Is there a why to add an Icon or color to the hard drive "C" listed in the tree view. I have been able to add Web to my tree but not add an icon
Example:
F:(Web)
I would like to add an icon to this.
Bob
Forgot to mention:
There is an icon to the left of the c:. Its either share icon or a default. I would like it to jump out at me with a color or better icon or bold text.
Bob
You can create a setting in the Registry to assign an icon to a drive letter.
Have a look at this post for the details:
(It works with network drives, so long as they're mapped to a drive letter. I just used it myself for a bunch of network drives.)
It works with network drives, so long as they're mapped to a drive letter.<<
I will not be using vista, ever. Will it be a problem using it with XP Pro?
I also have XP 64, big mistake, will it work with this?
Bob
Thanks for the help.
Who mentioned Vista? It works with both XP and Vista.
Who mentioned Vista?<<
This is a collection of 26 harddrive icons, lettered A to Z, to replace the generic icon that Windows uses by default. They are based on Vista's external HDD icon. (I didn't like Vista's internal HDD icon, especially the 16x16 versions.)
Bob
But...
Thanks again
That just says they're 'based' on Vista icons - nowhere does it say they only work on Vista...
Thanks.
I guess I see "Vista" and I have a panic attach.
Bob
A victim of the rubbish spouted by the anti-vista fraternity no doubt.
Funny how these anti-Vista sentiments seem to emanate from those who have never been near the thing.
I was like that until I made the move – around the time they unleashed SP1.
With a few reservations – "UAC" is horrible – I find it to be more stable and easier to use than XP. Of course, you do have to track down the things they changed, often for no apparent reason.
Part of the problem may to be third party software whose authors wrote "Vista versions" that broke their own products. PaperPort, for example, has a Vista version that actually works worse in Vista than the old XP version.
I like UAC. Don't really get why people find it such a problem. It might be worth turning it off while you're in the "setup" phase and doing lots of admin stuff, but after that first few days if you're seeing more than a couple of UAC prompts a day then that would be unusual.
I just wish the secure desktop didn't take so long to appear. Not sure if that's Microsoft's fault or NVidia/ATI's fault. (Hmm, can't remember if it's better on my HTPC with an ATI card.)
Don't really get why people find it such a problem.<<
I'm sorry this isn't the time or place but I had to answer the question.
Microsoft is offering very little for the world's money that they're stuffing into their bank. They would like me to believe that I need Vista to make my office run more smoothly.
If every person that owned Windows would skip Vista and buy Opus instead it would be more cost effective and they would be a lot more happy. I'm sorry if that sounds patronistic but it's factual.
Bottom line their goal(MS) is to find a way to make people spend money. With all their power and strength they can't even find a way to stop hackers from crippling their customer's computers.
Why don't people like Vista???
Bob
I agree that nobody needs Vista. It doesn't add that much to what was in XP (though it has put down the foundations for some cool stuff that we won't really see used much until XP is gone).
That's not the same as saying that Vista is terrible, though. It's not. It's a bit better than XP was. Not so much better that everyone should rush out and buy it, but it's also not something to be avoided (e.g. on a new PC) like a lot of people seem to say it is.
IMO, of course.
(Also ignoring the changes made to Explorer in Vista, many of which make it a real pain to use. Explorer isn't great on any version of Windows, though.)
Maybe you are just lucky in your choice of software. I have some programs that UAC simply refuses to recognise as "mostly harmless".
I have looked all over the place for ways to get UAC to always accept programs that I have deemed safe. If UAC worked like a firewall on that front, I would be happy with it.
I have seen various wish lists for the next version of Windows. One of them is to have UAC accept just this instruction.
Apart from that, Vista suits me just fine.
The only software that should routinely throw up a UAC warning is administrator & debugging tools (e.g. certain control panels, Process Monitor, etc.). Most people don't need to run them often.
Some badly written applications/games that shouldn't need admin access do need it, though. UAC will be a problem there but that isn't UAC's fault, it's the badly written software's fault. That stuff would never have worked on a locked-down Windows 2000 or Windows XP machine either. They got away with it, and probably didn't realise they were implicitly requiring admin access, because most home users of XP ran as admin. People in corporate environments, where most users don't have admin rights, will have had (and still do have) problems with those programs, though. UAC is really doing a favour to the authors of those programs by pointing out the problem and forcing them to fix it.
21 months after Vista's release, I'd say that non-admin/debugging programs should coexist with UAC properly and any which don't can be considered abandoned and need replacing.
Of course, if you're doing something unusual which requires running admin/debugging tools all day every day then UAC would be a pain and I'd probably turn it off in that situation.