If you've used Office 2010 you'll instantly know what I'm talking about but for those of you that don't here's a pic to illustrate what the new Win8 Explorer looks like.
The reason for this change is that through their annonymous usage statistics they found out that most of the commands used in Explorer are file management commands so they wanted to optimize access to these.
If you're worrying that it'll squish the window too much then don't, in fact it actually uses less space an allows more file space since the status bar has been reduced back down to one line and when needed details appear in a bar to the right now.
As for me? Well I don't really care since I'll still be using good old right-click for the simple reason that it's still faster because it doesn't require additional mouse movement.
It takes less space AND can be hidden so you don't need to worry about that. AND you can add an additional bar after you've hidden it with the same sort of shortcuts but small icons.
How is that less space? It looks like it takes more to me (and yes, that's counting the smaller status bar, it's still seems to take slightly more space).
In any case, I don't take a liking to it thus far, though I won't be able to say for sure until I try it. I use right click for those functions. If it can be hidden though, that's fine by me then.
Remember what schumi told me it can be hidden , if its hidden then of course the space use also gets considerably smaller, personally i like the idea of being able to unhidden a bar full of usefull options just in case, but if you don't need it it takes no space, personally i see this as a good idea and move, it satisfy all the needs and "unneeds".
I'm not saying it is or isn't a great move. I am only saying the claim that it takes up less space when used doesn't seem fully right to me.
Personally though, I like the Windows 7 layout. It's clean and clutter-less. The new layout is good for putting those functions right in view, but I prefer right-clicking and/or keyboard shortcuts for those anyway, so I'll stick with the more clean and roomy layout.
It's not in mine. I just noticed you can resize the status bar by right clicking it. I never noticed that. Mine was set to small, and I'm fairly sure that's the default, so it seems like they intentionally padded the Windows 7 side of that comparison.
Even then it's either equal or you lose one line at most Garnet.
What I never Understood is why they culled the side details bar from XP in the first place. You don't need the folder tree view on the left side there especially now that they've given the path itself so many back and forth options, and with 16:9 monitors emerging which have less vertical space and accentuate horisontal space a side details bar the way XP had makes so much more sense to me especially since the bottom details bar takes even more vertical space away. In fact it's the only thing from XP that I miss.
I very very rarely use the folder tree view (though I still have it open just in case) so replacing it with a details bar like XP's wouldn't bother me at all.
Also talking about that folder tree thing I hope they added a scrollbar to the bottom...it gets ridiculous a couple of folders in that I have to resize the space taken by that bar meaning I have LESS folder space just to see the rest of the tree whereas a simple scrollbar could prevent the problem.
How so? The default view of Windows 7 on an average basis has more view. They used an inflated status bar size that probably few use, and probably fewer even know about (I didn't!), and they used a folder which has the "Includes X locations" part that most folders won't have which also pads the space. Put my picture next to that new look and you have a more average to average comparison of the old default versus the new look.
Again, it can be disabled, so I don't care. They just seem to be falsely hyping it up to hide the fact that it's more space when from what I see, unless I am missing something, it is not.
How so? The default view of Windows 7 on an average basis has more view. They used an inflated status bar size that probably few use, and probably fewer even know about (I didn't!), and they used a folder which has the "Includes X locations" part that most folders won't have which also pads the space. Put my picture next to that new look and you have a more average to average comparison of the old default versus the new look.
No, because the increased details bar is only about as big as the New Ribbon so if you forget about the heading (which is as big as another details bar at small) it takes pretty much the same amount of space or max one line less.
But as you can see Win8 doesn't handle the heading like that anymore so the space taken up by the heading in Win7 is ALSO taken up by the Ribbon and that's why it was the reason I was off in what I said.
I was saying the new layout does not have more room than Windows 7 as is being claimed. It used an "exaggerated" example to prove a false overall. You lose room overall/on average.
Regardless of actually taking up more room or not, I still find it ugly and cluttered. I never liked the new office design and I don't like seeing it used on Windows Explorer. I find it unnecessary, as I the right mouse click and the shortcuts are simple enough to use.
I'm glad to know microsoft still keeps its hard work of making things more clustered for me...
I personally find it quite practical specially since Win8 can be used with touch monitors and devices. however there must be an option to hide that if someone dislike it as i have to agree that not everyone see it as a good idea.
Still have to learn it want to get some work done. The file,edit,etc menus will be replaced with a single drop down menu with only a handful of actions. I'm one of those I don't care how much better ribbons may be I've been using the old way for so long I refuse to learn another way crowd. I use keyboard shortcuts for most of the 10 ten explorer commands so sticking them in the ribbon doesn't help me.
I like the ribbon interface on their other software (Win7 Paint/WordPad, Windows Live Mail, Office 2007/2010). I'm looking forward to seeing it in Windows 8's GUI, even if I tend to use keyboard shortcuts.
Eh......right click........and mostly keyboard shortcuts. I can't see myself using this during normal browsing......and even touch devices let you hold down your finger on something to display the right click menu.
Ew. Never much cared for that ribbon crap. Hence why I still use Office 2003.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Next Generation Emulation
2.2M posts
459.8K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to all emulation enthusiasts. Come Join discussion on all platforms from Nintendo, Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation, to PC. Coding, tips, builds, specs, tricks and more.