Icon - suggestion

When I change the Desktop Background very often the new background makes the
icons very difficult to read and I revert back to the 'basic' ones.

Having the icons have their own background enclosed within a frame (or the
option of this) might make them easier to view and every desktop background
choice would work.

Most like the transparent backgrounds. Why go back to the way it was 10
years ago.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Dave Horne" <> wrote in message
news:...
> When I change the Desktop Background very often the new background makes
> the icons very difficult to read and I revert back to the 'basic' ones.
>
> Having the icons have their own background enclosed within a frame (or the
> option of this) might make them easier to view and every desktop
> background choice would work.

On 6/26/2007 2:20 AM On a whim, Richard Urban pounded out on the keyboard

> Most like the transparent backgrounds. Why go back to the way it was 10
> years ago.
>

Uh, maybe because of what he said, "the new background makes the icons
very difficult to read". What's more important, using what works or
using what's new?

Kind of like that poor excuse for a newsreader that doesn't know what
the purpose of a delimiter is, so it inserts a delimiter where it
shouldn't and leaves a delimiter (and everything below it) when it
should be removed. Using what works or what's new?

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 6/26/2007 12:29 AM On a whim, Dave Horne pounded out on the keyboard

> When I change the Desktop Background very often the new background makes the
> icons very difficult to read and I revert back to the 'basic' ones.
>
> Having the icons have their own background enclosed within a frame (or the
> option of this) might make them easier to view and every desktop background
> choice would work.
>

Hi Dave,

Don't mind Richard. As he has found out, what might be new doesn't
necessary work.

Aero is the new look in Vista, and it's a major resource hog. You can
start by just disabling the transparency, which will help quite a bit if
you don't want to turn off Aero entirely. Right click on your desktop
somewhere and click Personalize, and select Window Color and Appearance,
and uncheck the Enable Transparency checkbox.

To disable Aero completely, click the "Open classic appearance ..."
selection at the bottom of the page, and select Windows Vista Basic,
which will keep a pretty nice looking theme for you, but get rid of all
of the other Aero stuff.

You can try disabling some of the flashy sliding of menus and such.
Click Start, right click on Computer, select properties. Click Advanced
system settings. Under performance, click the Settings button. This will
take you to the Visual Effects tab in Performance Settings. Unchecking
"Use drop shadows..." might disable only what you want to accomplish.

If you want to disable all of the visual effects, you can simply click
the Adjust for best performance selection at the top. There are a
couple of these that I like to use though, like Smooth edges of screen
fonts, and Show thumbnails instead of icons.

Take note that if you disable the Use visual styles on windows & buttons
option, it will disable the theme that you have selected. You can
disable whatever you want, I usually disable all of the fading and
sliding, since there's no real visual benefit to most of them. Just
remember, the more you keep, the more resources it uses.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Funny. It has worked since Windows 98! Believe me when I say that this has
been extensively tested and commented upon. This is what the majority stated
they want.

Having a square colored background is "ugly" to the greater majority of
people, and these people always post here on how to get back to the *normal*
transparent background. The default settings can always be changed.

You can't begin to please everyone.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Terry R." <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 6/26/2007 12:29 AM On a whim, Dave Horne pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> When I change the Desktop Background very often the new background makes
>> the icons very difficult to read and I revert back to the 'basic' ones.
>>
>> Having the icons have their own background enclosed within a frame (or
>> the option of this) might make them easier to view and every desktop
>> background choice would work.
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Don't mind Richard. As he has found out, what might be new doesn't
> necessary work.
>
> Aero is the new look in Vista, and it's a major resource hog. You can
> start by just disabling the transparency, which will help quite a bit if
> you don't want to turn off Aero entirely. Right click on your desktop
> somewhere and click Personalize, and select Window Color and Appearance,
> and uncheck the Enable Transparency checkbox.
>
> To disable Aero completely, click the "Open classic appearance ..."
> selection at the bottom of the page, and select Windows Vista Basic, which
> will keep a pretty nice looking theme for you, but get rid of all of the
> other Aero stuff.
>
> You can try disabling some of the flashy sliding of menus and such. Click
> Start, right click on Computer, select properties. Click Advanced system
> settings. Under performance, click the Settings button. This will take you
> to the Visual Effects tab in Performance Settings. Unchecking "Use drop
> shadows..." might disable only what you want to accomplish.
>
> If you want to disable all of the visual effects, you can simply click the
> Adjust for best performance selection at the top. There are a couple of
> these that I like to use though, like Smooth edges of screen fonts, and
> Show thumbnails instead of icons.
>
> Take note that if you disable the Use visual styles on windows & buttons
> option, it will disable the theme that you have selected. You can disable
> whatever you want, I usually disable all of the fading and sliding, since
> there's no real visual benefit to most of them. Just remember, the more
> you keep, the more resources it uses.
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 6/26/2007 9:06 AM On a whim, Richard Urban pounded out on the keyboard

> Funny. It has worked since Windows 98! Believe me when I say that this has
> been extensively tested and commented upon. This is what the majority stated
> they want.
>
> Having a square colored background is "ugly" to the greater majority of
> people, and these people always post here on how to get back to the *normal*
> transparent background. The default settings can always be changed.
>
> You can't begin to please everyone.
>

(prior text removed because Windows Mail improperly sets a delimiter in
a top posted reply)

You missed the point. You tell the OP that's how most people want it.
But HE doesn't want it that way. REGARDLESS of how anyone else wants
it, he would like it differently because it's hard to read. Is that so
unreasonable? The OP obviously doesn't care if it's "ugly". He just
wants to be able to read them easily.

And I guess "default settings" can't always be changed. Apparently
Windows Mail can't set a top post reply without a delimiter, which is a
bug that's never been fixed. Inserts it where it shouldn't and leaves
it when it should be removed. Makes perfect sense...

What if by chance, you no longer wanted that delimiter in your posts,
because you finally realized what it's real purpose was? Wouldn't that
be a tad bit upsetting to you, trying to change it and can't, except by
manually removing it each time?

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

I post with default settings. If you want to read them properly, Use Outlook
Express or Windows Mail.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)



"Terry R." <> wrote in message
news:eN%...
> On 6/26/2007 9:06 AM On a whim, Richard Urban pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> Funny. It has worked since Windows 98! Believe me when I say that this
>> has been extensively tested and commented upon. This is what the majority
>> stated they want.
>>
>> Having a square colored background is "ugly" to the greater majority of
>> people, and these people always post here on how to get back to the
>> *normal* transparent background. The default settings can always be
>> changed.
>>
>> You can't begin to please everyone.
>>
>
> (prior text removed because Windows Mail improperly sets a delimiter in a
> top posted reply)
>
> You missed the point. You tell the OP that's how most people want it. But
> HE doesn't want it that way. REGARDLESS of how anyone else wants it, he
> would like it differently because it's hard to read. Is that so
> unreasonable? The OP obviously doesn't care if it's "ugly". He just
> wants to be able to read them easily.
>
> And I guess "default settings" can't always be changed. Apparently
> Windows Mail can't set a top post reply without a delimiter, which is a
> bug that's never been fixed. Inserts it where it shouldn't and leaves it
> when it should be removed. Makes perfect sense...
>
> What if by chance, you no longer wanted that delimiter in your posts,
> because you finally realized what it's real purpose was? Wouldn't that be
> a tad bit upsetting to you, trying to change it and can't, except by
> manually removing it each time?
>
> --
> Terry R.
>
> ***Reply Note***
> Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
> Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 6/26/2007 9:40 AM On a whim, Richard Urban pounded out on the keyboard

> I post with default settings. If you want to read them properly, Use Outlook
> Express or Windows Mail.
>

Excuse me, a "default" means how it came configured, and usually means
there is an option to change from "default" to "user selected". Try
changing that "default".

You mean use a program that is broken from the RFC 1855 standard? No
thanks.

--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.