Do you guys ever get annoyed looking at other people's desktop arrangements?

[Colt45]

delete those fvcking desktop shortcuts, and take it out of 640x480.

 

[shortylickens]

Thats impressive but I've seen worse.
I saw a guy with a 21" running at 1600x1200 scale down his Icons to almost unidentifiable and FILL his desktop. Most of it was actual files and folders. Which I think is asking for trouble. Either shortcuts or nothing.

I agree that the number of items running in the tray is a good indicator of their computer savvy. Most hardcore folks wont let too much crap run in the background, even if it is essential.

 

[Steve]

One of our admins has a 17" CRT at 1280x1024 just to hold all his icons. Poor guy can't get out of 60Hz.

 

[StageLeft]

I never look at them My desktop is never used for anything, so I MIGHT have a background pic on it (that I never see, because I like windows explorer to always be loaded and maximized if I'm not using something else).

 

[MetalMat]

You should see my dad's, he has 3 different screens each filled to the brim with shortcuts.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Thats impressive but I've seen worse.
I saw a guy with a 21" running at 1600x1200 scale down his Icons to almost unidentifiable and FILL his desktop. Most of it was actual files and folders. Which I think is asking for trouble. Either shortcuts or nothing.

I agree that the number of items running in the tray is a good indicator of their computer savvy. Most hardcore folks wont let too much crap run in the background, even if it is essential.

I have... 16 tray icons right now. It's usually 18. I USE my computer - that XP1900 works for a living, it doesn't sit there and idle like all the so-called "savvy" people's OMGWTF4.0GHz PENTIUM4EXTREMECOFFEEMAKEREDITION.

I also have a 2-level taskbar that's currently featuring 15 programs, and my quicklaunch has 12 icons. Nevermind my start menu, the damn thing is so big that it won't fit on the screen in 1280x960 (1280x1024 is NOT proper aspect ratio for normal 4:3 display, I want to smack every one of you pricks that uses it, there's a difference between 1.25 and 4/3, with the exception of those of you with LCDs that run native at that res and have the proper AR)

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Thats impressive but I've seen worse.
I saw a guy with a 21" running at 1600x1200 scale down his Icons to almost unidentifiable and FILL his desktop. Most of it was actual files and folders. Which I think is asking for trouble. Either shortcuts or nothing.

I agree that the number of items running in the tray is a good indicator of their computer savvy. Most hardcore folks wont let too much crap run in the background, even if it is essential.

I have... 16 tray icons right now. It's usually 18. I USE my computer - that XP1900 works for a living, it doesn't sit there and idle like all the so-called "savvy" people's OMGWTF4.0GHz PENTIUM4EXTREMECOFFEEMAKEREDITION.

I also have a 2-level taskbar that's currently featuring 15 programs, and my quicklaunch has 12 icons. Nevermind my start menu, the damn thing is so big that it won't fit on the screen in 1280x960 (1280x1024 is NOT proper aspect ratio for normal 4:3 display, I want to smack every one of you pricks that uses it, there's a difference between 1.25 and 4/3, with the exception of those of you with LCDs that run native at that res and have the proper AR)

so what if its not proper 4/3, it looks better then 1280/960

i run it on any monitor that wont do 1600x1200

0 QL and 6 sys try icons
start menu is sorted into 5 catagories
taskbar 1 line, autohide

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: thejackal1
IS this too many icons?

Here

yes

nice clean desktop

I concur.

http://www.chadwickcmeyer.com/pics/main.jpg
http://www.chadwickcmeyer.com/pics/backup.jpg

 

[Frodolives]

Sadly I don't get to see a lot of desktops, since I'm on dialup and don't often invest the time to load such threads. However, I consider this a person's own territory. As the world becomes shorter on physical space, virtual space becomes more important to us, so why not be tolerant of how someone uses theirs?

For some reason I'm amused by the thought of getting upset over it. It's as if the Arabs and Israelis each were content with their own "virtual holy land" and yet each would go to the other and complain about how it's being defiled

 

[Cristatus]

my desktop is clean, and hardly ever even seen. when i need to use the desktop i hit the windows + r button, type in a drive letter, press enter, then then press backspace a couple of times, and voila, there's my desktop.

i have to hardware shortcut buttons, ,one leads to my music folder, and the other leads to the my documents folder.

i tend to run any programs from the run dialog, and if that's not possible, there's the start menu. i have recently started deleting all the folders int he start menu, and only keeping the .exe in there like this. the ones that are still in their folders are there only because they might be removed immediately.

my next task is to streamline objects in the taskbar.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: shortylickens
Thats impressive but I've seen worse.
I saw a guy with a 21" running at 1600x1200 scale down his Icons to almost unidentifiable and FILL his desktop. Most of it was actual files and folders. Which I think is asking for trouble. Either shortcuts or nothing.

I agree that the number of items running in the tray is a good indicator of their computer savvy. Most hardcore folks wont let too much crap run in the background, even if it is essential.

I have... 16 tray icons right now. It's usually 18. I USE my computer - that XP1900 works for a living, it doesn't sit there and idle like all the so-called "savvy" people's OMGWTF4.0GHz PENTIUM4EXTREMECOFFEEMAKEREDITION.

I also have a 2-level taskbar that's currently featuring 15 programs, and my quicklaunch has 12 icons. Nevermind my start menu, the damn thing is so big that it won't fit on the screen in 1280x960 (1280x1024 is NOT proper aspect ratio for normal 4:3 display, I want to smack every one of you pricks that uses it, there's a difference between 1.25 and 4/3, with the exception of those of you with LCDs that run native at that res and have the proper AR)

so what if its not proper 4/3, it looks better then 1280/960

i run it on any monitor that wont do 1600x1200

0 QL and 6 sys try icons
start menu is sorted into 5 catagories
taskbar 1 line, autohide

Your style is very similar to mine. ALthough i have a few icons on my desktop that are arranged neatly