Why does it feel outrageously more natural to have a taskbar on the bottom of the screen as opposed to the left, or top...

Why does vista get so much hate? I used it for a solide 5 years with no issues

Early versions were trash, just like most versions of Windows.

Vista was too hardware-demanding for XP-Era machines. People didn't like this, eventually moving on thinking that Microsoft "wronged" them.

WHOA

If thers a bar on the left or right, it feels weird because it feels like a window should be able to span the whole length of the left-right axis. like if i watch a movie i dont want a bar on the left or right, feels weird as shit

My family had a god awful eMachines with Vista Basic. Belonged in the trash.

Attached: barf.gif (220x200, 495K)

It is actually because if you are looking at your taskbar, you also need to see where the mouse is and refresh your memory of where your keyboard is in relation to your hands. Lifting your head to see the top of the screen means you have to move your head 3 times rather than once to ready yourself for whatever you want to do on the task bar

right side master race

Attached: 2019-09-19_192932.jpg (1920x1080, 499K)

>Yes, my first OS was Windows 8. How could you tell?

same. t5082 with the Pentium 4 631 512mb of ddr2 and a 160gb hdd
still have the case and it has a ryzen 5 2600 16gb ddr4 3200 gtx 1660Ti and 4tb hdd 128ssd

Left is the best and my 1st OS waw windows 98.

I moved it to the left ages ago and I cannot stand it being on the bottom anymore. It actually makes the display feel smaller since there's considerably less vertical space than horizontal

>Dual Monitor
Taskbar is on Right Side Monitor on the Left Side of the Screen Vertically
>Single Monitor
Bottom

>uses vertical screen
>wants to kill width even more with a taskbar

nigger I never said I had a vertical screen I said the task bar is vertical

>XP minimum requirements
>Pentium-compatible 133Mhz
>64MB of RAM

>Vista requirements
>800MHz
>512MB of RAM
>Aero required a DX9 GPU with a decent chunk of video RAM too

People had computers for years from the W98 days going fine on XP but then being castrated by Vista. Also yes drivers and software support was fucked up the first few months, especially not helped by 64-bit processors just hitting the mainstream.

XP's minimum requirements are kinda stretched a bit. It could run on like 64MB of RAM but the default configuration would be incredibly slow on anything with less than 256MB because the OS would occupy almost all the RAM and force everything else to page constantly. You really had to turn a ton of services off to get it lower than ~128MB

Yeahhh, guess you're right. Still didn't really stop many people, plus if you could get a browser running there wasn't a plethora of javascript-laden hamburger-menu sites to slow shit down back then

>can't SLAM his cursor into the top right corner to close a window
get a load of this virgin hahahah

Attached: 1567645414971.gif (607x609, 821K)

Left side and the bottom are the only good options but sidebar is almost always shittier than a horizontal one because those allow a lot more information to be displayed on them without taking up half of the screen.
Having it on top or right side screws up the quick management of title bar and its buttons.

Every program has toolbar at the top. It makes more sense to also have the taskbar at the top. Why complicate it.

ur a toolbar

Because not having everything cluttering up in the same place.

sorry that you're so impaired that you need to 'slam' the cursor.

Probably because you can let your eyes droop to look at the bottom. Top your eyes have to be more open a the same head angle. So it's easier to work from the bottom of the screen.

So like Mac OS or Ubuntu's Unity where they incorporate the program's menu bar into the task bar on top

cuz it takes 0 energy to untense your eyes and look down, brainlet

You forgot the
>have XP with 128 mb of ram works fine
>have vista with 512 mb of ram, insta disk swapping even before login screen shows up

Because you're used to it.

I switched to sidebar when 4:3 died and now taskbar on bottom is weird to me.

I have the taskbar on autohide. 95% of time I'm not looking/using it.

Then all the more reason to put it at the bottom.
What sounds easier to use
>squeeze every button into the same corner of the screen
>spread them out to different sides, each cover their own group of functions

Because Close/Expand/Minimise buttons are already at the top.
No it dosen't. Why have two diffrent things occupy same space?

this: Also the taskbar doesn't have a lot of frequently used stuff on it. I'd say that the top of the monitor is prime real estate for there to be "stuff" and the bottom is worst real estate for stuff, and so i think taskbar is at bottom because it's more out of the way down there.

Also, and maybe most importantly, this:

side taskbar is redpill

evolution
looking down is more comfortable than looking left/right/up

The keyboard is below the screen

Optimally there should be an interface between the screen and the main source of input (keyboard)

So bottom it is.. man that sounds gay

samefagging here, but based on what i thought through there, left sidebar would also be a viable option.

It's not cluttering much stuff, and you can still slam dat X in the corner

>Optimally there should be an interface between the screen and the main source of input (keyboard)
That would only work with peolpe who still use a tiny screen. Everybody has at least a 27" monitor these days and sit half a meter from their screen.

cuz it's easier to look left to right than up and down
and it's easier to look down than up

Attached: pope likes his sneks.jpg (992x930, 222K)

Because you grew up, and your species evolved, in a gravity well and everything "sinks" which is replicated by the desktop metaphor of modern operating systems

Attached: 1552008729064.jpg (2048x1365, 155K)

>That would only work with peolpe who still use a tiny screen. Everybody has at least a 27" monitor these days and sit half a meter from their screen.
You isn't everyone.

well that's an unfortunate architecture :^)

not unfortunate, deliberate
catholic church is satanic
pope is evil
Pharisees didn't go away, just changed forms

Attached: pope hmmm.jpg (480x360, 63K)

Maybe I should try bottom again. I don't know, it seems inconvenient to have to mouse over to different places. Although I'll always use autohide.

Attached: 6AA6313C97774ECAB99A01FAF1AC6B87.gif (455x303, 494K)

I'm pretty damn sure people use bigger screens these days than the commodore era, an interface over the keyboard would be unergonomic as fuck.
What kind of interface do you even want anyway?

I wasn't same guy you replied to, I am team bottom taskbar, I just do not think your reasoning is valid. Not everyone has at least 27in monitor. At least here implying that 27 is on the small side.

ive been using normal ubuntu for a bit, and im already starting to feel like a bar on the left makes more sense

what are you talking about? I like to wake up from a deep sleep in the middle of the night, and sit my eyes 24" from a 2000 nit 30"+ UHD display dawg.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesiology idiot

Swiping down takes less energy and feels better for the majority. Swiping up takes more energy and feels better for a slight few. Simple science.

>all these being bottoms
It's empirically proven you spend more time looking at the upper half of the screen. Always TOP.

Attached: 1545778013678.jpg (640x627, 73K)

which is why you shouldn't have the taskbar at the top, it is wasting the good space of the screen. or do you spend most of your time opening and closing programs and changing your volume with your mouse?

Attached: Why wont my fucking driver work.png (980x540, 6K)

Youre all brainlets. The true redpill is no taskbar.

In fact, the most natural way would be to just have a button on the mouse assigned to summon the menu instead of having an icon at all. Then it doesn't matter where your mouse is, you can simply bring it up whenever and wherever you want. I remember back when I fucked around on Linux, I had some window manager that summoned the menu when I middle clicked on the desktop, though I don't remember the exact details.

As for the taskbar itself, I'd say that top or bottom is the most efficient simply because there are less vertical pixels on standard monitor. This means it's generally faster to move the mouse to the top or bottom of the screen compared with the left or right.

Corners are easy to hit. Slam the mouse in any diagonal direction and you hit one. Top right is close window if it's maximized. Putting the taskbar on the top or right side loses this corner click action. Top left is the system menu on a maximized window, useful though less used than close. Top or left loses this - I suppose I'd be willing to do without this since I almost always open it with alt-space and then use a shortcut key to pick an option inside it. I don't like vertical though since I set my taskbar buttons to display the title of the window. Along the bottom means you lose nothing, and your start button is in the bottom left for easy access.

Wouldn't it make sense for it to be at the top of the screen? That's how tabbed browsing and just about every program and website menu works.

That's right, since everything is already at the top, the taskbar is put at the bottom.

Top chad Unix productivitybar.
Bottom virgin Windows subprocessbar.

It is just convention. There is no reason it needs to be at the bottom but users build skills using other software and programs and if your interface mimics what they are used to it makes the software easier to use.

Using linux and other free software you being to understand how a few bad defaults and "unimportant" design choices add up to make something awful and unusable.

does not make any logical sense, the program is not on top of the taskbar so top or bottom that ammount of pixels must be taken either way.

Actually if you think about it if the window handles are all at the top then you must travel further to get from a window to the taskbar with it at the bottom.

Read the thread, I don't want to post the exact same thing I did a few hours ago.

Taskbar is only like 30 pixels or so. I can see my whole monitor and just change what I focus on. So focusing slightly lower or higher on the screen it's not going to matter. I prefer looking in the middle not at the edges anyway.

I don't think it matters top or bottom. It's just convention there is no thought put in to which one is better it was just arbitrary.

if I remember correctly microsoft lowered the recommended system requirements to appease hardware manufacturers, then hardware manufacturers went and made a bunch of vista machines that couldn't actually run vista.

What information do you need from a fucking taskbar? It has icons and date/time. Whatever little excess text on it could also be displayed vertically.

Not him but
Titlebar text for windows is used to tract duplicate instances of the same application such as multiple folders opened in a file manager. It's faster than checking thumbnails when you have the room.

Because baby duck syndrome.

This. It wastes less space total (because monitor is wider) and you get to scroll less thanks to more vertical space.

I used a left side tool bar for a year or so and never got used to it. I think it's because it's not natural for eye gaze to go vertically instead of horizontally

More natural

I always set it on top because it gets on my eyesight level this way.
>taskbar on the bottom
>logical positioning and priority
No it's not.

Mine is at the top because I use a 40" 4K monitor and it's closer to my sight line.

Left is pretty comfy as well. Right and top are shit tier though

In large part this. I had one of those. Intel celeroen 1.6ghz single core. Couldn't handle it. Even so I liked Vista on that machine because of the modern features. Most of the hate on Vista is from people who didn't have it. Such as my friends who saw my celeroen machine.

Windows 7 is still just mostly Vista, and look how loved it is.

Windows Vista had an ideal. The ideal was skumorphism, advanced stunning effects, making the general pc a multi media creation machine.

Windows 8-10 is a giving up of the ideal, surrendering to lifeless flat asthetics and being a media consumption device like an iPad.

>taskbar
Why? my desktop is the taskbar

>Is it just because this is how it was most of our lives
yes, exactly

What? The taskbar's main purpose is showing all open windows and allowing you to switch between them, the desktop is mostly going to be hidden behind the programs you're actually using.

Double this, also slamming it to the right to click into scrollbars.

You can do that easily in the vertical position as well. Have you tried it?

The desktop can be made to do all that.
>hidden
one shortcut can minimize all of them

It used to make sense on 4:3 displays but on 16:9 it's just a waste of space you got used to. Right taskbar messes with windows buttons so the proper way is left taskbar. Top taskbar is the ultimate snowflake tier combining hte worst of bottom and right taskbars.

I've been right-side since Windows 7 beta.

I feel more natural with the bar on top, maybe because I was used to the old days when selecting stuff on my paint application would fuckup the lazo selection the moment you happened to reach the fucking bar on the bottom.

interestingly i always had it on top. it being closer to the window caption buttons feels more ergonomic

I can see where you're coming from.
Putting the taskbar of Windows anywhere but at the bottom feels hella weird. It's so stupid. The taskbar is at the top of the screen on Linux, yet it feels super natural there.

But what if you live in Australia?

You are wasting precious vertical space on small screens (laptops)

Unless you have a giant screen, put it on the left, it's way better

Attached: Screenshot (5).png (1600x900, 1010K)

I remembered getting taught how to use Windows 95 when I was at 2nd grade so the taskbar being at bottom is natural for me.

It's the standard.

Attached: wangblows.png (2560x1440, 2.08M)

That's more of a reason to keep the taskbar out of the way.

It's easier for your eyes to look down than to look up