Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
non-lame halfbakery tagline

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


               

Windows Desktop Organization

A more organized Windows Desktop
  (-1)
(-1)
  [vote for,
against]

Some of us may have desktops cluttered up with too many icons. When we want to load a program, we may have difficulties in locating the icon for the program. And so, I suggest that whenever we create a shortcut to the program, we should be allowed to create the shortcut into a group folder directly. Only icons for the group folders should be allowed on the desktop. And so, the desktop will only have icons with titles like Word Processing, Spreadsheets, Banking, Internet, etc. In this way, the desktop will be less crowded. If I, for example, want to word process something, all I have to do is to click on the word processing icon to load the word processing folder. I then click on the program icon in the folder to load the word processing program I want to use. Yes, with Windows, we can do such thing, but we have to create the group folder first, create the icon for the folder (optional), and move the program icon into the folder to achieve this. However, it will be nicer if there are already predefined group folders for the common things we do on our PC, and we can create shortcut icons directly into the folders. When we right click, we will have the option "create shortcut in", instead of just "create shorcut" or "send to desktop". And so, when we select "create shortcut in", a new window with icons for the folders will be loaded. All we have to do is to click on the icon we want, and automatically the shortcut icon will be created in that folder.
raideas, Nov 22 2006

New desktop layout New desktop layout
What's the difference between this idea, and the one linked? If they are the same, then one is redundant. [zen_tom, Nov 22 2006]

Program manager http://en.wikipedia...iki/Program_Manager
[spidermother, Jun 07 2011]


Please log in.
If you're not logged in, you can see what this page looks like, but you will not be able to add anything.



Annotation:







       And what's stopping you from doing this now?
angel, Nov 22 2006
  

       Also, this is more or less how the Program Manager shell organises things, i.e. the default shell in Windows 3.1. Does anyone know if it's useable in XP?
nineteenthly, Nov 22 2006
  

       [nineteenthly] You mean an Emulation of Windows 3.1? Yes - directly, and yes - you can simulate the behaviour by either creating shortcuts to directories named in this manner (Programs, Wordprocessing, Utilities etc), and keep your actual program shortcuts located in these, or you can use 'Toolbars' (try right-clicking on your taskbar, and looking for Toolbars to start tinkering) which effectively allow you the same kind of functionality.
zen_tom, Nov 22 2006
  

       Thanks, [zen_tom], i never knew that before. I do emulate Windows 3.1 on this PC sometimes, but until at least Windows 98 it was possible to use Program Manager itself instead of Explorer and do it natively, and in some ways i preferred it to Explorer because it was quicker and more responsive, even on a fast computer, and less buggy than something like Litestep.
nineteenthly, Nov 22 2006
  

       You can run program manager in XP - not an emulation, the real thing. It can even be used as the default shell. You need a version of progman.exe from XP service pack 1 or earlier; later versions are crippled (link).   

       Other old windows components, such as file manager (winfile.exe), work too. It's often as simple as finding a copy of the executable and running it.
spidermother, Jun 07 2011
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle