Icon spacing in XP

[David Walker]

I notice that in Windows XP, unlike in Windows 2000, changing icon
spacing (Vertical) a small amount has no effect at all. None of the
thousands of pages that you get with a Google search for "Icon Spacing
(Vertical)" mention anything about this; they blithely say that changing
the icon spacing actually has some effect.

Some of the pages claim that you'll see an effect if you uncheck and
then recheck "Align to grid".

Well, for me, on Windows XP Pro SP2, with all Microsoft service packs as
of 11/15/2005, at 1024x768, changing Icon Spacing (Vertical) from 44 to
42, say, and unchecking and then rechecking Align to Grid doesn't change
the icon placement one iota.

Do you have to change the vertical spacing byu enough, let's say reduce
it by a large enough amount so that another whole icon can fit on the
screen before it has any effect? I have experimented but can't seem to
find any consistent behavior.

I can't find any discussion of this anywhere, and it has bothered me
ever since I went to XP from 2000. I like the way 2000 worked better
than XP in this regard -- changing the spacing by 1 pixel and then
selecting "snap to grid" or whatever it was called would move the icons
a little bit, just as you would expect.

I realize that without Align to Grid turned on, the vertical and
horizontal spacing really have no meaning.

Thanks for any insight.

David Walker

 

[Nightowl]

I notice that in Windows XP, unlike in Windows 2000, changing icon
spacing (Vertical) a small amount has no effect at all. None of the
thousands of pages that you get with a Google search for "Icon Spacing
(Vertical)" mention anything about this; they blithely say that changing
the icon spacing actually has some effect.

Some of the pages claim that you'll see an effect if you uncheck and
then recheck "Align to grid".

Well, for me, on Windows XP Pro SP2, with all Microsoft service packs as
of 11/15/2005, at 1024x768, changing Icon Spacing (Vertical) from 44 to
42, say, and unchecking and then rechecking Align to Grid doesn't change
the icon placement one iota.

Hi David

I find that this works on my computer: after changing the setting,
uncheck "Align to Grid", then pull one or two icons out of line,
vertically or horizontally, doesn't matter, *then* reapply "Align to
Grid". For the numbers though, see below.

Do you have to change the vertical spacing byu enough, let's say reduce
it by a large enough amount so that another whole icon can fit on the
screen before it has any effect? I have experimented but can't seem to
find any consistent behavior.

No, at least not according to my experiments here. From what I saw you
are right, changing from, say, 44 to 42 had no effect; but changing from
44 to 45 did, and so did changing from 42 to 39.

What seemed to happen was a change every 6 units (dots? pixels?) from 27
(the tightest allowing for a two-line icon title on my screen) to 51
(when I ran out of room). I'm using a resolution of 1280 x 1024. I am
guessing but it would seem to be governed by the granularity of the grid
in "Align to Grid", perhaps?

Let us know how you get on.

 

[David Walker]

Hi David

I find that this works on my computer: after changing the setting,
uncheck "Align to Grid", then pull one or two icons out of line,
vertically or horizontally, doesn't matter, *then* reapply "Align to
Grid". For the numbers though, see below.


No, at least not according to my experiments here. From what I saw you
are right, changing from, say, 44 to 42 had no effect; but changing from
44 to 45 did, and so did changing from 42 to 39.

What seemed to happen was a change every 6 units (dots? pixels?) from 27
(the tightest allowing for a two-line icon title on my screen) to 51
(when I ran out of room). I'm using a resolution of 1280 x 1024. I am
guessing but it would seem to be governed by the granularity of the grid
in "Align to Grid", perhaps?

Let us know how you get on.

Thanks for that help. I'll work with it some more.

David