General discussion

honey, i shrunk the new window :-(

when i click on "open in new window" or a link which opens one, it opens as postage stamp sized....

how do i get my 'maximised' new window back?





Discussion is locked

Reply to: honey, i shrunk the new window :-(
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: honey, i shrunk the new window :-(
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
You mean a browser window?
- Collapse -
worked perfectly! thanks mark :) (NT)


- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) You're welcome, :)
- Collapse -
A weekend story and much more ...

OK Jonah, I?ll tell you a story (it?s saturday and we can relax in the weekend).

You?re talking about an old IE plague. If you?d search for this one in google you?ll find around 300 000 hits. Under CNet (ZDNet) Forums probable there were several thousands.

Now, there is a standard procedure for temporarily correct this. This standard procedure was promoted by several regular posters (and up) and presented as X?s fix, later X said that it was Y?s fix, Y?s fix was probable Z?s fix and so on. So what?s the deal with this ?

In the previous Forum?s software I posted (in CC Forum of course) a javascript based message (previous forum supported it) where you can click the link and your IE would maximize again. Probable this solution wasn?t noticed by anyone (because the messages were not bumped as they are in this version). This wasn?t a single case, but that?s another story.

Is the standard procedure:

- Working ? Yes, it is because it?s easy to test it.

- Efficient ? Nope, it?s not because sooner or later this will happen again.

So, the next step it?s to find out a better approach for this. Here there are several better solutions:

1. Some kibitz will tell that you shouldn?t use IE, e.g. "No woman, No cry" philosophy.

2. Other insiders that know the kitchen, can find a registry solution (I don?t know if this solution was ever posted but never mind).

3. Others will suggest using a third party utility that will keep IE maximized.

However, there is one which is the best. It was posted here soon after Service Pack 2 release, so I?ll let all the kibitz finding it.

Finally what?s this all talking about ? Quite simple, it?s about: "Giving the credit to whom it belongs".


Trying to unweave, unwind, unravel
And piece together the past and the future,

T. S. Eliot

- Collapse -
i owe thanks to whoever thought of the original fix Cetin

i remembered the problem from a zillion years back (i believe it was ToniH who helped me then), but for the life of me i couldn't remember the 'fix'...

have a good one Cetin!



- Collapse -
Tell more

Hi Cetin,

Reading your post above I'm concerned that I am referring people to a solution that is either only temporary, or not suitable, or whatever else may be wrong.

Are you saying that?

If so, are you saying that there is a better solution that myself, or anyone else here who sees a similar problem posted before any of the regular experts do, should be offering?

I don't want to give advice where it is wrong.

Many thanks,


- Collapse -
Re: Tell more

Hi Mark,

1. The provided solution works but as I said, sooner or later the user has to apply it again. If the end user isn?t bothered to repeat it, then it?s up to him.

2. However, for other users? taste that hapening again could be irritating (in spite of the fact that some of them might know the cause). For this class of users, there is a permanent fix that involves a third party utility.

Now, let?s see the pros and cons of each one:

1. It?s temporarily, but it doesn?t envolve any additional resources (except a little time consumed finding again the procedure and applying).

2. It?s permanent, but it consumes some resources around 3 MB memory amount and a very small CPU cycle (both negligible I?d say).

Which one you?d vote ?

You are welcome and regards,


Trying to unweave, unwind, unravel
And piece together the past and the future,

T. S. Eliot

- Collapse -
Thanks Cetin

I vote 2nd!


- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) so who's on first? :-)

CNET Forums

Forum Info