Guest Paul Posted May 16, 2008 Posted May 16, 2008 Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that it occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar would occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the full filename. Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row of the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against the display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three rows in order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to prevent the quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire row of space? Thanks.
Guest Roger Fink Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 Re: Increasing size of task bar The quicklaunch application icons come in two sizes. If you are using the larger size, then changing to the smaller size will greatly decrease the space they take up, but you would need to be comfortable with using the smaller icons (which I'm not). To see what size you have, place the pointer somewhere between the rightmost icon and the system tray, then right click it. If the icon is up against the tray, drag the whole thing to the left to make room. Mouse over "View", and the large and small options will display on the menu. Paul wrote: > Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that it > occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar would > occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the full > filename. > > Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row of > the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against the > display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three rows in > order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to prevent the > quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire row of space? > > Thanks.
Guest Paul Posted May 17, 2008 Posted May 17, 2008 Re: Increasing size of task bar Hi, Roger, I'm using small icons. The problem isn't that they take up too much room. The problem is that the entire upper row of the taskbar contains them and nothing else. Most of that row is blank, and the tasks themselves are relegated to the bottom row. In contrast, in XP, the task bar occupies a small rectangular space at the left side of the taskbar, covering both top and bottom rows. I understand that Windows 2000 is earlier than XP, but I can't imagine what the designers had in mind when then put this "feature" into Windows 2000. On May 17, 4:01 am, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote: > The quicklaunch application icons come in two sizes. If you are using the > larger size, then changing to the smaller size will greatly decrease the > space they take up, but you would need to be comfortable with using the > smaller icons (which I'm not). To see what size you have, place the pointer > somewhere between the rightmost icon and the system tray, then right click > it. If the icon is up against the tray, drag the whole thing to the left to > make room. Mouse over "View", and the large and small options will display > on the menu. > > Paul wrote: > > Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that it > > occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar would > > occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the full > > filename. > > > Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row of > > the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against the > > display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three rows in > > order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to prevent the > > quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire row of space? > > > Thanks.
Guest Roger Fink Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Re: Increasing size of task bar OK, I think I get it now. One thing I was just able to do here in W2K was to create an additional row and move the quicklaunch bar to it, and then move it as far rightward as I care to. When it gets short of space for the icons, then they start spilling over into the new row. In fact I created two additional rows and at the moment the 10 quicklaunch icons occupy all three rows and take about two inches of lateral space next to the system tray. All the blank area to the left is usable for minimizing open files and they occupy all three rows, so I think that would give you the economy you seek, since there is no vacant area anywhere, but I'd say the chances of this GUI arrangement misbehaving are about 110 percent. As of a month ago I was new to XP, and I've been finding out that you can pretty much duplicate the Win98/W2K GUI in every way, but with the added bonus that in XP you can lock the quicklaunch bar. If you can find a hack to do this in W2K (and I'll bet it exists), you would have a better chance of maintaining your settings. Paul wrote: > Hi, Roger, > > I'm using small icons. The problem isn't that they take up too much > room. The problem is that the entire upper row of the taskbar > contains them and nothing else. Most of that row is blank, and the > tasks themselves are relegated to the bottom row. In contrast, in XP, > the task bar occupies a small rectangular space at the left side of > the taskbar, covering both top and bottom rows. I understand that > Windows 2000 is earlier than XP, but I can't imagine what the > designers had in mind when then put this "feature" into Windows 2000. > > On May 17, 4:01 am, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote: >> The quicklaunch application icons come in two sizes. If you are >> using the larger size, then changing to the smaller size will >> greatly decrease the space they take up, but you would need to be >> comfortable with using the smaller icons (which I'm not). To see >> what size you have, place the pointer somewhere between the >> rightmost icon and the system tray, then right click it. If the icon >> is up against the tray, drag the whole thing to the left to make >> room. Mouse over "View", and the large and small options will >> display on the menu. >> >> Paul wrote: >>> Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that >>> it occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar >>> would occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the >>> full filename. >> >>> Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row >>> of the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against >>> the display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three >>> rows in order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to >>> prevent the quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire >>> row of space? >> >>> Thanks.
Guest Paul Posted May 18, 2008 Posted May 18, 2008 Re: Increasing size of task bar Actually, I think I can get it the way I want without hacking. I just had to muck around a bit more to get what you just described below. When the quick-launch icons take up the entire top row, I can drag the bottom row of tasks to the unused parts of the top row by double- clicking-and-dragging the manipulation bar along the left edge of the bottom row, then dragging it to resize it. Sort of how you described. Thanks On May 17, 8:05 pm, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote: > OK, I think I get it now. One thing I was just able to do here in W2K was to > create an additional row and move the quicklaunch bar to it, and then move > it as far rightward as I care to. When it gets short of space for the icons, > then they start spilling over into the new row. In fact I created two > additional rows and at the moment the 10 quicklaunch icons occupy all three > rows and take about two inches of lateral space next to the system tray. All > the blank area to the left is usable for minimizing open files and they > occupy all three rows, so I think that would give you the economy you seek, > since there is no vacant area anywhere, but I'd say the chances of this GUI > arrangement misbehaving are about 110 percent. > > As of a month ago I was new to XP, and I've been finding out that you can > pretty much duplicate the Win98/W2K GUI in every way, but with the added > bonus that in XP you can lock the quicklaunch bar. If you can find a hack to > do this in W2K (and I'll bet it exists), you would have a better chance of > maintaining your settings. > > Paul wrote: > > Hi, Roger, > > > I'm using small icons. The problem isn't that they take up too much > > room. The problem is that the entire upper row of the taskbar > > contains them and nothing else. Most of that row is blank, and the > > tasks themselves are relegated to the bottom row. In contrast, in XP, > > the task bar occupies a small rectangular space at the left side of > > the taskbar, covering both top and bottom rows. I understand that > > Windows 2000 is earlier than XP, but I can't imagine what the > > designers had in mind when then put this "feature" into Windows 2000. > > > On May 17, 4:01 am, "Roger Fink" <f...@manana.org> wrote: > >> The quicklaunch application icons come in two sizes. If you are > >> using the larger size, then changing to the smaller size will > >> greatly decrease the space they take up, but you would need to be > >> comfortable with using the smaller icons (which I'm not). To see > >> what size you have, place the pointer somewhere between the > >> rightmost icon and the system tray, then right click it. If the icon > >> is up against the tray, drag the whole thing to the left to make > >> room. Mouse over "View", and the large and small options will > >> display on the menu. > > >> Paul wrote: > >>> Windows 2000 SP4. I drag the upper edge of the taskbar up so that > >>> it occupies two rows. I was thinking that my tasks on the taskbar > >>> would occupy two rows so that each one is wider, and I can see the > >>> full filename. > > >>> Nada, doesn't happen. The quick launch buttons occupy an entire row > >>> of the two rows. I'm (figuratively) smacking my forehead against > >>> the display. I have to increase the height of taskbar to three > >>> rows in order to get two rows for my tasks. Is there anyway to > >>> prevent the quick launch buttons from hogging and wasing an entire > >>> row of space? > > >>> Thanks.
Recommended Posts