HOME
TOPICS
ABOUT ME
MAIL

 
In years of helping other people use Windows, I have only seen a few who knew that the keyboard rate is adjustable.
   technofile
Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983

My list of the most annoying things in Windows PCs


Nov. 1, 1999

By Al Fasoldt
Copyright ©1999, Al Fasoldt

   Windows PCs could be a lot better in some areas.
   Maybe it's too much to expect Microsoft to fix the big problems that afflict Windows, but I'd like to see the company fix the annoyances that make Windows such a pain sometimes. Here's a list of some of the things I've griped about for some time.
   You probably have your own list of things that annoy you with Windows and PCs that run Windows. Compare it with mine and see what you think.
   What Windows PCs need:
   § An emergency boot disk that really works.
   This is the most frustrating aspect of PCs for many users. When you really need a way to boot up the PC without the assistance of Windows, you can't do anything useful. You can't boot up without Windows and get your CD-ROM drive to work. Or you can't even boot up without Windows, period. The notion of a floppy boot disk -- a floppy disk that has the necessary files on it to make your computer start up without Windows -- seems foreign to PC manufacturers.
   § A computer monitor that's adjusted properly -- or that's even adjusted AT ALL.
   Look around your office or school and you'll probably see a lot of computers and computer monitors. See the black band around the displays? Is that dumb or what? Nearly every standard computer monitor comes from the factory misadjusted that way. I don't think a monitor is adjusted properly if the image fills only part of the screen.
   And that's just one of the two problems with monitors. The other one is the outright untrue measurement of monitor size. It's time the companies that make computer monitors caught the honesty bug. They need to get themselves hooked up to lie detectors the next time they make claims about monitors. We don't look at monitors diagonally, so they need to stop measuring them that way, and, of course, they need to make the picture fill the screen.
   LCD monitors, the kind that are thin and flat, don't have this black-border problem, so maybe it will just go away on its own as we gradually shift over to thin, flat LCD panels.
   § A keyboard repeat rate that's adjusted right.
   The programmers who created Windows couldn't type. They never took typing in school and never cared about how slow they went. (After all, they were just plunking away at computer code.) How do I know this? Because Windows comes with a crazy slow-as-Congress setting for the keyboard rate. It's so sluggish you could bake three potatoes between each keystroke sometimes.
   The fix is in the Control Panel, so it's not a tragedy. But in years of helping other people use Windows, I have only seen a few who knew that the keyboard rate is adjustable. Most just assume that the keyboard is too darn slow and nothing can be done.
   § Windows that open without proliferating all over the screen.
   How hard can it be to make sure file and folder windows and the windows that come from programs behave themselves? This is one area where Microsoft was out to lunch in the design of Windows. It's been a problem in Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows NT and Windows 98. (I'm writing this before Windows 2000 comes out, so I haven't tried it yet, but I have no doubt that Microsoft failed to fix this in Windows 2000, too. The company just doesn't get it.)
   Microsoft needs to change Windows so it takes charge of what happens on the screen. When you place a window or dialog box in a certain position, it should return to that spot the next time you open it. If you have some windows already open, the next one should take up a location where it's most visible.
   § Display color depth that's set right.
   You shouldn't have to be an eye doctor or expert on color theory to get a decent picture on your screen in Windows. Yet too often the display is set the wrong way and very few users know how to change it. (I don't blame them any more than I blame automobile drivers for not knowing how to change their fuel injectors.)
   The problem is simply a matter of colors. Windows needs a choice of about 65,000 colors to make things look right on the screen. This is known as 16-bit color or "High Color." 6.7 million colors might look even better in some cases, but most of the time it's overkill (and it usually slows down the computer anyway). So why doesn't Windows itself insist on 16-bit "High Color" settings?
   Beats me. A lot of users are looking at 256-color displays and that's dumb. Sure, the settings can be changed in the Control Panel, but most Windows users don't even know the settings need to be changed. They look at a 256-color display and just figure it looks bad because -- well, because their monitor looks bad or their computer is substandard, I guess.
   § A folder display that shows ALL files.
   This wins my prize for the dumbest thing ever put in Windows. The problem starts out with the fact that Windows normally hides all files that are marked "hidden" by programs or by anything elses. (You can mark a file as hidden yourself, for example.) This would not be a problem except for the way hidden files don't get copied or moved. If you can't see them, you can't do things with them. So if you really need to get at a certain file and it's hidden away, you have to figure out how to "unhide" it. That's dumb, because there's no menu item for this. You're left hunting around for a way to do it. (Hint: Right click in a folder.)
   But the problem gets worse. Not only does Windows keep some files from view by default, it keeps you from knowing the real names of files you CAN see. This is a stupid design "feature," and most users don't know it exists. Files in Windows nearly always have a two-part name -- the main part of the name and the filename extension. The extension identifies the type of the file. A typical filename might be MYFILE.DOC, with "MYFILE" being the main part of the name and "DOC" being the extension. MYFILE.DOC and MYFILE.TXT are different files and will have different contents, for example.
   Windows does a dastardly thing. It hides the part of the filename that shows the extension. It doesn't do this for all files, but it does it for all files that have what Microsoft calls "registered" extensions -- in other words, for every type of file that Windows knows about. (These files will have their extensions entered in the Windows Registry.) So if Windows knows about the file extension, it assumes that you do, too, and refuses to show you the extension. MYFILE.DOC becomes MYFILE, and MYFILE.TXT becomes MYFILE, too. (Isn't this almost impossible to believe? Yet it's true.)
   Windows expects you to automatically know the difference between MYFILE and MYFILE -- excuse me, I mean MYFILE.DOC and MYFILE.TXT -- by the icons that represent each file. The icons may or may not look different. (You can change icons all you want. Your kids can, too. If your kids change icons in Windows, they're changing the icons you see, also, and that means you might not be able to tell the difference between MYTEXT and MYTEXT -- I mean, of course, MYTEXT.DOC and MYTEXT.TXT. Does this bother you yet?)
   As in so many other aspects of Windows, this thoughtless behavior can be turned off, but few users know how to turn it off because few know that they CAN turn it off. Files are viewed in Explorer windows, yet there is absolutely no menu choice in an Explorer window to turn on the display of filename extensions. You have to burrow down into another menu ("View") and then into another one ("Folder Options" in Windows 98, which may have another name in Windows 95 or Windows 2000) and then hunt for the setting under still another option, this one called "View" again. (Has anybody at Microsoft ever tried doing this?)
   § Color settings for the desktop and for windows on the desktop that don't burden your eyes.
   Bight white is the worst possible color for a background when you're reading text or looking at something for more than a few seconds on a computer screen. Your eyes are most sensitive to flicker when you are staring at a bright white screen. Light from a computer screen isn't like light from a piece of paper; on the screen the light is sent out directly into your eyes, while the light form the paper is reflected. The light from the screen has a much greater effect on your eyes. It should be light gray or a medium beige (or a light blue-gray or some other tone that isn't refrigerator white).
   Microsoft has to know this. It's common knowledge among people who design computer interfaces. Then why is the standard Windows color scheme so badly designed? Sure, there are other color schemes, including some with the proper color balance for the background, but why isn't the proper one, the safe one, used as the default? Many users -- far too many, to be sure -- do not realize that they can change to another color scheme or that they can modify the schemes that are already used. Why should these users be penalized?
   § Power saving instructions that are honest.
   I kid you not on this one. When you adjust the power saving options in Windows, there's a setting called "Always On" that turns your PC off after a certain period of time. Look for yourself. Look in the bottom part of the screen saver window for the power saving adjustments. You'll see a "Settings" button. (This might be different in Windows 95 or Windows 2000.) Click that button and look at the drop-down list in the first option. You'll see "Always On." When you choose it, you'll see the effects in the two option boxes below it. Notice what they say. They say your PC isn't always on when you choose the "Always On" setting.
   Are these things dumb or what? Microsoft acts like it's a kid without real programming ability when it comes to many of the lesser aspects of Windows. Isn't it time to do things right?