 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] san rrcom> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 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.
.... and for another stupid reason they don't tell you that.
Ah, I love Microsoft! If computers would just DWIT, wouldn't they be awfully
boring? :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > 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.
Actually, "we already have a library routine for dialogs that show a message and
a choice of buttons from "Ok", "Yes/No", "Yes/No/Cancel" and the like.
But they must have designed that "Yes/All/No/Cancel" dialog separately - it's
not a standard thing. And if a dialog features a way to say "None" by pressing
certain keys while clicking, it has to be custom-tailored as well. Or using
dirty tricks that can explode in your face the day after.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Actually, "we already have a library routine for dialogs that show a message and
> a choice of buttons from "Ok", "Yes/No", "Yes/No/Cancel" and the like.
Well, yes.
Just as bad are the dialog boxes that have "yes/no" or "ok/cancel" when what
they really want is "save/discard" or "really save as plain text and lose
the formatting" vs "change the format of the saved file so you don't lose
formatting". :-)
--
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:
> Interesting thing I always wonder, what does Windows Explorer do when it
> "prepares to copy" files?
I'm assuming it's counting up sizes so it can give you an estimate of how
long it'll take. It's also pretty annoying that now when you move a
directory to another place on the same disk, or into the recycle bin, it
usually winds up counting something instead of just moving the one
directory. Weird.
> But noooo...
Wait for Windows 8? That sort of stuff is pretty hard to get right,
generally speaking. Vista is still better with this stuff than XP was.
Heck, I'd be happy if the little pieces of paper stopped flying from one
folder to the other when the copy actually broke. WTF good is a progress
indicator that runs regardless of whether you're making progress?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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,
Worst is when it's actually *Explorer* that has the file open, to show a
thumbnail or read properties of whatever...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott 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,
>
> Worst is when it's actually *Explorer* that has the file open, to show a
> thumbnail or read properties of whatever...
Yeah. Plug-ins can do this too. We use "zip genius" at work, and half the
time I can't copy a zip file because the genius is doing something with the
file, and I have to open a command prompt to delete it. (I'm guessing the
genius is reading thru the TOC any time it's selected in explorer or
something. No idea, but it's very annoying.)
--
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 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:33:30 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Microsoft Arrrrggghhh!
Product naming FTW!
(Is this product related to Bob at all?)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
