• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

win 7: How many of y'all use 'small icons'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
small icons, don't hide labels, never combine, and of course the windows classic look

My taskbar looks pretty much like it did in windows 95
 
Always use small icons + never combine taskbar buttons + i added the quick launch bar

npxv5.jpg
 
Mitark said:
Always use small icons + never combine taskbar buttons + i added the quick launch bar

npxv5.jpg
Click to expand...

haha, even put quick launch back. I did this when I first got Vista too but when I went to 7 I gave the new pinning things to the taskbar a shot and it's great.
 
Used them the first day I bought/installed Win7. I can only see using normal icons if you have the taskbar to the side of the screen.
 
I use small ones. Everything looks cleaner, and now when I have to work with XP I go mad with all the things that appear in the taskbar.
 
Dual monitor user at work. I sometimes have 20 windows open, the only way to not lose my mind is by having the taskbar vertical on the left side with labels shown.
 
Vertical on the right with small uncombined icons. I wished though there would be an option to disable text beside the icons then.
 
Big icons, task bar vertical to the left. What's the benefit of having the taskbar at at the bottom? If you have a widescreen monitor, it makes much more sense to have it at the side, in my opinion. Best thing I ever did when re-organising my desktop last year. If you're that worried about freeing up verticle space that you're using small icons to save, what, 10 pixels? Having a verticle task bar will blow your mind.
 
On my 17' laptop, I use large icons but it's always on autohide. Love the vertical space maximization, hate the smaller, less detailed icons. Best of both worlds. If I didn't autohide I'd probably do small icons and left side of screen.
 
InaudibleWhispa said:
Big icons, task bar vertical to the left. What's the benefit of having the taskbar at at the bottom? If you have a widescreen monitor, it makes much more sense to have it at the side, in my opinion. Best thing I ever did when re-organising my desktop last year. If you're that worried about freeing up verticle space that you're using small icons to save, what, 10 pixels? Having a verticle task bar will blow your mind.
Click to expand...
I'm probably being silly because I really like Ubuntu's side taskbar (and the way it auto-hides completely - as opposed to partially on windows) but putting w7 taskbar to the side looks wrong to me. The start menu, notification and date/time area in particular are just ugly in the sense that it's winking back at you saying "you know I was designed for horizontal use, who are you trying to kid!".... and I know they toyed with going vertical as default prior to vista but it still looks odd to me.
 
Big icons, stacked taskbar only when taskbar is full. I think a better question is does anyone use the windows key + tab instead of alt + tab. I just can't get used to it visually.
 
Cigol said:
I'm probably being silly because I really like Ubuntu's side taskbar (and the way it auto-hides completely - as opposed to partially on windows) but putting w7 taskbar to the side looks wrong to me. The start menu, notification and date/time area in particular are just ugly in the sense that it's winking back at you saying "you know I was designed for horizontal use, who are you trying to kid!".... and I know they toyed with going vertical as default prior to vista but it still looks odd to me.
Click to expand...

It just takes a week to adjust and then it looks as normal as it did horizontally. Either way, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages; especially if you care so much about vertical screen real estate.
 
Small icons here. With resolution 1280x800px I think big icons are unnecessary too big. The small ones, while maybe less detailed and uglier, look better IMO. And save space both vertically and horizontally. Right now I have 10 programs on the taskbar (only 6 of them are opened), and with big icons about 3/5 of the taskbar is already taken, whereas with small icons they doesn't even cover half of the taskbar.

And I would be able to run taskbar in vertical mode. I just can't get used to it in Windows (I didn't mind it in Ubuntu).
 
I always use small icons. I hate too much clutter on my desktops (work and home) so basically I hide everything in folders to keep the clutter to a minimum. Coupled with small icons, I have an overall small footprint on the desktop.
 
my resolution is set to 2048x1152 so no... I'd never use small icons, plus my glasses magnify things well enough that it would be silly to do so anyways.
 
I prefer my icons big and detailed :)
 
I'm shocked that some of you actually like having grouped windows. :o


Edit: oh wait, is it because some of you have laptops with limited screen sizes?
 
Small icons for life. Especially at work when I've got like 10 billion things open.

edit: Also, small icons + hide taskbar on my tiny laptop. The screen is so small already, taskbar auto-hide is a godsend.
 
I can understand the preference differences between big and small icons, but not combining icons always baffled me.

It's made that way for a reason, it increases productivity. Once you get used to it (hint, hint) you will see how much more efficient it is.

Reminds me of people who want the ribbon UI to die and want menubars to come back.


That being said I use small on both my netbook and desktop. For my netbook it's because i need all the screen real estate I can get. On my desktop...i just think it looks sleeker. Taskbar on the side is baller as well, everyone should try it out.


"technically" small taskbar on the bottom/top uses the least amount of pixels btw.
 
Mitark said:
Always use small icons + never combine taskbar buttons + i added the quick launch bar

npxv5.jpg
Click to expand...

Exactly the same set-up here, even with a desktop res of 1920x1080, I also still use auto-hide on the taskbar, who really needs to se that shit unless you're using it?
 
When 7 first came out I told myself I was going to use the smaller icons as I wasn't sure I would be able to cope with the change...but I forced myself too and now I can't cope with the smaller icons.

The bigger icons to me just seem...nicer now. Not sure why.

lDdL1.jpg
Click to expand...
 
it's not like I need more space or les space. Big icons seem pointless to me, I can recognize them and they're not really beautiful, why should they be big? Also, all the small square uber-beveled icons on the taskbar look like ass, case in point the image in the op:

i269kZdt9htP8.png


we're back in the nineties and someone just discovered how to make fake glass in photoshop. next up: fake c64 metal like andrew braybrook. I've called it.

30S7L.jpg


I'm in the "never group" camp mostly because there's less bevel(age) to look at.
 
Foliorum Viridum said:
On my 2048x1152 monitor I have just enough space:


A few of those I could remove now, though. Like Windows Movie Maker, for example.
Click to expand...

Wow, do you really need all those icons on the bar at once? I tend to have only the most important of programs there, and pin anything I wouldn't use 24/7 to the start menu. >.<;
 
On XP I always used small icons.


Win 7 though, I'm cool with normal. In part due to simply having a bigger higher res monitor along with the new OS. With a 16:9 screen, I have enough real estate to keep all the pinned and opened apps on screen, and it's not like I'm really losing anything vertically of note.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

What small (and cheap) joys in life give you the most pleasure?
2
81
1K
Itchy.Tasty. replied
Use the Earth to Spell your Name from NASA
6
264
Moondoggy replied
Scream 7 | Official Trailer (2026)
22
880
MrCunningham replied
How do you get rid of an earworm?
16
447
rm082e replied
How much do you love tacos?
2
75
382
Tunned replied
Top Bottom