Task Scheduler?

The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.

Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
and how to make it more like the one in XP?

On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>
> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>
What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.

--
Conor
I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

"Conor" <> wrote in message
news:hmlkje$ncv$...
> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>
>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>
> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>
> --
> Conor
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

In my opinion not as user friendly as the XP version,
Plus the windows 7 version doesn't seem as consistent.

"Rom." <> wrote in message
news:lFtjn.46858$...
>
>
> "Conor" <> wrote in message
> news:hmlkje$ncv$...
>> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>>
>>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>>
>> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>>
>> --
>> Conor
>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
>
> In my opinion not as user friendly as the XP version,
> Plus the windows 7 version doesn't seem as consistent.
>
>

I agree with Ron.
Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than it is in
Win-7.

I almost prefer to use the AT command than to try and make sense of the
Win-7 Task Scheduler interface.
A giant step backwards.

"Colon Terminus" <> wrote in message
news:LGvjn.16984$...
>
> "Rom." <> wrote in message
> news:lFtjn.46858$...
>>
>>
>> "Conor" <> wrote in message
>> news:hmlkje$ncv$...
>>> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>>>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>>>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>>>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>>>
>>> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Conor
>>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
>>
>> In my opinion not as user friendly as the XP version,
>> Plus the windows 7 version doesn't seem as consistent.
>>
>>
>
> I agree with Ron.
> Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than it is in
> Win-7.
>
> I almost prefer to use the AT command than to try and make sense of the
> Win-7 Task Scheduler interface.
> A giant step backwards.
>
>

I agree with both of you. I ended up using WinAT for a couple of tasks since
I just can't seem to get the hang of the Win7 version of Task Scheduler. Too
bad they don't have a Classic view of it :-)
--
SC Tom

"SC Tom" <> wrote in message news:aBAjn.9642$...
>
> "Colon Terminus" <> wrote in message
> news:LGvjn.16984$...
>>
>> "Rom." <> wrote in message
>> news:lFtjn.46858$...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Conor" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hmlkje$ncv$...
>>>> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>>>>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>>>>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>>>>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>>>>
>>>> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Conor
>>>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
>>>
>>> In my opinion not as user friendly as the XP version,
>>> Plus the windows 7 version doesn't seem as consistent.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree with Ron.
>> Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than it is in
>> Win-7.
>>
>> I almost prefer to use the AT command than to try and make sense of the
>> Win-7 Task Scheduler interface.
>> A giant step backwards.
>>
>>
>
> I agree with both of you. I ended up using WinAT for a couple of tasks since
> I just can't seem to get the hang of the Win7 version of Task Scheduler. Too
> bad they don't have a Classic view of it :-)
> --
> SC Tom
>

What two tasks could you not get to work ?

On 03 Mar 2010, "Colon Terminus" <> wrote
in alt.windows7.general:

> I agree with Ron.
> Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than
> it is in Win-7.

I agree, too. The new task scheduler has a lot more functionality, but
the unfriendly and confusing interface just about negates all the good
stuff.

Two things they could do to make it a lot more useful would be to (a)
allow you to cut 'n paste taskes between folders so you can keep your
tasks organized, and (b) provide a search function so you can find a
particular task. As it is, you just have to point, click, and cross
your fingers.

"Dave-UK" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "SC Tom" <> wrote in message
> news:aBAjn.9642$...
>>
>> "Colon Terminus" <> wrote in message
>> news:LGvjn.16984$...
>>>
>>> "Rom." <> wrote in message
>>> news:lFtjn.46858$...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Conor" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:hmlkje$ncv$...
>>>>> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>>>>>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>>>>>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>>>>>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Conor
>>>>> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion not as user friendly as the XP version,
>>>> Plus the windows 7 version doesn't seem as consistent.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with Ron.
>>> Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than it is
>>> in Win-7.
>>>
>>> I almost prefer to use the AT command than to try and make sense of the
>>> Win-7 Task Scheduler interface.
>>> A giant step backwards.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I agree with both of you. I ended up using WinAT for a couple of tasks
>> since I just can't seem to get the hang of the Win7 version of Task
>> Scheduler. Too bad they don't have a Classic view of it :-)
>> --
>> SC Tom
>>
>
> What two tasks could you not get to work ?
>
>

It's not that I couldn't get them to work; it was just such a pain to create
it that I just used WinAT. Granted, it's been a while since I've looked at
it, and wouldn't have even thought of it had I not seen this thread. Maybe
I'll look back into it again.
--
SC Tom

"Nil" <> wrote in message
news:Xns9D30B33B26F5Bnilch1@130.133.4.11...
> On 03 Mar 2010, "Colon Terminus" <> wrote
> in alt.windows7.general:
>
>> I agree with Ron.
>> Task Scheduler in XP was way easier to use and more friendly than
>> it is in Win-7.
>
> I agree, too. The new task scheduler has a lot more functionality, but
> the unfriendly and confusing interface just about negates all the good
> stuff.
>
> Two things they could do to make it a lot more useful would be to (a)
> allow you to cut 'n paste taskes between folders so you can keep your
> tasks organized, and (b) provide a search function so you can find a
> particular task. As it is, you just have to point, click, and cross
> your fingers.

I'd be happy with a 'classic view' option.

"Conor" <> wrote in message
news:hmlkje$ncv$...
> On 03/03/2010 11:17, Rom. wrote:
>> The task scheduler in XP was very useful and easy to use,
>> as for the vista and windows 7 versions leave me cold.
>>
>> Anyone else have experience of the newer version of task scheduler
>> and how to make it more like the one in XP?
>>
> What is the shortcoming? Win7 is extremely configurable.
>
> --
> Conor
> I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally.

Under Task Scheduler (Local), Task Status, how do you clear the history? I
tried disabling history and rebooting, but of course, that just keeps
anything new from being added to the list. TIA.
--
SC Tom