 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Ah, but what would the point be for an *Operating System* to make managing
> files easy and logical?
Well, technically, it's the explorer shell, not the OS as such. But yah. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ah, where's that "yes" program when you need one?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> After waiting for it to get to 97% of the download and finally giving
>> up and going to dinner, I come back after 2 hours to find a dialog box
>> saying "This is going to take about an hour to install what you just
>> downloaded. Are you sure you want to start it?"
>
> Hehe, I was copying over about 80GB of data to an external harddrive, I
> watched it for about 5 minutes while it was "discovering files" or some
> such until it said 2 hours 53 remaining or whatever. I came back a few
> hours later and there was a "Do you want to copy this file without it's
> properties?" dialog box and it had hardly started the copying! Is it
> too hard to ask that it continues to copy other files while it is
> waiting for you to answer a question about one file?
>
Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200
files. ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some
process some place, and you don't remember that, so Windows not only
pops up a damn dialog telling you that its in use, it promptly stops
transferring ***any*** of the other files. Mind, this may be like 3-4
files out of the 200 that are in that state, and your just trying to
move the other ones, knowing its going to be easier to do that, than
hand select all the ones you do want to copy, and spend an hour trying
to work out which ones you can't/don't want moved (i.e., maybe you don't
really want it to move the data files you have open for Paint Shop Pro,
but you "do" want to move all the movie files in the directory, or
something.. But, no, the moment it hits a "sorry, you can't move a file
already in use", it gets completely stupid, and won't copy any other
files either. Sigh...
Then again.. Painshop Pro X2. Morons, for no sane reason, since you
can't edit/open/play them, decided to do two things that are just
asinine, 1) have it scan for "all" recognized media, even the ones it
can't open, with no option to turn this off, and 2) scan all
subdirectories in the path you have open, again, with no way to turn it
off. Got a lot of damn images, clips, etc. in My Documents. First time I
ran the thing it spent 30 minutes looking, then I nuked it. Second time,
I let it run, and it took almost 2 hours. No idea why, except that it
seems to also be scanning to "contents" of the damn files too, so, of
course, a 800M video is going to take it a million years to look
through, before deciding it doesn't contain anything else it can do
anything with. Needless to say, unless they correct this issue, there
isn't going to be a PSPX3 on this machine, and I still use the older
PSPX version for all my editing, since it doesn't have this problem.
Mind you, the MS file handling annoys me a lot more, since I can't
downgrade to a version that doesn't bloody do it. lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
Hmm. Ok..
Temp3 is an ISA slot? WTF would be generating that kind of heat? About
the only things I have in there is like.. a capture card or something,
which isn't operating.
Core 2 is the GPU, so, that makes more sense.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
> Oh, hell. My number one pet peeve... Move a directory, or like 200
> files. ***One*** frakking file, like 21 files in is "in use" by some
> process some place, and you don't remember that, so Windows not only
> pops up a damn dialog telling you that its in use, it promptly stops
> transferring ***any*** of the other files.
Better yet: *Copy* some huge directory tree - say, to make a backup - with one
of the files currently open in *exclusive* mode. And not #21/200, but, say,
#19233/20000.
"Copying..."
.... ages later...
*Ding!*
"Can't copy that file. Won't copy the remaining ones either."
Oh well, I'll close that MS Visual Studio then, and try again...
*Ding!*
"Target directory already exists. Want to copy it nonetheless?"
Sure, go ahead. We still have 767 files *somewhere* in there to copy.
*Ding!*
"Do you want to overwrite all that stuff you already copied earlier?"
Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none of them
please, just the other ones"...
Raaargh! STUPID RETARD DIGITAL MORON, YOU!!!
(Knowing the procedure, I'm usually prompted for this exclamation already right
when it fails to copy a file in the first place...)
Fortunately, there's smarter software out there for such jobs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> already in use", it gets completely stupid, and won't copy any other
> files either. Sigh...
Yeah. Or it copies a bunch of files, then stops and says "this one is read
only" (Move them all!), then another bunch and says "this one is encrypted"
(move the all, dammit!), then anoother bunch that says "this one is a system
file" (you just won't listen, will you!?). :-)
> and I still use the older
> PSPX version for all my editing, since it doesn't have this problem.
Yes. The file manager is a lot more annoying in X2. Why can't they just give
you the standard open-file browser that would let you pick pictures outside
the "my pictures" directory?
The scripts aren't nearly as good, either.
> Mind you, the MS file handling annoys me a lot more, since I can't
> downgrade to a version that doesn't bloody do it. lol
The only reason I bought the new version is the old one would crash on Vista
if you modified a bunch of files and then said "close, saving them all."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none of them
> please, just the other ones"...
Hold the shift key, or control key, or something. It's out there - they just
(for some stupid reason) didn't dedicate a button.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 25-7-2009 18:48, Darren New wrote:
> clipka wrote:
>> Now remember that there's a "Yes Sir, all of them", but no "No, none
>> of them
>> please, just the other ones"...
>
> Hold the shift key, or control key, or something. It's out there - they
> just (for some stupid reason) didn't dedicate a button.
>
Nor an indication that you use that feature, nor a copy only newer
files, nor anything else that was included in all commandline interface
and third party filecopy programs for ages.
I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes
with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority
over useablility. Still no reason to not change the text on the buutons
when you pressed a qualifier.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> Nor an indication that you use that feature, nor a copy only newer
> files, nor anything else that was included in all commandline interface
> and third party filecopy programs for ages.
Command line is certainly easier when you have more than a handful but less
than (say) 20 options for a program, yes.
> I think someone told that the reason was that they only designed boxes
> with two buttons. So apparently the graphics design artist got priority
> over useablility.
More like "we already have a library routine for 2 buttons" than something
graphics design, perhaps.
> Still no reason to not change the text on the buutons
> when you pressed a qualifier.
Agreed. One would think that would be easy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yeah. Or it copies a bunch of files, then stops and says "this one is read
> only" (Move them all!), then another bunch and says "this one is encrypted"
> (move the all, dammit!), then anoother bunch that says "this one is a system
> file" (you just won't listen, will you!?). :-)
Interesting thing I always wonder, what does Windows Explorer do when it
"prepares to copy" files?
You'd assume that it makes a list of files it intends to copy/move. If that is
so, why in Microsoft's seven circles of Hell doesn't it examine those file
attributes as it goes along? Would be easy then to *first* pop up a dialog with
check boxes to choose which files to process despite special attributes, warning
about files currently locked etc., *then* go about to actually copy/move the
smash.
If it would encounter issues because the status of some particular file changed
before Windows actually processed it, it could still pop up its nagging window
(or, better yet, leave that to a dialog at the end, prompting you to decide how
to deal with the problematic files).
It would also be nice if Windows Explorer could guesstimate from the file sizes
whether they all fit on the target drive...
But noooo...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
