## windows desktop too slow compared to others: windows folder configuration question

### windows desktop too slow compared to others: windows folder configuration question

Hello,

In Windows 2000 one can go to Control Panel -> Folder Options and
configure one of the following global options:
1. "Open each folder in the same window"
2. "Open each folder in its own window"

There are many instances when you would want to use both behaviors
(1 and 2) simultaneously. For example it could be that a user wants
to compare folder C:\A\B\C\D\foo\ with C:\A\B\C\D\E\bar\ . In this
case the user wants to end up with only two windows open.

With configuration 1, the user would have to travel from C: to foo
and then from C: to bar which means (2 clicks to open "My Computer"
and then "C:", followed by 4 clicks to open D plus one click to open
foo) + (2 + 5 clicks to open folder E + 1 click to open folder bar)
= 15 clicks in total.

With configuration 2, the user would have to click twice to open
"My Computer" and then C:, then click four times to open D\, which
is 6 clicks. Then the user needs to open foo\ with one click, and
E\bar\ with two clicks. That is 9 clicks. Finally, many redundant
folders cluttering the desktop will have to be closed which requires
7 clicks to close the "My Computer", C:, A, B, C, D, and E folders.
This sums up to a total of 9 + 7 = 16 clicks.

So, in each case, things are pretty long and tedious for the user.
Insetead, what Windows ought to do is give the user both options
(1 and 2) simultaneously from each folder. With such strategy
the above comparison of folders would require 2 clicks to
open "My Computer" and then "C:" followed by 3 clicks to
open folders A, B, and C using folder option 1. Then the
user would open two views of folder D with folder option
2. requiring 2 clicks. Then three clicks would be necessary
to open folders foo, E, and bar, using method 1. again.
No redundant windows are open on the desktop at this
stage so we are done. This is a total of 10 clicks
which beats the above methods by making desktop
usage speed roughly 50% times faster for this
particular example.

The way Windows could implement this improvement
is by allowing clicks on folders to use method
1. and double clicks to use method 2. or some
similar strategy. So why is this option not
available in Win2K. Does WinXP have it?
The Linux GNOME desktop seems to be
ahead of Windows with regards to
this desktop usability feature.

Neil Zanella

### windows desktop too slow compared to others: windows folder configuration question

Neil Zanella

Quote:

> Hello,

> In Windows 2000 one can go to Control Panel -> Folder Options and
> configure one of the following global options:
> 1. "Open each folder in the same window"
> 2. "Open each folder in its own window"

> There are many instances when you would want to use both behaviors
> (1 and 2) simultaneously. For example it could be that a user
> wants to compare folder C:\A\B\C\D\foo\ with C:\A\B\C\D\E\bar\ .
> In this case the user wants to end up with only two windows open.

There's no C: on my box. However, I don't understand what you mean
with compare? Presuming, someone has two directories with thousands
of files and wants to know if there are (by name) differences.

$ls -1 /path/to1> x ; ls -1 /path/to2> y; diff x y ;rm x y Looks like the user only needs to open a single xterm. Michael Heiming -- Remove the +SIGNS case mail bounces. ### windows desktop too slow compared to others: windows folder configuration question > > In Windows 2000 one can go to Control Panel -> Folder Options and > > configure one of the following global options: > > 1. "Open each folder in the same window" > > 2. "Open each folder in its own window" > > There are many instances when you would want to use both behaviors > > (1 and 2) simultaneously. For example it could be that a user > > wants to compare folder C:\A\B\C\D\foo\ with C:\A\B\C\D\E\bar\ . > > In this case the user wants to end up with only two windows open. > There's no C: on my box. However, I don't understand what you mean > with compare? Presuming, someone has two directories with thousands > of files and wants to know if there are (by name) differences. >$ ls -1 /path/to1> x ; ls -1 /path/to2> y; diff x y ;rm x y

> Looks like the user only needs to open a single xterm.

I have used the letter C: for simplicity only but you may substitute
whichever drive designation you are using and the argument will still
hold. Secondly, when I say compare, if all one is interested in is
whether the contents of the two folders foo and bar are different
then it can certainly be done with one command, but if the user
actually plans to examine the contents of the folders, perhaps
make some edits, deletions, move files from one folder to the
other, and perform other household tasks on the filesystem
then you will see that my argument makes perfect sense.
Thirdly, I was talking about usability from the point
of view of the regular everyday desktop user whom is
not very well versed in using the command line.
From such users the two options 1. and 2. which
I describe are pretty much the only alternatives.
Being able to use 1. and 2. simultaneously
yields the quickest solution from the
average desktop user's point of view.

Regards,

Neil

### windows desktop too slow compared to others: windows folder configuration question

I believe it was Neil Zanella who said...
<snip>
<yawn>

So what? Why would you post that in a Linux newsgroup?

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------

8:25pm  up 59 days, 23:07,  6 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.03, 0.07

Thanks.

That brings me to another question.

I was under the impression that it is the window managers or desktops
that sit on top of X windows that are slow........and not x windows
itself.

Is this correct?

Will getting the new xfree86 4.1 speed everything else, like kde up?

Why are slow window managers and desktops slow?

Is it unpolished code?  Is it more features that take time to load?
Is it just the nature of the gui front end beast?  Is it practically
possible....if someone was willing to a gui desktop that could ran
fast on more humble machines ( 486, 386)....or is there just so much
gui blood that you can squeeze from a silicon stone?

Steve

=========================================================

X = xfree86 = xfree = xwindows :)

The one that is included with Redhat 7.1 is 4.02. The latest version
is 4.1 which is faster and more stable. Download it off a local mirror
(the libc2.2 version):

ftp://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/xfree86/4.1.0/binaries/Linux-ix86-glibc22