Favorites button ie8

So IE is my operating system? I hadn't realized that. Or are you talking
about tweaking the registry being a modification to my OS?

I agree that there may be issues when I upgrade IE, but then I would already
know where to look if something craps out.

BTW, your analogy is a bit flawed. Yes, I would change the dashboard of my
car. People do it all the time when they customize things.

As for Favorites...I can see utility in blocking even the ability to see
Favorites...shared PCs in which a government organization doesn't allow
people to add to, or even use existing, favorites. In those cases, the
button is superfluous.

More and more, MS is taking away the ability to customize their
applications...which is their right, don't get me wrong: it's their product,
they can do what they want. But as a user, I like having the ability to
modify a ubiquitous app, like a browser, the way I want to work/use it.

I don't have an "issue" with it...I just think MS is being stupid with
regards to interface design.

"Leonard Grey" wrote:

> When you force software to do something it was not designed to do,
> eventually it will come back to bite you. This is particularly true when
> that software is your operating system. You do not know the software
> code, so you can't predict what effect your 'tweak' will have on other
> parts of the software.
>
> Then, weeks, months or even years later, when a major upgrade or service
> pack crashes your computer, you'll come back to this newsgroup and rant
> and rave "how dare that lousy Microsoft mess up my computer with their
> crappy software..." etc. etc. and it will be your own fault.
>
> I could go on to say that if a button on a toolbar bothers you so much
> that you'd rather hack your operating system than ignore it, you've got
> issues a computer can't solve. Do you hack your TV because you don't
> like the look of its menus? Do you hack the dashboard of your car?
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> ccrashh wrote:
> > "Leonard Grey" wrote:

Internet Explorer has been part of the Windows operating system for many
years.

I'll admit to not knowing everything about cars, but I have not heard of
being able to remove the 'high temperature' icon, for example, because
you don't like the way it looks.

Most people - even in the government - know that when a PC is shared,
each user is supposed to have their own user account.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

ccrashh wrote:
> So IE is my operating system? I hadn't realized that. Or are you talking
> about tweaking the registry being a modification to my OS?
>
> I agree that there may be issues when I upgrade IE, but then I would already
> know where to look if something craps out.
>
> BTW, your analogy is a bit flawed. Yes, I would change the dashboard of my
> car. People do it all the time when they customize things.
>
> As for Favorites...I can see utility in blocking even the ability to see
> Favorites...shared PCs in which a government organization doesn't allow
> people to add to, or even use existing, favorites. In those cases, the
> button is superfluous.
>
> More and more, MS is taking away the ability to customize their
> applications...which is their right, don't get me wrong: it's their product,
> they can do what they want. But as a user, I like having the ability to
> modify a ubiquitous app, like a browser, the way I want to work/use it.
>
> I don't have an "issue" with it...I just think MS is being stupid with
> regards to interface design.
>
> "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>
>> When you force software to do something it was not designed to do,
>> eventually it will come back to bite you. This is particularly true when
>> that software is your operating system. You do not know the software
>> code, so you can't predict what effect your 'tweak' will have on other
>> parts of the software.
>>
>> Then, weeks, months or even years later, when a major upgrade or service
>> pack crashes your computer, you'll come back to this newsgroup and rant
>> and rave "how dare that lousy Microsoft mess up my computer with their
>> crappy software..." etc. etc. and it will be your own fault.
>>
>> I could go on to say that if a button on a toolbar bothers you so much
>> that you'd rather hack your operating system than ignore it, you've got
>> issues a computer can't solve. Do you hack your TV because you don't
>> like the look of its menus? Do you hack the dashboard of your car?
>> ---
>> Leonard Grey
>> Errare humanum est
>>
>> ccrashh wrote:
>>> "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>

Actually, many government departments are moving towards a dummy terminal
style of access. Using an application called Citrix, for example. These
terminals log into shared applications, which, usually, don't allow for the
addition of Favorites. One organization even went so far as to show NO
favorites whatsoever. Links only came off of the Home Page. Couldn't even
go to Google. Albeit, this was a highly secure area.

As for the car analogy...it's too awkward. The dashboard is hardware, IE is
software. There is a huge, huge difference between the hiding of a button on
a piece of software and removing parts from a piece of hardware. For one,
hiding something in software doesn't mean removing the functionality. It
just means don't show it to me on, in this case, a toolbar. The
functionality is still accessible via the menus. No, we are talking skins
and the ability to modify the look of something, not recoding the underlying
application.

It's unfortunate that so many users, for so long tied into the pathetic GUI
of IE, fail to understand that a browser's interface should be adaptable.
Take a look at FF and how it allows a user to put/move a button just about
anywhere. That's how it should be done.

"Leonard Grey" wrote:

> Internet Explorer has been part of the Windows operating system for many
> years.
>
> I'll admit to not knowing everything about cars, but I have not heard of
> being able to remove the 'high temperature' icon, for example, because
> you don't like the way it looks.
>
> Most people - even in the government - know that when a PC is shared,
> each user is supposed to have their own user account.
> ---

Because it's in the way.

"Gordon" wrote:

>
> "RobA" <> wrote in message
> news:91CC7F98-2C0E-46A9-9832-...
> > Please provide a method of removing the Favorites button.
> > Thank you.
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> --
> Asking a question?
> Please tell us the version of the application you are asking about,
> your OS, Service Pack level
> and the FULL contents of any error message(s)
>
>

You are absolutely right. We shouldn't have to hack to OS to be able to
optimize it and applications to function the way we need them to. I shouldn't
have to waste my time looking for a way to hide or turn off functions which I
don't need, are anoying and reduce productivity.

"Leonard Grey" wrote:

> When you force software to do something it was not designed to do,
> eventually it will come back to bite you. This is particularly true when
> that software is your operating system. You do not know the software
> code, so you can't predict what effect your 'tweak' will have on other
> parts of the software.
>
> Then, weeks, months or even years later, when a major upgrade or service
> pack crashes your computer, you'll come back to this newsgroup and rant
> and rave "how dare that lousy Microsoft mess up my computer with their
> crappy software..." etc. etc. and it will be your own fault.
>
> I could go on to say that if a button on a toolbar bothers you so much
> that you'd rather hack your operating system than ignore it, you've got
> issues a computer can't solve. Do you hack your TV because you don't
> like the look of its menus? Do you hack the dashboard of your car?
> ---
> Leonard Grey
> Errare humanum est
>
> ccrashh wrote:
> > "Leonard Grey" wrote:
> >
> >> Lol..."tweak" now and suffer later.
> >> ---
> >
> >
> > Er...why would moving/hiding a button be something for which one could
> > "suffer later"? I hate the fact that some things need to be done via the
> > Registry, but moving/hiding a button shouldn't cause issues at all. If it
> > does, there is something fundamentally wrong with the application.
>

It is plain and simple, If we wanted computers that we could not tweak to our
likings then we would have bought Mac's. It is absurd that I have to loose a
whole line of space on a netbook computer because some programmer thinks I
need a favorites icon. Even if I do have to have that Icon let me move it.
Linux is looking better every microsoft release or update.

"WhoNeedsAClue" wrote:

> You are absolutely right. We shouldn't have to hack to OS to be able to
> optimize it and applications to function the way we need them to. I shouldn't
> have to waste my time looking for a way to hide or turn off functions which I
> don't need, are anoying and reduce productivity.
>
> "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>
> > When you force software to do something it was not designed to do,
> > eventually it will come back to bite you. This is particularly true when
> > that software is your operating system. You do not know the software
> > code, so you can't predict what effect your 'tweak' will have on other
> > parts of the software.
> >
> > Then, weeks, months or even years later, when a major upgrade or service
> > pack crashes your computer, you'll come back to this newsgroup and rant
> > and rave "how dare that lousy Microsoft mess up my computer with their
> > crappy software..." etc. etc. and it will be your own fault.
> >
> > I could go on to say that if a button on a toolbar bothers you so much
> > that you'd rather hack your operating system than ignore it, you've got
> > issues a computer can't solve. Do you hack your TV because you don't
> > like the look of its menus? Do you hack the dashboard of your car?
> > ---
> > Leonard Grey
> > Errare humanum est
> >
> > ccrashh wrote:
> > > "Leonard Grey" wrote:
> > >
> > >> Lol..."tweak" now and suffer later.
> > >> ---
> > >
> > >
> > > Er...why would moving/hiding a button be something for which one could
> > > "suffer later"? I hate the fact that some things need to be done via the
> > > Registry, but moving/hiding a button shouldn't cause issues at all. If it
> > > does, there is something fundamentally wrong with the application.
> >

Hi j-dot.com

You can tweak the Favorites button. You just have to find out how. Try one
of your network administrators at work or look at the IEAK documentation at
MSDN.



Regards.



"j-.dot.com" <> wrote in message
news:41494F8E-B47C-4C73-82C6-...
> It is plain and simple, If we wanted computers that we could not tweak to
> our
> likings then we would have bought Mac's. It is absurd that I have to
> loose a
> whole line of space on a netbook computer because some programmer thinks I
> need a favorites icon. Even if I do have to have that Icon let me move it.
> Linux is looking better every microsoft release or update.
>
> "WhoNeedsAClue" wrote:
>
>> You are absolutely right. We shouldn't have to hack to OS to be able to
>> optimize it and applications to function the way we need them to. I
>> shouldn't
>> have to waste my time looking for a way to hide or turn off functions
>> which I
>> don't need, are anoying and reduce productivity.
>>
>> "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>>
>> > When you force software to do something it was not designed to do,
>> > eventually it will come back to bite you. This is particularly true
>> > when
>> > that software is your operating system. You do not know the software
>> > code, so you can't predict what effect your 'tweak' will have on other
>> > parts of the software.
>> >
>> > Then, weeks, months or even years later, when a major upgrade or
>> > service
>> > pack crashes your computer, you'll come back to this newsgroup and rant
>> > and rave "how dare that lousy Microsoft mess up my computer with their
>> > crappy software..." etc. etc. and it will be your own fault.
>> >
>> > I could go on to say that if a button on a toolbar bothers you so much
>> > that you'd rather hack your operating system than ignore it, you've got
>> > issues a computer can't solve. Do you hack your TV because you don't
>> > like the look of its menus? Do you hack the dashboard of your car?
>> > ---
>> > Leonard Grey
>> > Errare humanum est
>> >
>> > ccrashh wrote:
>> > > "Leonard Grey" wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Lol..."tweak" now and suffer later.
>> > >> ---
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Er...why would moving/hiding a button be something for which one
>> > > could
>> > > "suffer later"? I hate the fact that some things need to be done via
>> > > the
>> > > Registry, but moving/hiding a button shouldn't cause issues at all.
>> > > If it
>> > > does, there is something fundamentally wrong with the application.
>> >