Small Icons Windows 7 Start Menu Option
I’ve been running Windows 7 on my primary desktop computer for long enough now that things are starting to emerge that I want to be tweaked to my preferences or workflow. One of those things is tweaking the Windows 7 Start Menu to be smaller and more compact, instead of using those large icons.
Having pinned programs to the Start Menu that I want to have there, the list of options is suddenly very large. It isn’t that there are a lot of programs pinned on the Start Menu so much as each program takes up an usually large amount of space due to the large icons being displayed. The programs listed at the top of the start menu are three-quarters of the way up the screen. Moving the mouse that much kind of defeats the purpose of pinning shortcuts to the Windows 7 Start Menu in the first place.
In Windows XP, right clicking on the Start button brought up a context menu of options to customize the XP start menu. Doing so in Windows 7 does the same thing. However, I couldn’t find an option to use small icons anywhere in the list despite several attempts. I dug through the Display options in Control Panel, and even updated my monitor driver and video drivers just in case, but to no avail.
Finally, while looking to change something else in the Windows 7 Start Menu options I noticed a check box staring me right in the face. I had not seen it previously, because I had gone into the start menu options listing with a preconceived notion of what the option would be. In doing so, I inadvertently made myself blind to the choice I was looking for all along. Only after going into the menus to find a different options, one that I had no idea about what it would say, did my brain register what the menu selection actually said.
Ironically, I had recently written an article about how the Microsoft Office engineers had to re-think the ribbon interface and Backstage view in Office 2010 because, while past usability studies suggested that the "File" menu was too cryptic, over the years, users have grown so used to the File menu that when they first used Office they were confused by its absence. I thought it was a little bit comical because I had no trouble with losing the File menu.
However, in this particular case, I was having an issue with the same thing. When people get used to something, whether computers or otherwise, it can be hard to get them to look at it in a new way.
In Windows 7, there is no Use Small Icons option for the start menu. Rather, there is a Use Large Icons options, and it is checked "on" by default. Unchecking the Use Large Icons Box results in a nice, tidy, small, and very usable Windows 7 Start Menu, that now actually has room for even more programs should I choose.
Incidentally, if you are looking for the option to use small icons on Windows 7 Start Menu, you can find it by right-clicking on the Start icon (the little Windows symbol) and choosing:
Properties -> Start Menu -> Customize -> Uncheck "Use large icons" (near the bottom of the list right above the Videos options).
HP Printer Drivers for Windows 7 Not Coming At All!
It appears that HP has decided to abandon several popular printers by not providing Windows 7 printer drivers for them at all. Some devices have been categorized as "Category 6" devices, meaning that HP will not support them under Windows 7. Not today, not tomorrow, not at all.
This might be more acceptable if it only affected decades old printers, but many of these no Windows 7 drivers printers were big sellers just a few years before. For consumers who like buying HP because of how long their printers last, this is a big kick in the teeth. It is like HP is saying, too bad that your printer still works and that you still like it, we can’t be bothered with you because we aren’t making enough money from you as a customer. After all, what good is an HP printer that lasts 8 years if HP won’t provide drivers for at least 8 years after it stops selling it?
Don’t let your outrage go unheard. Email, call, or otherwise contact HP and let them know that this sort of forced obsolescence is unacceptable. If they don’t come through with a solution for you, then vote with your wallet and buy a new printer from someone other than HP. Whatever you do, DON’T USE THEIR UPGRADE PROGRAM! That is just a way to say, "Hey, what you did is OK and I’ll keep buying from you."
More details as they come in…
AT&T Coverage Versus Verizon Wireless Coverage – What a Difference Wording Makes
AT&T and Verizon have been going back and forth in their advertising lately regarding AT&T cell phone coverage and Verizon’s claims about it. If you missed it, the whole thing started with some television commercials in which Verizon showed AT&T’s coverage map compared to Verizon’s coverage map. The commercials were apparently effective, because not only did AT&T fire up some counter-ads, it also sued.
At issue is the AT&T coverage map shown in Verizon’s ads. The commercials parody the Apple iPhone commercial’s line, "There’s an app for that" with the line, "There’s a map for that." The map in question shows AT&T wireless coverage for its 3G network, the one that is supposed to be handling the iPhone and it’s users because it is a faster data network. With 3G connections, accessing the Internet on an iPhone or any other mobile phone for that matter is much faster than on the old cell phone network technologies.
AT&T sued saying the ads were misleading and then started airing its own ads starring Luke Wilson in which Wilson says that AT&T has way more coverage than shown on that Verizon map. Then, he goes about flinging post cards around the map.
So, what happened? Who is lying, Verizon or AT&T?
The answer, as it often is in marketing, is that no one is technically lying. How can that be possible?
Well, as it turns out the map Verizon shows of AT&T 3G coverage is accurate. In fact, it is lifted from AT&T’s own maps of its 3G coverage area. So, what is AT&T complaining about?
AT&T said in its lawsuit that the ads implied that AT&T cell phone network has no coverage of any kind in the non-red areas on the map. It claims that casual T.V. viewers would be confused by the map and think that AT&T’s dismal 3G coverage was the same as its marginally better coverage with older slower technologies.
The Luke Wilson counter-commercials in which Wilson says, "Verizon has been making an issue about maps," uses a map of AT&T coverage that includes any kind of coverage whatsoever.
So, who is telling the truth?
Well, if you want to use a smartphone, iPhone, or any other mobile phone that accesses the Internet using the latest fast networking technology, then Verizon is telling the truth. You will only get that faster 3G coverage on the map with less red.
If you just want to make a phone call, then AT&T is telling the truth with the map that has a lot more red.
The question is, which is more deceptive? An ad portraying a network better suited to handling the kind of traffic used by "an app for that" showing how bad AT&T’s fast 3G network coverage is, or an ad depicting that ad as inaccurate by showing a map that displays where old network technology should allow any cell phone to at least make a call?
I’m going to give this one to Verizon as being more truthful. They are essentially saying that iPhones aren’t going to work very well in a lot of places because 3G coverage is not available in many locations. While AT&T is trying to show counter that they "cover" a much bigger area without mentioning what kind of coverage they are talking about.
As always, with marketing it comes down to parsing the exact wording in the advertisement.
Delicious Social Bookmarking and Link Spam
We’ll consider this a micro-blog for now, as I don’t have the time here right at the month end for my freelance writing business to sacrifice the time to a longer post.
How easy do you think it would be for Google and / or Delicious themselves to segregate users based upon how many links they add to their bookmarks that there are zero other users having favorited?
Think about it. Innumerable SEO experts and backlink building strategies all use Delicious and other social bookmarking tools to build links to their own websites, or to their client’s websites. Of course, when 99.9% of those bookmarks are first submitted that particular user is the only one to have submitted that particular favorite webpage.
In order to filter out those throwaway profiles that exist for no reason other than to build self-serving backlinks to their own online pages, a simple algorithm that checked to make sure a specific percentage (say 30% if you were looking to just weed out the worst abusers, or 50%+ if you were looking to really separate the wheat from the chafe) of favorited sites were also favorited by at least one other person (or maybe even 10 other people) would eliminate virtually all of the users who just create a profile in order to link their own stuff.
That would allow you to crawl sites like Delicious without having to worry about giving too much credit to spammy links while at the same time being able to capitalize on the giant crowd sourcing power that runs sites like Delicious.
Of course, you would have to keep such an algorithm secret, which Google, at least, is good at doing, in order to avoid having sneaky Internet Marketing types throw in a good good link every 2 or 3 junk links.
Does Google do this?
How would I (or anyone else) know?
All I know is that it is probably worth it to send in a favorite from time to time that I know has a lot of other favorites out there already in order to make sure I don’t look like one of "them."
It isn’t that I’m particularly spammy, it is just that I don’t really use services like Delicious (Firefox + Xmarks = all the portable bookmarks I need without the lag of being online) and I don’t think that I necessarily should incur any sort of penalty for that fact. So, if you stumble upon (another example of a site that this would work good for) my Delcious bookmarks or Stumble Upon profile, rest assured that in addition to links to a lot of my writing around the web, you will also be sure to find plenty of other links that are used by a lot of people out there.
The best part is, that there is no deception necessary. I only think to links, favorite, bookmark, or stumble my best resources anyway, unless I’m in a feisty mood. So, end the end, I guess it is a win-win for everyone involved.
Phew, 508 words. I guess it isn’t a micro-post after all 
