On 02/18/2013 11:27 AM, Graham Bloice wrote:
> On 16 February 2013 19:14, Ed Beroset <beroset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:beroset@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
> Evan Huus wrote:
>
> I've been playing with various layouts for the main dissection
> interface and I've found one that works better (for me) than the
> default. It leaves the packet list on top, but puts the details and
> bytes panes side by side on the bottom (details on the left, bytes on
> the right). This is what you get by selecting the second layout choice
> in the layout preferences.
>
>
> I have my own computer set up to use the same preference, but I tend to use
> this on a big laptop screen or big monitor for specific kinds of traffic.
>
>
> To me this has two main advantages over the existing default:
>
> - It makes better use of horizontal and vertical space, especially
> since short-and-wide monitors are becoming more and more common.
>
> - It makes a better conceptual distinction between the multi-packet
> summary and the single-packet details, which are now neatly grouped to
> the top and bottom.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> I agree that it's a better default, primarily for the first reason. I would
> also strongly support changing the default because those who are already
> experienced with Wireshark have probably already chosen their preference and
> those new to Wireshark would probably benefit from a default that more
> closely matches common equipment these days.
>
> Ed
>
>
> +1 on changing the default layout to the (current) second choice. I always use
> that format.
>
Please be aware that a *lot* of text (manuals, wikis, articles, blogs, help
sites, etc, etc) reference the 'higher', 'middle' and 'lower pane'. Changing
that default does make it harder for the new user to use these texts.
On the other hand the advance of 16x9 monitors makes it a suitable choice.
Thanks,
Jaap
PS: using the three pane layout, because I'm lazy, and the various 4x3 monitors
I'm confronted with don't really have the space for layout '2'.