Taskbar position

[Clubtail]

I am not happy with W11. Under W10 I could drag the taskbar to the side of the screen. This was convenient as I work with photos, and the 16:9 screen is not fully used; with the taskbar at the bottom, the aspect ratio gets even closer to letter-box, which is wasteful. W11 does not allow me to place the taskbar anywhere but the bottom. This is very annoying. What is it with Microsoft? They keep on bringing in new versions, which we are more or less forced to install, containing fancy extra facilities that I shall probably never use, and withdrawing others that I find really helpful. I have an old computer which runs WXP; it's quite a relief to get back to it sometimes. In spite of dire warnings, WXP did get updated once, probably because of an embarrassing ransomware attack on the UK National Health Service, which had hesitated to upgrade all of its myriad of WXP computers - think of the cost and disruption.

Meanwhile, can any system expert please tell me how to move the taskbar to the right edge of the screen? Please!

 

[davehc]

There is no built in way. Possibly there are third oarty applications which can do it though.
I would suggest you post in our companion Windows 11 forum, where you may get a better response

New posts

www.windows11forums.com

 

[ubuysa]

A fair bit of the Windows 11 UI has been rewritten, pretty much from scratch, and the taskbar is one such component. It is very clunky at the moment and may stay so for some time. The poor UI customisations available is one reason why I have abandoned Windows 11 in favour of Windows 10.

I fear there is little you're going to be able to do as far as Windows 11 taskbar customisation is concerned I'm afraid.

 

[Grizzly]

The taskbar can be moved but only to the top of the screen or to the bottom, not on the side yet. This is currently only possible with a registry hack which is a tad complicated. If someone is not familiar with it, one should stay away from modifying the registry.

 

[davehc]

Interesting comment, Grizzly. I have no interest in doing it, but how do you customise the taskbar to move to the top?

 

[davehc]

A fair bit of the Windows 11 UI has been rewritten, pretty much from scratch, and the taskbar is one such component. It is very clunky at the moment and may stay so for some time. The poor UI customisations available is one reason why I have abandoned Windows 11 in favour of Windows 10.

I fear there is little you're going to be able to do as far as Windows 11 taskbar customisation is concerned I'm afraid.

There are one or two customisations that are missing, as from previous OS's. None of them, fortunately, have ever, in their history, been needed by me. - Moving the taskbar to the side, as one mentioned in this thread. Possibly if you are using graphics or photos a great deal, the change of available space can be a problem. I would have imagined that hiding the taskbar would overcome that particular problem?
Apart from resizing the width, the only other is the inability to use "toolbars". Again, I have never had a need for them. I have little third party applications running, and the start menu takes care of most. I have only 9 shortcuts on the taskbar, which are well separated and easily, therefore, accessed. It is astonishing, to me, how many complaints have come out of the woodwork regarding the loss of this feature! There are several other ways to have instant access to other shortcuts. Herd mentality, perhaps??
My only other petty grievance with windows is the large space for so-called "pinned" apps on the start menu. Previously I closed this space, as I had no use for it. Now I cannot. Just a minor inconvenience for me.
Other than those items, I haven't found any mind shattering differences, other than the quite unnecessary moving around of most items and needing to re memorise where everything is.
For me, on an older Laptop, there is undoubtably a small performance boost, but nothing to warrant a so-called new OS

 

[ubuysa]

There are one or two customisations that are missing, as from previous OS's. None of them, fortunately, have ever, in their history, been needed by me. - Moving the taskbar to the side, as one mentioned in this thread. Possibly if you are using graphics or photos a great deal, the change of available space can be a problem. I would have imagined that hiding the taskbar would overcome that particular problem?
Apart from resizing the width, the only other is the inability to use "toolbars". Again, I have never had a need for them. I have little third party applications running, and the start menu takes care of most. I have only 9 shortcuts on the taskbar, which are well separated and easily, therefore, accessed. It is astonishing, to me, how many complaints have come out of the woodwork regarding the loss of this feature! There are several other ways to have instant access to other shortcuts. Herd mentality, perhaps??
My only other petty grievance with windows is the large space for so-called "pinned" apps on the start menu. Previously I closed this space, as I had no use for it. Now I cannot. Just a minor inconvenience for me.
Other than those items, I haven't found any mind shattering differences, other than the quite unnecessary moving around of most items and needing to re memorise where everything is.
For me, on an older Laptop, there is undoubtably a small performance boost, but nothing to warrant a so-called new OS

My biggest issues were the taskbar; it's too big for me and although there is an unofficial registry hack to make it smaller, the clock at the right of the system bar doesn't follow the hack and is half off the screen.

My other gripe was the limited number of icons you can have on the pop-up menu window. I appreciate that you can use multiple pages, but that's not efficient. Way too much space is wasted at the bottom here for previously used files that could be used for program icons.

It's another work in progress of course and these things will improve, so I'm not saying 'never' I'm just saying 'not now'.

It is important to remember I think, that Windows 11 was not conceived as a leap forward, or even as an 'upgrade'. It was introduced only as a way for Microsoft to enable Windows to use the newer hardware based security features without breaking huge numbers of older PCs that didn't have those hardware features.....

 

[davehc]

I understand the taskbar width problem will be solved in an early update, already with the insiders (Windows 11 build 22538). I actually get on quite well with the present width, as it displays the icons better for my feeble eyesight.
Not sure about the popup problem and the number of icons? Which popup?

The taskbar example below is, of course, blown up. It isn't that size on my computer

Sorry, but I had to have a laugh at your final para. On observation, older computers cannot run windows 11 anyway!

 

[Grizzly]

Interesting comment, Grizzly. I have no interest in doing it, but how do you customise the taskbar to move to the top?

One needs to change a value in the registry. I found the procedure by googling. Here is one article about it:

How to Move the Taskbar to the Top in Windows 11

With a registry tweak, you can relocate the taskbar from the bottom to the top of the display.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[davehc]

OK Tks I thought you meant in the customising.

 

[ubuysa]

Sorry, but I had to have a laugh at your final para. On observation, older computers cannot run windows 11 anyway!

But that's the whole point! Older PCs cannot run Windows 11 because they don't have the necessary hardware security features.

If MS had introduced the new security features in Windows 10 then 80% of the world would have stopped working, because the older PCs do not have the necessary hardware features. Instead, they created a new version called Windows 11, which was mostly Windows 10 with the new security features turned on. Only newer PCs that have the new hardware security features can run it.

 

[davehc]

"Only newer PCs that have the new hardware security features can run it."
Not correct. Now it is maturing, I have several peers in my area who are running it quite successfully on on older, so-called, incompatible machines. They are aware of the MS threats of future updates and watermarks, and are happy with them.
I realise it is a controversial issue, but, imo, a new OS would have been forthcoming anyway, in spite of the comments regarding "security" requirements in the future.
A large update to Windows 10 would have been a better offer, with a warning that the extra security, was an important consideration, but not, at that stage, a requirement.
Not sure of my facts here, but I do not recall, over a the entire MS and Apple lifetime, ever having them infringe on compulsory security requirements.
A slightly different approach, perhaps, but MS did make the antivirus pretty much a must have, a while ago. Difficult to get rid of of if you feel loyalty towards other third party products.

 

[Grizzly]

But that's the whole point! Older PCs cannot run Windows 11 because they don't have the necessary hardware security features.

If MS had introduced the new security features in Windows 10 then 80% of the world would have stopped working, because the older PCs do not have the necessary hardware features. Instead, they created a new version called Windows 11, which was mostly Windows 10 with the new security features turned on. Only newer PCs that have the new hardware security features can run it.

Incorrect. Those "security" measures can easily be bypassed. I have Windows 11 running on an old Toshiba Satellite Laptop originally build for Windows Vista and now 14 (fourteen) years old without UEFI, TPM and newer CPU's and it runs on 4GB RAM.

 

[Bighorn]

The only limiting factor I know of is the requirement for x64/64-bit hardware as there is no x86/32-bit version of Win11.

Download Windows 11

www.microsoft.com

 

[ubuysa]

Incorrect. Those "security" measures can easily be bypassed. I have Windows 11 running on an old Toshiba Satellite Laptop originally build for Windows Vista and now 14 (fourteen) years old without UEFI, TPM and newer CPU's and it runs on 4GB RAM.

That's interesting, how did you manage that?

It doesn't invalidate what I wrote however. The primary reason for the introduction of Windows 11 was the availability of better hardware-based security in modern CPUs.

I've had Windows 11 running on an unsupported CPU as well (i7-6700) - but with UEFI, 64-bit and TPM enabled - and the major security component (Hypervisor Protected Code Integrity - HVCI), known as Core Isolation in Windows, is emulated for those CPUs that don't have the necessary hardware features (see community.intel.com/t5/Processors/HVCI-and-MBEC/m-p/1318908#M53905) but that results in a performance hit (which I noticed, compared to WIndows 10).

You can turn HVCI on in WIndows 10 if you want to, and on unsupported CPUs, by flipping the Core Isolation toggle (though note that you do need to be in UEFI mode and with a TPM or fTPM). There is a noticeable performance hit, especially when loading applications, because of the emulation. See https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...ualization-based-protection-of-code-integrity

I applaud your ingenuity in getting Windows 11 running on such an old PC, but that does not invalidate my assertion that introducing Windows 11 was the only safe way for Microsoft to enable the newer hardware-based security features in modern CPUs without breaking all older PCs - at least as far as the average user was concerned.

 

[davehc]

That's interesting, how did you manage that?

Read the many posts/threads here and on other forums.

There are numerous third party "hacks" available, to by pass the requirements. But, more noted, is that Microsoft themselves have issued a a reg fix to bypass them. Obviously, therefore, they are well aware that Windows 11, is probably being used fairly widely.
I found no reason to get into any of the depths you propose - not even clear what it is you are saying! your own method is a different approach, but, although you say " Older PCs cannot run Windows 11 ", you are clearly doing just that. - So you found a way.

" The primary reason for the introduction of Windows 11 was the availability of better hardware-based security in modern CPUs."
That is still in discussion on many forums. Apart from providing the necessary Firewall and antivirus, in the past OS's, Microsoft have never shown interest, or delved into built in, on board hardware security, nor do I feel it is there option.

It does help their shareholders and there own financial interests in Computer manufacturers, though, to sell more computers.

Anyway, the OP must be a little overcome with the contents of this thread, after his simple enquiry, so I am out of here

 

[ubuysa]

Anyway, the OP must be a little overcome with the contents of this thread, after his simple enquiry, so I am out of here

Agreed. I think we're getting into semantics now anyway.

 

[Clubtail]

Yes I agree. It's now quite clear to me that Microsoft are not interested in providing usable systems, so long as they can boast of loads of fancy new "facilities", only possible if the existing facilities have to have new, incomprehensible, irritating and unfamiliar interfaces.

I know what to do. I shall keep my trusty table-top computer with its large free-standing 3:2 screen and use it with Photoshop Elements 2.0 which I understand. P'shop El'ts 16.0 is on the laptop but too cumbersome for simple jobs (rectifying scanned photos etc).

Incidentally, I have a small laptop which runs Linux. From time to time it offers me a system upgrade. If I accept it, it gets installed, taking under half an hour. The interface is unchanged, together with all my data. It's a small computer and slow, but good enough to surf the net. It helps, of course, that my working life was working under Unix.

Uncle Bill, please note.