[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by ianc
Here's a few responses:

1) Any app can add things to the control panel. Some shouldn't but do. Icon spacing and text size can be adjusted to remove the cutoff text if it bothers you.

Its a computer, it should do this for you.

2) The icons represent little applets to be used for controlling various options. Some come with the OS, some are added by IBM, Symantec, etc., and have really no place there IMO. They can be deleted and\or renamed.

3) They're two different devices. But does that warrant two different setups? Doesn't it make a lot more sense to configure them together?

4) Internet options are primarly IE settings. Phone and modem lets you setup dialling locations, telephony providers, etc. Wireless link is for infrared connections, not network. Wireless Networks starts a wizard to let you configure a new wireless network or configure existing ones.

- IE settings belong in IE.
- "Wireless link" for infrared? Why not "Infrared link"?
- A wizard to connect to WiFi? C'mon, theres gotta be a better way than that, I don't have all day. Do I still have to dig out the Preferences for "Network Places" to config the system IP? I prefer my ethernet cards to be static IP with my WiFi to be DHCP, how much trouble do I have to go through?

5) Security center contains redundant settings; I agree it doesn't need to be there.

It sounds like a bad MS joke, maybe it was built by Mac users.

6) The system can detect and install new drivers on its own generally. However, unlike Macs, not all hardware is made by MS, and some doesn't work properly. This app is for working around problems that arise.

I have yet to plug something in that doesn't automatically have a generic driver loaded for it.

7) All these devices have an app to configure them. Of course the system knows about them, and this is where they're managed. Where else would you do it?

Arguable, but I would rather see these kinds of device-centric configuration app put in a separate place away from the system config. Mac have a Utilities folder where this stuff lives if its really needed. Most cases, the apps that use these devices are the ones that do the setup, not the system itself. The system doesn't use a scanner, the apps do.

8) Mail lets you setup mail accounts, profiles and data file locations. This setting is modified with the installation of Outlook. These things can also be done from within the mail client.

This doesn't belong here in any way or case. Why not put a Quake config here, and an Adobe config, how about a Photoshop config? Because they aren't system settings and are better suited to live in the apps that need them.

9) Both Java icons are created with the installation of Sun Java. They are not part of the OS or created by MS.

Do we need two?

10) User accounts can be accessed from administrative tools, or in a number of other ways. It is just a commonly used item and got its own icon. It can be deleted if deemed unnecessary. The system icon allows various hardware settings of the system to be modified. Everything in the system icon can also be done elsewhere in a more relevant place.

Exactly, but its not, its spread all over the place and we've gotta go hunting for it. How much did this thing cost? Couldn't someone have taken the time to put things where they belong?

11) Folder options can be accessed from any explorer window, as well as from here. Fonts lets one add or remove fonts from the system.

Fonts can stay. Folder options shouldn't be here, they have no place.

12) Accessibility is for handicapped people and allows 'sticky keys', magnification, etc. The Trackpoint is added by IBM and not part of the OS. They could have incorporated it into the accessibility options, but chose not to.

Don't they all.

About 90% of these settings can be accessed from other places within the OS, usually in more relevant places. The control panel is just a convenient place to group them all. As you gain experience, it becomes more seldomly used. I rarely use it, but just showed it to demonstrate that things are grouped in one place, if that's what you want. For myself, I don't place that much importance on having everything in one spot. I would rather have things where I'm likely to need them. For example, folder options can be accessed from any folder, internet options can be accessed from within IE, and for me it's more convenient to do things from there. Your choice.

I don't want to gain experience, I want to get something done. If something is available, I want to use it. If its not needed, then it shouldn't be there. Why did you spend all that money on that expensive computer when its you that has to do all the work. Its you that has to go in and discover what is important and what isn't, what is supported and what is useless. Its sounds like the experience you've gained is to help you avoid all the things that are duplicated, irrelavent, and possibly broken on your computer.


Regarding your modified view, again I think it's just user preference. You group things according to perceived functions because you're used to Macs and would prefer it the way Macs are. The default Windows grouping is alphabetical. Once you get used to that, it seems preferable to me to group things that way.

It's all in what you're used to and how you work,

ianc

What is point of having everything alphabetical and in a big list if you don't know what things are called, or what you're looking for? Again, the engineers at MS were lazy and figured, ah, **** em, let the users do the searching. Sure, it works, but its not very usable, it doesn't feel like quality, its another hurdle you have to cross because MS didn't bother to help you out. I guess if you enjoy working for your computer instead of your computer working for you you'll be totally happy on Windows.