Recommended Posts

Some people will never be happy regardless because it's from MS more than anything else. Too much space? It's like some of you have never seen the other browsers out there at all. IE9 takes up less space than Opera 11.0 for me, with a quick side by side comparison I just did. AND that's with the damn fav bar on which I have for my RSS feeds.

Some people will never be happy regardless because it's from MS more than anything else. Too much space? It's like some of you have never seen the other browsers out there at all. IE9 takes up less space than Opera 11.0 for me, with a quick side by side comparison I just did. AND that's with the damn fav bar on which I have for my RSS feeds.

and less than chrome

Can someone who is in the beta program please submit a bug report about the back button? The bottom of it is missing.

Thanks.

That's by design and a great feature in my opinion. Apart from the aesthetics, it makes finding the back button with the mouse pointer much easier. If they decided to not cut off the bottom and make it perfectly round than the radius of the circle will have to be decreased. In that case the back button will become smaller and thus more difficult to find.

If a browser really needs to fix its back button, it must be Chrome. What a fugly and tiny back button that browser has. It takes a lot of effort to successfully click that button while browsing. Why don't the make the button bigger?

My guess is that the design "shift" is because they're trying to better incorporate it with the next version of Windows. We know that the Metro design philosophy calls for cleaner-cut shapes as well as more harsh/sharp edges and I think this is a lead in for that. If you're running a theme with rounded corners, it'll look out of place, but if you're running a theme with square corners, the style may be very fitting.

Some people will never be happy regardless because it's from MS more than anything else. Too much space? It's like some of you have never seen the other browsers out there at all. IE9 takes up less space than Opera 11.0 for me, with a quick side by side comparison I just did. AND that's with the damn fav bar on which I have for my RSS feeds.

Really?

Browser%20height%20comparison.png

(minus the status bar, but you can easily disable it at will)

Sure why not...

(...)

QuickTime X is a good example. Could work for a web browser as well. I really like the idea actually...

Not necessarily. That would mean, that the user interface would eventually have to be displayed over the rendering area.

The controls in QuickTime disappear (I assume) as soon as you stop fiddling with them.

In a browser, anything being displayed over your content, rather than by content (with is interactive, as opposed to a movie that you, well... watch) will just greatly annoy you, because you won't be able to read or click whatever is underneath.

Not necessarily. That would mean, that the user interface would eventually have to be displayed over the rendering area.

Doesn't have to be a problem: The scroll balk could scale accordingly when the toolbar appears/disappears. The toolbar would appear when you hover over the top part of the window.

In a browser, anything being displayed over your content, rather than by content (with is interactive, as opposed to a movie that you, well... watch) will just greatly annoy you, because you won't be able to read or click whatever is underneath.

That's a non-issue. Basically the only time you need the toolbar in the first place is when you want to leave the page and switch to anther one, that is beyond adding a bookmark. I can't think of a single reason why I would need content and the toolbar to be visible at the exact same time.

Really?

Browser%20height%20comparison.png

(minus the status bar, but you can easily disable it at will)

He's right if Opera didn't eat up the titlebar. The titlebar should be left to allow the window to be grabbed easily, Opera's UI will not work well for less experienced users or with touch-enabled platforms. So I think it's fair to say that the extra space gained should not be counted.

Really?

Browser%20height%20comparison.png

(minus the status bar, but you can easily disable it at will)

Uhhhh... didn't you just prove his point? With both having the favorites bar on, it's the same, not more. If both have it turned off, it's still less. Your screenshot proves that, doesn't it?

That said, I will not use Internet Explorer until a decent spell checker is implemented. The third-party ones all suck. Why has Microsoft not added one yet?

Uhhhh... didn't you just prove his point? With both having the favorites bar on, it's the same, not more. If both have it turned off, it's still less. Your screenshot proves that, doesn't it?

I think it would be roughly the same if the favourites bar was off (for both).

Either way, we're talking about being a handful of pixels off and I think this whole space discussion is a non-issue.

He's right if Opera didn't eat up the titlebar. The titlebar should be left to allow the window to be grabbed easily, Opera's UI will not work well for less experienced users or with touch-enabled platforms. So I think it's fair to say that the extra space gained should not be counted.

I agree for touch users. For mouse users, there's a really small slim area that still allows users to drag the window down from being maximized. This is a middle ground between the approaches Microsoft and Google/Mozilla are taking.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • I sort of agree with you on that. I had a telescope - a real hefty thing, although only around 500CHF - that got me so fascinated about the stars and planets. I would stare for hours, amazed that I could see the craters of the moon or the rings of Saturn in "realtime" (quotations because, y'know, speed of light and whatnot). A friend of mine has a telescope like the one mentioned in the review, and the pictures are amazing to look at. But there is something missing for me. I may as well just go to NASA's website and look through their gallery.
    • As opposed to catching bad press because it's the engine's fault? You didn't really think this through did you? lol. The engine has all the tools a dev needs to optimize their game, Epic isn't gonna hold their hand to make sure they use them. Also, Epic isn't forcing anyone to use Lumen, Nanite or super high resolution meshes and textures. Most of the stuttering can easily be fixed by generating a PSO cache and compiling every shader before loading the game, it's up to the developer to set it up properly.
    • I think it depends on what you're looking for to do, and the time you have to spare. With my Dwarf 3, I easily spend 3-4 hour sessions; half an hour driving to an un-light polluted place, another half hour unpacking and setting up the smart scope + tripod for equatorial tracking, then 15 more minutes mucking around with settings and shooting calibration frames, spending a few hours shooting, merging with past photo sessions, etc. It's crazy how time flies and I often get home later than I expected. It's something I still need to set aside a good part of an evening to do, all in all. For one session, where you often need like four for best results when it comes to deep space objects. Even with a smart scope like Dwarf 3, regular non-astro photography is still way more approachable to people getting into photography. I find this is a time consuming niche no matter how I go about it. With practice, I can probably begin cutting time here but I think where smart scopes find their home is among people who love to shoot the night sky but don't have the spare time to go deep with the "navigator level" attunement to the night sky itself in addition to everything else. Having said this, _if_ you have even more time to spend on this hobby, it will probably be even more rewarding to do it more by hand and learn the skies and the details of how it all works.
    • I misread the title and thought Teams itself would be redesigned. Imagine having this one as a native WinUI app.
    • Dell, HP PCs ran into endless reboot, BitLocker recovery loops but Windows 11 isn't to blame by Sayan Sen Last month Neowin reported on a major issue on Dell systems wherein a bug in its official support tool was leading to endless blue screen of death (BSOD) and restarts. Following our report, Dell officially acknowledged its SupportAssist-related crash issue, confirming that the culprit is not Microsoft's operating system but rather a faulty version of its own remediation software. In a newly published support advisory, Dell stated that version 5.5.16.0 of Dell SupportAssist Remediation and Alienware SupportAssist Remediation can trigger blue screen errors and unexpected system restarts. The company notes that the problematic component operates independently of the main SupportAssist application, meaning users should not remove the primary SupportAssist software when troubleshooting the issue. According to Dell, the crashes are linked specifically to the SupportAssist Remediation service, which is bundled with SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools, and as such it has since released an updated version, 5.5.16.1, which is said to resolve the problem. Affected users are advised to first verify whether version 5.5.16.0 is installed by checking the Installed Apps section in Windows Settings. If so, Dell recommends updating SupportAssist OS Recovery Tools through either SupportAssist's "Update Software" feature or Dell Command Update. Dell also advises users to back up important data before performing the update and to ensure systems remain connected to power throughout the installation process. If you are still having issues though make sure to report to the Dell support forum. As it turns out though Dell is not the only PC maker currently dealing with update-related headaches as HP is also facing a separate but probably equally frustrating issue involving recent Windows Secure Boot updates that were released with recent Windows 11 Patch Tuesdays. Similar to Dell, HP also put up its own support article where it explains the issue. The company says that affected devices could hit a brick wall when booting as they run into a BitLocker recovery loop after the April 2026 updates. The problem appears to affect systems wherein the new UEFI Secure Boot CA 2023 certificates fail to apply properly. As such affected users will find themselves entering their recovery key over and over again despite the system otherwise functioning normally. HP says such PCs should be updated to the latest available BIOS version and configured with the necessary Secure Boot certificates before installing Microsoft's Windows 11 Patch Tuesday updates. Systems that are already experiencing the problem may require BIOS configuration changes to restore normal boot behavior. Admins can find information regarding that in the support article here on HP's official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      DJC50PLUS earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      493
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      246
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      69
    5. 5
      neufuse
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!