom]

Another change forced on us by Microsoft for reasons only they know.

Ah, no, I think I _do_ know the reason. They are moving everything from
word-based to icon based. Eventually, there won't even be a keyboard.
Who needs letters when you do everything with icons?...

For curiosity's sake, how was it done in previous versions? I don't see any
'sort by column' setting on my XP machine.

 

[DGDevin]

Another change forced on us by Microsoft for reasons only they know.

Ah, no, I think I _do_ know the reason. They are moving everything from
word-based to icon based. Eventually, there won't even be a keyboard.
Who needs letters when you do everything with icons?...

I wish you were joking, but I suspect you might be right, and it isn't just
Microsoft. I got a new car stereo recently and instead of buttons and knobs
with clear labels and functions, I now have to deal with tiny buttons that
call up menus and sub-menus and sub-sub-menus on a display screen. So
instead of just turning a knob to adjust the bass, now I'd have to pull
over, open the manual and call up the right menu to tweak the bass to my
liking. I guess that's why the thing came with a remote control, it's the
only way to change anything while keeping your eyes on the road.

I remember when Favorites were displayed as a screenful of icons--I liked
that. Now I have to scroll through lists searching for the website I want;
how is that an improvement?

I've been running Windows 7 for a week, and I'm still wondering exactly why
I didn't get XP installed on this new computer....

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

No, but if you find a way, be sure to post it!

Actually, you'd have to rewrite the program. How are you in C++?

The reason it sorts in rows and not in columns is that it is *much* easier
to do that in code. And it is hardly unique to Windows or even to Windows
programs.

I've always hated sorting in rows too...

 

[johnbee]

Actually, you'd have to rewrite the program. How are you in C++?

The reason it sorts in rows and not in columns is that it is *much* easier
to do that in code. And it is hardly unique to Windows or even to Windows
programs.

I've always hated sorting in rows too...

As a matter of fact, next time you look at Control Panel, you might notice
near the top of the window are some black triangles on either side of some
words. If you look at the black triangle on the rhs of the words 'All
Control Panel Items' and then left click on it, you will see a single column
of items sorted alphabetically downwards, which is what the man wanted.

 

[Char Jackson]

Actually, you'd have to rewrite the program. How are you in C++?

The reason it sorts in rows and not in columns is that it is *much* easier
to do that in code. And it is hardly unique to Windows or even to Windows
programs.

I've always hated sorting in rows too...

I used to do some (primarily VB5/VB6) programming back in the day, and
I think this is one of those classic times where my ignorance didn't
serve me well, or else it saved me, depending on your perspective. I
didn't realize (until now) that sorting and displaying objects into
multiple columns was supposed to be more difficult than sorting and
displaying those same objects into multiple rows, so to me there was
no difference in the level of effort between the two.

Enumerate the set of objects, sort them as desired, get their
dimensions, get the dimensions of the bounding container, print. If
you're sorting by columns but printing in rows, the interim data
collection will look a little funky, but the end result is as
expected.

I'm curious as to why this is programmatically difficult? I'm quite
sure I didn't break any new ground.

 

[Char Jackson]

As a matter of fact, next time you look at Control Panel, you might notice
near the top of the window are some black triangles on either side of some
words. If you look at the black triangle on the rhs of the words 'All
Control Panel Items' and then left click on it, you will see a single column
of items sorted alphabetically downwards, which is what the man wanted.

I thought he wanted columns, (plural), not column, (singular).

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

As a matter of fact, next time you look at Control Panel, you might notice
near the top of the window are some black triangles on either side of some
words. If you look at the black triangle on the rhs of the words 'All
Control Panel Items' and then left click on it, you will see a single column
of items sorted alphabetically downwards, which is what the man wanted.

1. That has nothing to do with my post.

2. Look at Joe Morris's post upthread for a remark related to what you
said. He didn't seem to like the single-column method of sorting.

3. On my Control Panel, the only black triangles are in the Address Bar,
which I guess might be what you meant by "near the top of the window", and
they don't manage to do quite what you claim. I have 55 items in the panel,
and the most ambitious of the black triangles ("All Control Panel Items",
like you said) shows only about 29 items. Just one example: "Quick Time
(32-bit)" isn't in that drop-down menu.

Incidentally and FWIW, most of the time I like the Category View.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I used to do some (primarily VB5/VB6) programming back in the day, and
I think this is one of those classic times where my ignorance didn't
serve me well, or else it saved me, depending on your perspective. I
didn't realize (until now) that sorting and displaying objects into
multiple columns was supposed to be more difficult than sorting and
displaying those same objects into multiple rows, so to me there was
no difference in the level of effort between the two.

Enumerate the set of objects, sort them as desired, get their
dimensions, get the dimensions of the bounding container, print. If
you're sorting by columns but printing in rows, the interim data
collection will look a little funky, but the end result is as
expected.

I'm curious as to why this is programmatically difficult? I'm quite
sure I didn't break any new ground.

Your paragraph starting "Enumerate..." answers your question (but please
see below).

In other words, I meant "difficult" in comparison to just printing the list
in order, n items per line. Of course that requires the difficult step of
figuring out the value of n, or at least figuring out where the line ends


I used difficult (by implication, in contrast to where I said "much
easier") to mean "it requires a moment of thought and a tiny bit of
effort", i.e., I was (intentionally) exaggerating for irony. Or is it
sardonicism? I can never tell.

I no longer quite remember (it's been a while), but I think on occasion I
have presented output from a program in a list sorted by column.

It's also even easier than you said above. Say you can compute that you
need four columns and that there are m items. Let k = (m+3)/4. The first
line gets items numbered 1, k+1, 2k+1, & 3k+1. Then print 2, k+2, 2k+2, &
3k+2. Rinse and repeat as necessary. Be careful on the last line. This is
in fact a restatement of what you said above, so of course it's not really
easier.

Note: I didn't debug the above

 

[Char Jackson]

Your paragraph starting "Enumerate..." answers your question (but please
see below).

In other words, I meant "difficult" in comparison to just printing the list
in order, n items per line. Of course that requires the difficult step of
figuring out the value of n, or at least figuring out where the line ends


I used difficult (by implication, in contrast to where I said "much
easier") to mean "it requires a moment of thought and a tiny bit of
effort", i.e., I was (intentionally) exaggerating for irony. Or is it
sardonicism? I can never tell.

I no longer quite remember (it's been a while), but I think on occasion I
have presented output from a program in a list sorted by column.

It's also even easier than you said above. Say you can compute that you
need four columns and that there are m items. Let k = (m+3)/4. The first
line gets items numbered 1, k+1, 2k+1, & 3k+1. Then print 2, k+2, 2k+2, &
3k+2. Rinse and repeat as necessary. Be careful on the last line. This is
in fact a restatement of what you said above, so of course it's not really
easier.

Note: I didn't debug the above

Thanks, Gene. I see what you mean. Slightly more difficult in
comparison to simple row printing, but not extremely difficult in
practice.

I'm thinking Microsoft could very easily achieve this level of
difficulty, (after all, you and I were able to), but their focus
groups probably never identified a desire for it.

 

[Joe Morris]

As a matter of fact, next time you look at Control Panel, you might notice
near the top of the window are some black triangles on either side of some
words. If you look at the black triangle on the rhs of the words 'All
Control Panel Items' and then left click on it, you will see a single
column of items sorted alphabetically downwards, which is what the man
wanted.

Well...not quite. Two problems with that approach:

1) it's unnecessary extra steps to produce a list that was trivially easy to
set up in XP. Another word for that is "user-hostile."

2) The list of control panels, at least on my system, is longer that the
drop-down box, meaning that you have to take extra steps to scroll down,
meaning that the entries at the top are no longer visible. This is
especially an issue for users who don't know all about the guts of Windows
and are just trying to *use* the computer to do their jobs.

On my testbed the dropdown list displays eighteen control panels, ending in
"Performance Information and Tools" meaning that to see the remaining twenty
control panels (and this is a sterile testbed, missing the several
applications that add their own entries) aren't shown by default.

In summary: it's a wholly unnecessary irritation.

Joe Morris

 

[Joe Morris]

[wanting the control panel in Win7 to appear in alpha sort, in columns]

For curiosity's sake, how was it done in previous versions? I don't see
any 'sort by column' setting on my XP machine.

No problem in XP. Open Control Panel, left-click the menu item VIEW ->
DETAILS, click the column header "Name" until you see an upward-pointing
triangle, then click VIEW -> LIST.

(If you want to confuse someone, sort on the *comments* instead by clicking
that column header!)

Joe MOrris

 

[SC Tom]

[wanting the control panel in Win7 to appear in alpha sort, in columns]

For curiosity's sake, how was it done in previous versions? I don't see
any 'sort by column' setting on my XP machine.

No problem in XP. Open Control Panel, left-click the menu item VIEW ->
DETAILS, click the column header "Name" until you see an upward-pointing
triangle, then click VIEW -> LIST.

(If you want to confuse someone, sort on the *comments* instead by
clicking that column header!)

Joe MOrris

That's not what I thought it would be. I was thinking "icons sorted by
columns," but you're correct; that does sort in columns
Thanks!

 

[Gordon]

For curiosity's sake, how was it done in previous versions? I don't see
any 'sort by column' setting on my XP machine.

View-List

 

[Gordon]

Has anyone found a way to make Windows 7 sort the control panel names in
columns instead of rows when in "icon" mode, other than by making the window
so narrow that it has only one column?

Joe Morris

Try this workaround - add Control Panel to your Start Menu and set it to
display as a Menu...