thanatoid wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:
snip

I'm not crazy about the Admin, All Users, Default users
thing either, but I've reluctantly "accepted" its there,
whether I like it or not.

I guess I am more anal-retentive, more nonconformist, or
something... More ****ed in the head?

I "avoid" the problem by rarely looking down there anymore in Explorer or
even worrying about it, since it's so built-in to WinXP. There just comes
a point where it's not worth worrying about. I've got enough other things
to worry about. :-)

However:

Whenever I install a program, I remove the Start Menu
shortcuts it makes, and instead, cut and paste them over to
MY own groups that I have created in the Start Menu (i.e.,
put them in categories that make more sense to ME). And all
of them work. And almost of all of these shortcuts end up
in the Documents and Settings, Bill, Start Menu subgroups
this way.

There is a faster, more sledgehammer-like way of doing it,
copying EVERYTHING from EVERYTHING to one account, and then
copying THAT to all the other accounts (this assumes you have
a 2-pane file manager, then it;s just 2 or 3 key presses), and
deleting dupli- and triplicates, or something like that,
possibly just copying everything to the account you will
always be using, I forget.

That's too much of a sledge hammer approach for me. I don't want to have
to deal with any duplicates, either, and what I do now just avoids all of
that.

It's not hard just moving the originally installed program shortcuts to
where I want them to be, after a program is installed, and, of course, there
are no duplicates created this way.

But deleting inevitable duplicates ("Oh, the Humanity", excuse
me, "Oh, The Microsoft") is a RPITA. With FL, you set it up
ONCE, and you're done *forever*, just copy the settings
somewhere safe in case of a crash or whatever.

SO was mine in 98SEL. I can send you a screenshot. Now I
have 4 items, in 4 corners.

Well, that just won't help me much. I just want the same
type of convenient access to all of my programs (probably a
couple of hundred or so), and using the start menu and all
its subgroups that I've created, works for me. It's
probably not your cup of tea, however. :-)

Even I don't have 200 programs, and I LIKE to tinker! Pray
tell, what are they (ID-revealing details are not reuired ;-)
? (And command line stuff does NOT qualify!)

I have a bunch of audio and video editing and/or restoration programs, along
with a bunch of system utilities and file managers, CD and DVD apps, audio
and mp3 utility programs, image and photo viewers, etc, etc. Just collected
over all the eons of time.

but then again, I'm only using a 800x600 display, which I
thoroughly enjoy.

Anything larger is for the young'uns.

I thought I was the only one left using 800x600. Maybe
there's two of us?

It wouuld appear so. 800x600 was (sigh) the resolution of a
1.33 aspect ratio average screen image of a 35mm motion
picture printstock. That's good enough for me. I don't go in
for that Imax and HD ****.

Same here. Plus, working on HD video requires a super computer.
SD is already taxing enough of resources (if you try cleaning up or editing
any SD videos, its taxing enough!


But unfortunately, a few of my programs
need the 1024x768 resolution (or you can't get it on the
screen).

Yes, I have run across a few. As long as they don't start
requiring 1600x1200. Well, my graphics chip has a fast res
switch. Yours probably does too, and if not, you can get one
off the net, free. There are several.

When it gets to the point of requiring 1600x1200 it becomes a "thanks, but
no thanks," item to me. In fact, if it's more than 1024x768, it's already
there.

And ditto for a program requiring .NET Framework 3.0 or higher. Thanks,
but no thanks.