Even advanced users liked the Windows XP Start menu


In addition to testing out the Windows XP Start menu on beginners, we asked advanced users (including lots of system administrators) what they thought of it, and the response was still positive. This was kind of surprising, for advanced users tend to be resistant to change.

In fact, system administrators like the new Start menu so much that they asked for a special "server administrators" version of the new Start menu. Explorer decides whether you get the "normal user" version or the "server administrator" version of the Start menu based on your account permissions at the time you log on for the first time.

If your account is a member of the Administrators group when you first log onto one of the Server editions of Windows Server 2003, then Explorer sets up your defaults to be more suitable for server administration. The default pin list contains server management utilities (I forget exactly which ones, but I think "Manage Your Server" is in there somewhere), Explorer defaults to Details mode, and showing the full path in the address bar. There may be some other minor changes; I forget exactly.

Comments (61)
  1. e.thermal says:

    my suggestion is this should hold over for xp/vista too.  Why is details mode for explorer considered an advanced user setting?  Novice users can really benefit from knowing file sizes and create and modified dates.  Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default.

  2. Alex Pope says:

    Maybe there should be an option somewhere to enable these "admin-like" defaults?  Perhaps on user creation?

  3. Erik says:

    I just had an admin account created for me on one of my companies’ Server 2003 machines. It’s Manage Your Server, Command Prompt, and Windows Explorer.

  4. AlmostAlive says:

    " Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default."

    I couldn’t agree more with this.  The extension is the most important part of the meta data and hiding just makes the things more mysterious.  I find everyone is a lot more comfortable when they know that a file ending .doc opens in Word.  Especially given that you can’t hide the extension from everything.

    As for the Start Menu, I’m one of those crusty hold outs — I still use the Classic start menu with all my programs organized above the menu outside of the Programs menu.  I take the time to nicely organize my start menu, delete the readme shortcuts, and remove extraneous folders.  But I know the vast majority of people have gigantic start menus and perhaps don’t even know they can edit them (It’s never been easy).  I don’t know how they find anything!  The searchable Start Menu in Vista is a welcome change.

  5. ephemient says:

    I "delete" things from the Start Menu by use of "attrib +h".

  6. Grant says:

    " Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default."

    And people should eat more vegetables.

  7. dave says:

    I think the main reason advanced users tend to be resistant to change is because the benefit from changes (especially non-advanced-user useability ones) is often negative and, when nonnegative, usually vanishingly small (so the return on investment for re-learning what changed is still negative).

    It’s nice to see that when an exception to that comes up, the interface designers will work with them to give them even more of a benefit.

    (Though I’m still using the old one, since I still use Windows 2000 systems regularly and switching back and forth would still be more of an annoyance than any likely benefit.)

  8. Erzengel says:

    "…be Winkey+[somekey] that…", LMAO, on first read I thought you meant Winky the Paperclip. WTF? An advanced user that uses the office assistant? I see you mean WinKey, the Windows key, but it was still funny.

    It does seem, from time to time, that the advanced user is being punished in favor of newbies. I suppose Microsoft is just throwing their hands up in the air and saying "They’ll use linux anyway!"?

  9. David Brooks says:

    OK, I PM’ed this feature. It was done very late in the product cycle after we reviewed the Server OOBE, which was the same as XP, and realized how unserious it must seem to enterprise administrators. The same reviews led to several other changes. I just fished out the spec: the subtle changes in the server admin UI defaults are too numerous to list here (who noticed the Windows Catalog link goes to a server-specific page?). And we had already made (somewhat symbolic) changes in the same direction like removing games and Desktop Cleanup.

    Raymond basically has it right: when we previewed the changes to a roundtable of admins they cheered; their approval of the doublewide menu as default showed they weren’t as resistant to change as we thought (admittedly this was a small sample).

    Raymond is also being a little modest: he did much of the start menu/explorer work and chipped in with other suggestions and some feasibility assessments. And, yes, I cleared it with his manager.

  10. The XP Start Menu was nice, but I like the Vista Start Menu. I use the search feature almost exclusively to find what I need in All Programs.

  11. Josh says:

    Dan McCarty:

    Winkey+R CMD Enter will open a command window.

  12. Merit says:

    The ‘admin mode’ start menu also has the Control Panel and Administrative Tools items in flyout menus.  Thats a pretty nice feature.

  13. Grant says:

    "I turn off all "helpful" Explorer features–hiding extensions, hiding system files, web panel, using dogs to search for files, hiding the address bar, etc.  I’m probably not the target market for Windows, but then we are talking about that "advanced" group."

    The point is, you can TURN THOSE FEATURES OFF.

    So obviously Microsoft is considering the "advanced" (whatever that means) user because they are providing configuration options for those features.

    To say you are not the "target audience" is a bit silly given that Microsoft provides a means to let you configure those features.

    Certainly not everything is configurable. Every time you add a two-itemed configuration choice you’ve just doubled the amount of testing that has to be done. I’m pretty sure Raymond has covered that in a past blog post.

    Anyway, my point still stands, all of the things people are complaining about are CONFIGURABLE. The fact that many (the majorityo of?) users somehow manage to use their computers for years and years without ever seeing a file extension, file size, or file modification date in Explorer means they must not be critical to usability.

    Some of this complaining makes me wonder if you go into car showrooms and think "Well, this car isn’t for me, because when I sit in it in the showroom, the seat is too far back and my feet don’t reach the pedals. Sure, I could move the seat, but that’s too much trouble. Why doesn’t the car come configured the way I want it from the factory!?"

  14. Dan McCarty says:

    Josh: Winkey+R explorer Enter F3 will open up an explorer window to find files.

    Winkey+F is faster.

  15. Starfish says:

    re: Quicksilver for Windows

    http://www.launchy.net/ any good?

  16. Weiguo says:

    "I suppose Microsoft is just throwing their hands up in the air and saying "They’ll use linux anyway!"?"

    or perhaps they’re saying "they’ll use WINDOWS anyway!" and so want to court the newbies as well.  Be honest, have any of those annoyances like hidden file extensions irked you so much that you changed to a non-MS OS just because of them?  If they grab a much much larger portion of the market by making the OS more approachable for newcomers — even if it means vaguely annoying some "advanced users" (who will remain with MS anyway) — isn’t that the smarter business decision?

  17. e.thermal says:

    "As for the Start Menu, I’m one of those crusty hold outs — I still use the Classic start menu" so I guess you are trading familiarity for convenience.  

  18. Erik says:

    Dan McCarty

    Or Win + E F3

    It’s still 1 more key than find and it conveniently puts a view of My Computer on the right instead of the misdirection of "Start your search in the left pane"

  19. AndyAsh says:

    Come on…. Generally speaking, if you’re smart, and interested enough to want to use a command prompt, you’re smart enough to figure out how to display file extensions.

    I mean, you can even do things in a "Program Manager" Stylee if you want….. Not that there are many that do, I’m sure!!!!

    The minute you can’t do things the way most "normal people" want to do them, that’s the time I start using Linux.

    My personal gripe with windows, is the ever so slightly patronising "My documents"…. But there you have it.

  20. On the 1-key-for-command:

    Vista includes Win + some number as a shortcut for items in your quick launch.  At work I have 3 dev command prompts setup as the 1st three quick launch items so Win-1, Win-2, and Win-3 all bring up one of the various command shells I use commonly.  

    This seems one better than having a key for command – most people don’t need command but quick launch is something everyone can use.

  21. Nick says:

    [Mac users have a wonderful utility called Quicksilver that does this and more.  It’s very smart.  (I’m sure there’s a similar Windows utility but I haven’t come across it.)]

    Start++ is absolutely brilliant.  It’s too bad features like this don’t make it into Explorer.

    http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/03/06/new-search-add-on-for-windows-vista-start.aspx

  22. Steve Tufaro says:

    I set mine to classic as soon as I got my computer :)

  23. Tom_ says:

    "trading familiarity for convenience"? — actually that is not necessarily so. Whilst the new start menu may be more convenient if you find it so, if you do not find it so, then it will not be. So in that case you would not be trading familiarity for convenience: you would be trading convenience for unfamiliarity.

    (Call me a hopeless stick-in-the-mud, but that doesn’t sound like so great a trade-off any more.)

    It may sound odd to prefer the old start menu, when it is "obviously" less convenient than the new pretty 2-column variety, but it can be made convenient enough that few might be inclined to disagree vehemently with my use of the word, even if some might prefer some alternative setup.

    So, without further equivocation, here is how I organize the classic start menu for convenience: take the most often used applications, drag and drop them into the root of ‘Start Menu’, then rename the shortcuts so that each starts with a unique letter that isn’t the same as one of the shortcuts elsewhere on the menu. Then launching favourite programs is very easy — press Windows Key, then the starting letter of the desired shortcut.

    For example, if I want to use 4NT, even if I haven’t used it for several days, I press Windows Key, then 4. And if I want to use emacs, I press Windows Key, then J ("’J’? What does ‘J’ have to do with Emacs?" — erm… nothing… why?). And maybe I want to use my specific Explorer shortcut that starts it up exactly where I want and never ever opens a new window if I double lick on a folder — Windows Key, then E.  And so on, and so on. This, to my mind, is quite convenient: it is straightforward to set up, mainly involves muscle memory, and Windows never buggers about with it.

    So, to conclude, it is not necessarily the case that the new start menu is more convenient than the old one. (Nor vice versa, for that matter, but I prefer to argue from one side at a time.)

    It is flat-out false to suggest that for everybody the trade-off is the same; refactored, your statement is that there does not exist somebody for whom the new start menu is less convenient, but I refute that by stating that I, at least, am that person — and I even present you some evidence so that you know I’m not lying.

  24. Maarten says:

    I like the two-column start menu but i usually turn it of for my own usage, this is because it will re-assign the shortcut keys used in the menu.

    For example – i’m used to running Ctrl+Esc, R to get the run dialog, but being an administrator i also regulary use Remote Desktop so that also pops on and off the start menu ‘hotlist’ once in a while.

    You can imagine the frustration when typing in the normal keys and instead of having an command prompt or an UNC path open, you have the remote desktop client dialog.

  25. Grumplestiltskin says:

    "Not to bring up an old debate but…" *brings up old debate*

  26. Legolas says:

    Funny thing that: I always believed the new XP start menu was too unclear, and everyone would turn it off. Except that I then saw most people didn’t. And finally, at work, I’ve now begun to notice that most developers do seem to go back to the win2k way…

    Anyway, i do it the win2k way, then set up a few folders directly in the start menu (above ‘programs’), with first letters that don’t match any of the standard items (half of which I’ve removed anyway). This means that I can now come to my computer, do ctrl+esc i o and have outlook start. i f for firefox, t e for excel (t=tools) etc etc. I don’t even need to turn the screen on… And I’m so used to it I do it without realizing that I do this. Until I sit at someone else computer and it doesn’t work (obviously!). It always takes me a second or two to realize that, right, this is not the standard way to set things up (it should be ;-).

  27. Dan McCarty says:

    "we asked advanced users (including lots of system administrators)"

    I wonder what the qualifications were for "advanced"?

    Here’s one study I’d like to see: take an "advanced" user who has used MS "OSes" from DOS to Vista and have them perform the same basic task and see how long it takes.  For example, navigate to a directory and find the size of a particular file.  I wonder which one would be fastest.  (My prediction is Win3.1.)

    In my opinion, every version of Windows from 3.1 to Vista has made more improvements for newbie users at the expense of the advanced users.  Maybe we’re screwed–what if the newbies just keep getting dumber and dumber?

    Since I routinely switch between 2K, XP and Vista it’s getting to where I don’t even try to use the UI anymore.  Whenever possible, I use the Run menu.  I turn off all "helpful" Explorer features–hiding extensions, hiding system files, web panel, using dogs to search for files, hiding the address bar, etc.  I’m probably not the target market for Windows, but then we are talking about that "advanced" group.

    The Start menu has been my biggest gripe.  Win95 intentionally slowed you down for 30 or 50msecs before opening a flyout menu.  You had to use regedit (was that Win98?) to cut the time to 0.  Win2K or XP started hiding stuff, solving the symptom and not the problem, thus making programs more difficult to find.  Vista has finally done something sensible like allow text searches for items in the menu.*

    Outside Vista the best thing I’ve found for using the Start menu is to set up categories for all apps that each start with a unique letter–e.g., Accessories, b. Applications, Internet, Multimedia, Utilities, etc.  All Programs within a category also have to start with unique letters (this is where renaming shortcuts comes in handy).  For example, I only have to hit the Windows key, then type PUWW (Programs, Utilities, WinZip, WinZip 10.0) to start WinZip.  I have to remember the chords, but it’s much, much faster than trying to navigate there with a mouse.

    Granted, all these improvements are good for people who don’t know much about computers, Windows, or both.  But they don’t do much to improve the lives of people who need to use Windows for a living.**

    * Mac users have a wonderful utility called Quicksilver that does this and more.  It’s very smart.  (I’m sure there’s a similar Windows utility but I haven’t come across it.)

    ** The best improvement for power users IMO would be Winkey+[somekey] that would open up a command window.  (I’m suggesting something different than assigning a shortcut key combo to a shortcut; they’re not given the same priority.)

  28. Igor says:

    we asked advanced users

    Nobody asked me ;)

    Btw, I prefer classic start menu.

    The point is, you can TURN THOSE FEATURES OFF.

    The point is, some of them have the wrong default.

    The fact that many (the majorityo of?) users

    somehow manage to use their computers for years

    and years without ever seeing a file extension

    Yeah, those are the same Individuals who pick up

    all sorts of viruses because they clicked on a file

    with double extension like Britney_nude.jpg.pif and

    who call us to reinstall Windows for them every now

    and then.

    ever so slightly patronising "My documents"

    What would you think of Vista’s:

    Windows Mail

    Windows Contacts

    Windows …

    I feel insulted by having to watch 12 successive

    "Windows This", "Windows That" in a row in that

    new Start Menu. I wonder how it hasn’t occured

    to anyone in program/shortcut naming team that so

    much repetition is boring?!? If they at least made

    a folder named "Windows Tools/Apps/Utils/Whatever"

    and put all that stuff in it. Frankly, I am surprised

    that they didn’t put "Microsoft" in front of each of

    those names. Hopefully next Service Pack will "fix"

    that "omission".

  29. Asztal says:

    I, when I first used windows XP, I thought I preferred classic start menu. The new one really grew on me while I was using work computers… and now I can never go back :-)

  30. e.thermal says:

    ‘"Not to bring up an old debate but…" *brings up old debate*"  ya sorry I meant to say "Not wanting to bring up an old debate"  I don’t want to do it but i’ll do it anyway. </selfishbastard>

  31. Sohail says:

    waitaminute. Raymond has a manager? WTF. There is no hope for us.

  32. A regular viewer says:

    For shorcuts to items on the Start Menu, right click each one and assign one.

    Examples on the machine I’m typing this from include, Ctrl+Alt+C opens up a Command Prompt. Ctrl+Alt+O opens up Opera. Ctrl+Alt+N opens up Nero. Ctrl+Alt+V opens up VS and so on.

  33. Alex Jenter says:

    I also turn off the XP-style Start menu, and the main reason is that I don’t want anything to change in my menu all by itself!

    It is very confusing when you develop motoric memory for some menu item, and after some time it "loses some points" and gets booted from its current position. Gosh, I’d think it was 101 of usability..

    BTW that’s the same thing what’s wrong with "personalized menus".

    Just my 2 cents.

  34. Daniel says:

    Did you ever think about building shortcut menus which are context sensitive in terms of which programs are running? I mean, when I am developping, I need other shortcuts (devenv, MSDN help, Reflector yada yad) than when I write something in word or play games. That should be pretty obvious to everyone.

    That would be the logical choice for me. It is the 21st century, and you keep telling me how cool it was to still have some "most recent documents" and write 10 articles about how cool this algorithm for the start menu is (ok, you didn’t say it was cool, you just tell how it works. Apologies.) ???

    What are your user experience guys doing the whole day?

  35. Mark says:

    I switch every computer I use to the classic start menu but only because I use the keyboard to navigate. Having the keys mean different things each time I use the menu just confuses me too much :)

  36. Marcel says:

    As a small aside tip, I use a small utility called WinKey on 2000 and XP (use Google, it’s free) that lets one assign any command to any Win+Key hotkey combination. So here Win+C starts the command shell, Win+N is Notepad2, Win+V is a HP calculator (Free42) etc. Very quick to work with.

  37. Centaur says:

    I switch the Start Menu to Classic, but that’s mostly irrelevant.

    For the most frequently used programs, I assign Win+key combinations (Win+N Notepad, Win+P Paint, Win+Backspace Calculator, etc).

    For regularly used programs, I have a Quick Launch-like bar that also allows submenus. I group applications into a few small-sized submenus (Office, Media, Development, Communications, etc).

    All the other programs reside in the Start menu in case I ever need them.

  38. mh says:

    I’m an enterprise admin, and I always leave it on, both clients and servers.  I just find it so convenient.

    Maybe some people who consider themselves to be "advanced" users really just have a distrust of anything that makes things easier?

  39. Tim Smith says:

    It isn’t a distrust of anything that makes their like easier.  It is the silly notion that in order to be advanced, you must suffer.  The computer geek version of suffering for your art.

  40. macbirdie says:

    I get sooo annoyed when someone has their XP Start Menu switched to Classic. I wonder then, how in the hell was it possible to be comfortable with it in the first place. XP Start Menu is a lot better then previous incarnations. And now the search bar – even more goodies. ;)

    The major complaint I heard from people that they wouldn’t let some stupid start menu decide what their favorite applications were. They probably haven’t discovered the pinning feature. Oh well. Some just would like to think they’re advanced.

    Daniel – sometimes I wish there were some kind of a switch that changes the Start Menu setup according to what I do at the moment. When I develop in Visual Studio, there would be shortcuts for msdn, win sdk etc, when I do mainly Java dev, I get eclipse, java docs and during web development there would be apache starter, php documentation and so forth.

    About most recent documents – it’s definetely abused by applications. I thought this menu was for documents recently EDITED by me, not any PDF/picture/text viewed recently.

    Igor – I filed the "Windows"-prefix issue as a bug on Connect during a late beta stage. It annoys me too and surely hope it will be "resolved".

    I mean, what do I need Windows Mail for? I want to read my mail. And Windows Contacts? I want to put MY contacts there.

  41. Aaargh! says:

    “I get sooo annoyed when someone has their XP Start Menu switched to Classic.”

    I have the opposite reaction, the first thing I do when forced to use a windows XP machine is turn off the whole fisher-price look. I know they tried fixing the ‘boring’ imago that Windows had, especially after the success of OS X. But the kiddy-look of windows XP is downright insulting.

    This whole start menu hiding business is also a complete annoyance. One simple ‘fix’ would have been to set the start menu to sort the entries alphabetically by default, that would make it a lot easier to find stuff. The current defaults reduce the number of items but still has them in a semi-random order.

    But even worse: in my opinion MS set out to solve the wrong problem. The problem is not that stuff is too hard to find in the start menu, the problem is having the start menu in the first place.

    [I’m always baffled by people who suggest “You should change it to do X” when it already does X. -Raymond]
  42. macbirdie says:

    Aaargh!: You can switch the fisher-price look to a silver theme or install either the Media Center or Zune theme (Microsoft official). They look much much better than the default XP skin and a lot better than classic in-’80s-finally-graphical-UIs-arrived-like look.

  43. Aaargh! says:

    “I’m always baffled by people who suggest “You should change it to do X” when it already does X. -Raymond”

    Are you saying that windows automatically sorts the start menu by alphabet ? Because my machine at work sure as hell doesn’t. New applications show up at the end of the start menu, not at their alphabetic place. I have to manually right click and select sort to fix it every time I install something new.

    [They start out in alphabetical order, but of course they don’t continuously re-sort. That would reset your customizations. -Raymond]
  44. Aaargh! says:

    "Aaargh!: You can switch the fisher-price look to a silver theme"

    I know, the ‘silver’ theme is basically the same with other colors. But I prefer the windows 2000 look, at least it looks business like.

    I’m all in favor of some eyecandy (I use a Mac at home) but the default XP look is both insulting (looks childish) and too bulky. The window borders are too big an take up too much screen space. I just don’t like it one bit.

    As far as I’m concerned win2k is the best (or least horrible) windows version to date. WinXP was a huge step in the wrong direction. A bit like what ME did for the whole Win9x line.

  45. Archangel says:

    The silver theme’s no better than the blue one really. I think it would have been a great idea for Microsoft to release some more exciting themes somehow (maybe as part of WGA? It would certainly be an advantage…) to give users a bit of choice. The XP theme engine appeared to be quite adequate – there are plenty of themes out there (which of course require a fixed uxtheme.dll) that show what can be done with it.

    Of course it’d take more effort for MS to do that than some random third-party theme writer, but then it’d work in the 99th percentile of cases too – it’s funny how many of those third-party themes do odd things to your Start menu if you have a docking station connected :-)

  46. Dean Harding says:

    The Vista Start menu has an option to "Sort All Programs menu by name". Not that I use the "All Programs" menu all that much anymore what with the search and all – Win, S, T, Enter for visual studio!

  47. Surge says:

    Does the ‘Turn off user tracking’ setting still exist in Vista? Are there any side effects to it that we should be aware of ?

  48. Aaargh! says:

    "They start out in alphabetical order, but of course they don’t continuously re-sort. That would reset your customizations."

    What customizations ? Do people actually reorganize the order of their start menu manually ?? I didn’t even know you could do that.

  49. AndyC says:

    You can just Right-Click the All Progams list in XP and select "Sort by Name" if you want it in order.

    All real power users surely know that already! ;-)

  50. Bomb Bloke says:

    Most people don’t seem to know they can change the menu style at all. Most "basic" users I know of gave up on their flooded menus long ago, and instead just put all the shortcuts they use on their desktops.

  51. auto-sort? says:

    You can just Right-Click the All Progams list in XP and select "Sort by Name" if you want it in order.

    All real power users surely know that already! ;-)

    But you have to do that after every time you add an item.

  52. Tomer Chachamu says:

    Raymond: My "customisations"? Most people don’t know how to re-order their start menu to deal with new programs. Every new thing just adds itself to the bottom for some strange reason. Here’s the thing: the yellow highlighting in XP *already* lets you find new programs quickly.

    I suppose you could have a problem where an app that’s "always been at the bottom of the first column" is suddenly at the top of the second column.

    Well, it’s all over now with Vista’s start menu.

  53. commander says:

    > Winkey+R CMD Enter will open a command window.

    No, it will open a cmd window. *Command* is another command interpreter.

  54. Adam V says:

    > But you have to do that after every time you add an item.

    That’s the point. If a user *didn’t* have their folders in alphabetical (for instance, they had their most-used items at the top, followed by everything else in alphabetical order), having to reset that order every time another program was installed would seriously annoy them. As it is, Windows makes it possible for those users to maintain their existing order, while making it easy for other users to reorder their list.

  55. Stephen Jones says:

    —-"Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default."—–

    The Windows default is the only sensible action. If you don’t have extensions hidden by default then when the file is renamed by inexpert users the extension is lost and the file or document becomes unopenable.

    The advanced user, who won’t do this, and will at least understand the warning message that comes up if he does try to rename, is the person you want the custom configuration for.

    Default for the common user, custom for the advanced.

  56. Stephen Jones says:

    —-"Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default."—–

    The Windows default is the only sensible action. If you don’t have extensions hidden by default then when the file is renamed by inexpert users the extension is lost and the file or document becomes unopenable.

    The advanced user, who won’t do this, and will at least understand the warning message that comes up if he does try to rename, is the person you want the custom configuration for.

    Default for the common user, custom for the advanced.

  57. Stephen Jones says:

    —-"Not to bring up an old debate but I really think all users have been hurt by hiding extensions by default."—–

    The Windows default is the only sensible action. If you don’t have extensions hidden by default then when the file is renamed by inexpert users the extension is lost and the file or document becomes unopenable.

    The advanced user, who won’t do this, and will at least understand the warning message that comes up if he does try to rename, is the person you want the custom configuration for.

    Default for the common user, custom for the advanced.

  58. Hayden says:

    The "renaming will lose the extension problem" could be got round by only highlighting the name before the dot on the first click – rather as WOrd steps up from word-line-para on repeated clicks, the rename could step up from name to name-plus-ext on the second click.

  59. David Walker says:

    Stephen Jones and Hayden:  Vista does that.  It highlights the name, but not the extension, when you rename a file.

  60. Igor says:

    David Walker said:

    "Vista does that.  It highlights the name, but not the extension, when you rename a file."

    Snyde remark in a voice of HK-47 assassin droid:

    "And it took them five years to implement that?"

  61. Stephen Jones says:

    Problem of course is that now the guy says, look it hasn’t taken all of the name and changes it anyway.

    The new behavour is an improvement for the advanced user, as he will much less often want to change the extension than simply rename the file, but the default should still be to have them hidden.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content