If you delete a TV show from an extender, Vista puts it in the recycle bin. 
But it goes in the recycle bin for the extender, and there's apparently no 
way to empty that. The "disk cleanup" doesn't clean it up, and you can't log 
into the extender's account from the desktop.

I've had to go and cd into the recycle bin directory to clean things up. 
That can't be healthy. :-)
-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> If you delete a TV show from an extender, Vista puts it in the recycle 
> bin. But it goes in the recycle bin for the extender, and there's 
> apparently no way to empty that. The "disk cleanup" doesn't clean it up, 
> and you can't log into the extender's account from the desktop.
> 
> I've had to go and cd into the recycle bin directory to clean things up. 
> That can't be healthy. :-)

so for the obvious:  what is an extender?

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> so for the obvious:  what is an extender?

Sorry.  Computer is upstairs.  XBox is downstairs connected to TV and 
network. XBox connects to upstairs computer to control the media center 
software on upstairs computer, fetching media to show on the downstairs TV.

People make other cheap extenders, but they don't work with the Vista version.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> so for the obvious:  what is an extender?
> 
> Sorry.  Computer is upstairs.  XBox is downstairs connected to TV and 
> network. XBox connects to upstairs computer to control the media center 
> software on upstairs computer, fetching media to show on the downstairs TV.

tried W7 yet?

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> tried W7 yet?

Nope. Too busy. Might put it on one of the old machines I'll be selling off, 
just to see.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

KDE 4.x gives me the exact same feeling I had the one evening I worked on a
Vista workstation.  Some pointy-headed designer thought it necessary that we
all change how we work, and overturned logical, established workflows-- even
took away the power of right-clicking-- in the name of progress.

Post a reply to this message

On 5/12/2009 1:57 PM, Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> so for the obvious: what is an extender?
>
> Sorry. Computer is upstairs. XBox is downstairs connected to TV and
> network. XBox connects to upstairs computer to control the media center
> software on upstairs computer, fetching media to show on the downstairs TV.

Do you use Media Center, or the Dashboard?

We tried MC for a bit, but it never seemed to work right for us, so 
since then we've been sticking with the Dashboard and not had any problems.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Do you use Media Center, or the Dashboard?

I'm not sure what the dashboard is, so I guess media center.

By "dashboard" to you mean the "share media with the xbox"?  I haven't tried 
that.

MC works fine for me except that it sends things to the recycler without any 
way of emptying the trash *or* recovering the files. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2009 7:44 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Do you use Media Center, or the Dashboard?
>
> I'm not sure what the dashboard is, so I guess media center.
>
> By "dashboard" to you mean the "share media with the xbox"? I haven't
> tried that.

The Dashboard is what runs on the XBox when nothing else is running 
(used to be the Blade system, now it's the New Xbox Experience(tm)).

Go to "My XBox", then "Video Library", and you can browse all the shared 
videos on your computer.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Go to "My XBox", then "Video Library", and you can browse all the shared 
> videos on your computer.

Yeah. Hard to set up to record a new series of TV shows, tho. :-) And I 
think that if you have the shared media set up, you can't use the extender, 
and vice versa.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On 5/13/2009 7:41 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
>> Go to "My XBox", then "Video Library", and you can browse all the
>> shared videos on your computer.
>
> Yeah. Hard to set up to record a new series of TV shows, tho. :-) And I
> think that if you have the shared media set up, you can't use the
> extender, and vice versa.
>

I don't know about using it as a DVR, but it's certainly possible to set 
up both for use.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> I don't know about using it as a DVR, but it's certainly possible to set 
> up both for use.

OK. I never tried using the dashboard version. The on-screen instructions 
implied they were mutually exclusive. I'll give it a try, thanks!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Completely unrelated to your post, but I didn't want to create a whole
new thread just for this, so I shamelessly am putting this here... :)

  Yesterday at work we had a a concrete situation where Unix (in this
specific case MacOS X, or more precisely its "unixy" features) was just
way handier than Windows.

  A co-worker had filtered some data in a file through a program to a
second file, but was suspicious that the program might actually have some
bug in it. He was wondering how he could most easily see what the program
had removed from the input.

  Being used to unix, my very first instinct was to say "diff the files".

  "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.
He was using notepad++ as his text editor and we wondered if there would
be some way of comparing two files in it. With the million of menus in the
program, it was probably not worth the trouble.

  I was on the Mac at the moment and said "just send the files to me and
I'll diff them here". He sent them and it took me something like 2 seconds
to write a "diff file1 file2 | less", and there the info we wanted was.

  Sometimes things just *are* way easier in unix. Sure, there are tools
for Windows to do the same thing, but the problem is that Windows never
has *any* tools by default, and it would always require quite a lot of
work to get the tools. In unix the tools just are there, period. No need
to think nor hassle around.

  (Ok, unix doesn't have all possible tools for all possible tasks by
default, but in some cases, like this one, it just works like a charm.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Sometimes things just *are* way easier in unix. Sure, there are tools
> for Windows to do the same thing, but the problem is that Windows never
> has *any* tools by default, and it would always require quite a lot of
> work to get the tools. In unix the tools just are there, period. No need
> to think nor hassle around.

Yeah, but MS gets slapped on the wrist for including things.  It's 
anticompetitive for the little guys that make stand-alone utilities.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Yeah, but MS gets slapped on the wrist for including things.  It's 
> anticompetitive for the little guys that make stand-alone utilities.

  Since when? Has someone complained eg. about the command prompt?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Yeah, but MS gets slapped on the wrist for including things.  It's 
>> anticompetitive for the little guys that make stand-alone utilities.
> 
>   Since when? Has someone complained eg. about the command prompt?

Not since the days of PC-DOS and DR-DOS, but look at Windows Media 
Player, Internet Explorer, the ability to read zip files without needing 
to buy WinZip, the ability to write data CDs from explorer...because MS 
has a majority market share, *any* feature they add stifles competitors 
trying to monetise the same feature in niche markets.  (Did I reach my 
buzzword quota?)

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Not since the days of PC-DOS and DR-DOS, but look at Windows Media 
> Player, Internet Explorer, the ability to read zip files without needing 
> to buy WinZip, the ability to write data CDs from explorer...because MS 
> has a majority market share, *any* feature they add stifles competitors 
> trying to monetise the same feature in niche markets.  (Did I reach my 
> buzzword quota?)

  I have never heard of those, but even if it's true, there's a sense of
irony in there. Microsoft itself is quite infamous for whining about why
Linux is "communism" and deteriorates good old capitalistic principles
where people should pay for what they use. (And all this because Linux
takes something like 2% of the market share in the OS market.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Yeah, but MS gets slapped on the wrist for including things.  It's
>>> anticompetitive for the little guys that make stand-alone utilities.
>> 
>>   Since when? Has someone complained eg. about the command prompt?
> 
> Not since the days of PC-DOS and DR-DOS, but look at Windows Media
> Player, Internet Explorer, the ability to read zip files without needing
> to buy WinZip, the ability to write data CDs from explorer...because MS
> has a majority market share, *any* feature they add stifles competitors
> trying to monetise the same feature in niche markets.  (Did I reach my
> buzzword quota?)

Adobe didn't *let* Microsoft implement built-in PDF support, because they
feared Microsoft would Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish it.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Adobe didn't *let* Microsoft implement built-in PDF support, because they
> feared Microsoft would Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish it.

  Some people ask why eg. Apple is allowed to include support for many
third-party programs and formats in their OS but Microsoft isn't.

  As you well put it, there's a good reason: When Apple adds support eg.
for a format in their OS, only few people care, and it has little impact
on anything. Apple can't afford *breaking* the format by making it
non-standard.

  Microsoft, however, having the de-facto monopoly status in computing,
can safely break the format's standard and implement their own extensions
and modifications, and this new format will quickly become the de-facto
standard, overriding the original. Not even big rich companies are safe
from this kind of tampering (just ask Sun Microsystems).

  It's no wonder so many companies don't have any problems in Apple
supporting their stuff, but cringe at the idea of Microsoft getting
their claws on it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>  Not even big rich companies are safe
> from this kind of tampering (just ask Sun Microsystems).

Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
> Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.

Download diff for Windows? :-)

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=diff+win32

> He was using notepad++ as his text editor and we wondered if there would
> be some way of comparing two files in it. With the million of menus in the
> program, it was probably not worth the trouble.

It works with vim, tho. :-)

>   Sometimes things just *are* way easier in unix. Sure, there are tools
> for Windows to do the same thing, but the problem is that Windows never
> has *any* tools by default, and it would always require quite a lot of
> work to get the tools. In unix the tools just are there, period. No need
> to think nor hassle around.

No more hassle than starting up yast to download them, methinks. 
Occasionally you'll have to figure out if it's a "real" port or a cygwin 
port, but i've found the "win32" modifier almost always points you at a 
native port without a bunch of dependencies.

But sure, unix has more command-line tools for Windows by default. :-) 
Windows isn't primarily targeted at developers, so developers have to 
install some tools they need.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
> > Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.

> Download diff for Windows? :-)

  That's precisely the problem I was talking about. *Nothing* comes with
Windows by default, and for everything you would have to search and download
some third-party, non-standard utility which might or might not do what you
want.

  (Additionally, Windows' command prompt just isn't as easy to use as
unix's. It's just a PitA to try to do anything in it.)

> > He was using notepad++ as his text editor and we wondered if there would
> > be some way of comparing two files in it. With the million of menus in the
> > program, it was probably not worth the trouble.

> It works with vim, tho. :-)

  Yeah, rather than take 2 seconds to diff the files in the mac computer,
he would have to spend at least 2 hours to find out how to do the same
thing in vim (and this after he had found and installed the program).

> >   Sometimes things just *are* way easier in unix. Sure, there are tools
> > for Windows to do the same thing, but the problem is that Windows never
> > has *any* tools by default, and it would always require quite a lot of
> > work to get the tools. In unix the tools just are there, period. No need
> > to think nor hassle around.

> No more hassle than starting up yast to download them, methinks. 

  I'm talking about a real, actual, concrete experience here, not some
theoretical "methinks" thing. Diffing the files on the mac was just way,
way less hassle than *anything* else.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> It works with vim, tho. :-)
> 
>   Yeah, rather than take 2 seconds to diff the files in the mac computer,
> he would have to spend at least 2 hours to find out how to do the same
> thing in vim (and this after he had found and installed the program).

And even more, vim can't diff. It can only run 'diff' to do the comparison,
then do stuff with its output.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
>>> Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.
> 
>> Download diff for Windows? :-)
> 
>   That's precisely the problem I was talking about.

I was just answering the question. I understood your point, but the easiest 
solution would have been to download the stand-alone diff executable. :-)

>   (Additionally, Windows' command prompt just isn't as easy to use as
> unix's. It's just a PitA to try to do anything in it.)

No argument there.

>   Yeah, rather than take 2 seconds to diff the files in the mac computer,
> he would have to spend at least 2 hours to find out how to do the same
> thing in vim (and this after he had found and installed the program).

Well, diff works from the command line just like in UNIX. Maybe 3 minutes to 
find and download diff (once you know the best search terms) and then you 
run it from the command line.

If you want side-by-side diffs, you can invoke it from vim, is all I was 
saying. The same tools work. They're just not distributed there by default.

>   I'm talking about a real, actual, concrete experience here, not some
> theoretical "methinks" thing. Diffing the files on the mac was just way,
> way less hassle than *anything* else.

OK. I'm talking *my* real actual concrete experience. I *have* diff on my 
windows machine, along with netpbm and tar and gzip and a couple other 
packages I'm used to using or that I need to talk to unix machines. It's 
less of a hassle than you think, and you only need to do it once.

It was more a FYI post ("btw, it's easy to solve this problem on Windows so 
he doesn't have to bother you next time") than it was "you're wrong."

I still copy RAR files over to a UNIX VM to take apart because I haven't 
found an easy free unrar program for Windows, so I know just what you mean. 
"diff" doesn't fall into that category, is all.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:16:12 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> I still copy RAR files over to a UNIX VM to take apart because I haven't  
> found an easy free unrar program for Windows, so I know just what you  
> mean.

Define "easy". 7-Zip can extract RAR, if you want GUI-based. If  
command-line is your thing, UnRAR is freeware.


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> 7-Zip can extract RAR

  Besides being the best (free) compression program in existence, as a
bonus. :)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> It works with vim, tho. :-)
>>   Yeah, rather than take 2 seconds to diff the files in the mac computer,
>> he would have to spend at least 2 hours to find out how to do the same
>> thing in vim (and this after he had found and installed the program).
> 
> And even more, vim can't diff. It can only run 'diff' to do the comparison,
> then do stuff with its output.

I'm not sure what part of "it works with vim" is confusing you here. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:16:12 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>
>> I still copy RAR files over to a UNIX VM to take apart because I 
>> haven't found an easy free unrar program for Windows, so I know just 
>> what you mean.
> 
> Define "easy". 7-Zip can extract RAR, if you want GUI-based. If 
> command-line is your thing, UnRAR is freeware.

Thanks. I'll look around for unrar. I hadn't found that, last time, oddly 
enough.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:23:53 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
> I'll look around for unrar. I hadn't found that, last time, oddly enough.

http://www.rarlab.com/rar_add.htm


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>  Not even big rich companies are safe
>> from this kind of tampering (just ask Sun Microsystems).
> 
> Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)

Yeah - I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Oracle bought them...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 19:28:27 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>  Not even big rich companies are safe
>>> from this kind of tampering (just ask Sun Microsystems).
>> 
>> Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)
> 
> Yeah - I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Oracle bought them...

It's not an unsubstantiated rumour - it's a fact:

http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html

http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-04/sunflash.20090420.1.xml

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)
>> Yeah - I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Oracle bought them...
> 
> It's not an unsubstantiated rumour - it's a fact:
> 
> http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html
> 
> http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-04/sunflash.20090420.1.xml

...OK, so now it's substantiated rumour.

It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times 
larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:20:19 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> Sun isn't a big rich company anymore, though :)
>>> Yeah - I heard an unsubstantiated rumour that Oracle bought them...
>> 
>> It's not an unsubstantiated rumour - it's a fact:
>> 
>> http://www.oracle.com/sun/index.html
>> 
>> http://www.sun.com/aboutsun/pr/2009-04/sunflash.20090420.1.xml
> 
> ...OK, so now it's substantiated rumour.

It's not a rumour.  It's a fact, Sun is being bought by Oracle.

> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?

Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.

That said, smaller companies do buy bigger companies from time to time.  
I worked for a large food & drug retailer here in the US that got bought 
by a smaller (by about 50% if size is measured by "number of stores") 
company.  They were able to afford it.

And the management was looking to sell.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 17:26:15 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
> 
> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.

Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:

Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.

Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.

IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another measure 
that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
>> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
> 
> Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:
> 
> Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.
> 
> Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.
> 
> IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another measure 
> that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.

Is this before or after the buyout was announced? ;-)

Besides, I was under the impression that a stock price is simply an 
arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air and having no particular 
relation to reality...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 May 2009 22:36:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>>> It still doesn't make any sense to me though. Sun is multiple times
>>>> larger than Oracle - so how was Oracle able to buy them?
>>> Because Sun isn't as big as it used to be, and Oracle is bigger.
>> 
>> Also, look at the market caps for the two companies:
>> 
>> Oracle, based on stock price today, is $91.79 Billion.
>> 
>> Sun, based on stock price today, is $6.72 Billion.
>> 
>> IOW, Oracle's market cap is just over 13.5 times Sun's = another
>> measure that Oracle is much bigger than Sun.
> 
> Is this before or after the buyout was announced? ;-)

The purchase price was around the $6.72 billion, so before.  Mergers and 
acquisitions often mess with the stock price, but generally not very much 
- depending on whether the shareholders see it as a good thing or a bad 
thing.

> Besides, I was under the impression that a stock price is simply an
> arbitrary figure plucked out of thin air and having no particular
> relation to reality...

It's not "picked out of thin air", but based on what the market values 
the company at and the outstanding number of shares at any given time.

It's not particularly arbitrary.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   "How do I do that?" Right, he was in Windows, and there's no diff in
>>> Windows. We pondered for a moment what would be the easiest solution.
> 
>> Download diff for Windows? :-)
> 
>   That's precisely the problem I was talking about. *Nothing* comes with
> Windows by default, and for everything you would have to search and download
> some third-party, non-standard utility which might or might not do what you
> want.
> 
>   (Additionally, Windows' command prompt just isn't as easy to use as
> unix's. It's just a PitA to try to do anything in it.)
> 
Yeah. Just one example: 4DOS.

Features, if you can even find a copy that isn't pay to use any more, or 
one at all (I haven't looked recently):

1. ANSI support built in to the command.com replacement.
2. Color coding of files by type.
3. File sorting and other options.
4. List command, so view > 32k files, a page at a time, with the ability 
to do searches in the text *and* go forward of back in the file (built in).
5. Other stuff I don't remember.

MS' solutions?

1. Sorry, not even supported, as far as I know, as a "functional" part 
of the command line even in XP, Vista, or likely 7. You can hunt down 
some third party file from PC World, or someone, which was written in 
the 1990s, and use that to get ANSI support. Otherwise, its only 
available via ansi.sys, if you boot into DOS mode.

2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.

3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is 
a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes 
"with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would 
work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort 
| more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control 
over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets 
of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't 
do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or 
clearly, as you can in the prompt.

4. Lets keep using QBASIC running in "EDIT" mode (this is literally 
their solution), until we have Notepad, then give Notepad the same 32k 
limit, and keep it that way, and as the "default" txt file reader, until 
XP, and worse, only allow it to "recognize" .txt as a valid extension, 
so you can't open any other text files. Oh, and.. lets **never** bother 
to implement a way to read non-DOS files, which don't use the CR+LF 
method of terminating lines.

5. You name it, they either ignored it, or made up their own, which 
doesn't work like anyone else's. Such as, who in their right mind would 
want VBscript or Jscript as the command line script system, even if... 
again, they didn't bother even "supplying" something more interesting 
than .bat files until XP came out? lol

Not made for developers? Its not made for anyone with any clue at all, 
and that includes people that where doing things under DOS, near the end 
of its life, which are "vastly" superior to everything they provide 
"today" in the same command prompt.

-- 
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:
> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together.

What do you mean "file sorting"? Sorting the contents of a file, or sorting 
directory listings? Both come with Windows.

> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort 
> | more", easy... 

Um, why doesn't that work?  And why wouldn't you just pass the flags to dir 
to make it do the sorting?

> and you don't mind looking up sets 
> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities.

So, you're complaining that *DOS* is lame because you have to know what the 
command flags are to make the commands to things? Have you looked at the 
size of the bash man page lately? ;-)

> 4. Lets keep using QBASIC running in "EDIT" mode (this is literally 
> their solution),

Uh, until maybe 15 years ago, yes.

> until we have Notepad, then give Notepad the same 32k limit, 

Until you had the 386....

> and keep it that way, and as the "default" txt file reader, until XP, 

Possibly. SO you're still bitching about an OS that's two generations out of 
date?

 > and worse, only allow it to "recognize" .txt as a valid extension,

Always amused to see people complaining about things they don't know 
anything about. As far as I know, that's *never* been the case. I used 
notepad to edit .exe files back in Win3 days.

> 5. You name it, they either ignored it, or made up their own, which 
> doesn't work like anyone else's.

Cause, like, you don't even know what you're talking about, but you'd best 
bash it, right?

> Such as, who in their right mind would 
> want VBscript or Jscript as the command line script system,

Probably anyone that worked with VB before? Like Windows developers?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.

Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console. You just can't do it with
ANSI codes. A 'dir' that prints color is still possible.

> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is
> a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes
> "with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would
> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
> | more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control
> over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets
> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't
> do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or
> clearly, as you can in the prompt.

'dir' has switches to sort by different criteria. There is also a 'sort'
command that works as a filter you can pipe stuff into.

Post a reply to this message

> Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console.

Indeed, I've posted (Haskell) source code to do it.

> You just can't do it with ANSI codes.

...despite certain sources claiming that you can. (Apparently it used to 
be possible, but isn't any more.)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 2. Woops... This won't work without #1, so you are SOL.
> 
> Wrong, you can print colors in a Windows console. You just can't do it with
> ANSI codes. A 'dir' that prints color is still possible.
> 
Uh, not talking about printing color. Anything can do that, if its 
designed to do so using "direct" hardware (or simulated, as it where) 
accesses, but, in the majority of cases, the existing tools, never mind 
what you can do directly in something like .bat, you "need" ANSI. And, 
that isn't even mentioning the vast number of still usable things, 
including some utilities, that used it, instead of the direct method, to 
get color. Mind, I think later versions of 4DOS did do it direct, but 
that, at the time, just created even more confusion for people wondering 
why *it* worked, but nothing else they where using did. lol

>> 3. Umm.. Kind of, if you string a lot of files together. I think they is
>> a sort function in the DOS utilities, though I don't think it comes
>> "with" Windows, and I doubt you can find DOS any more. But, it would
>> work something like, "dir {flags for the stuff that is supported} | sort
>> | more", easy... As long as you don't want "any" bloody real control
>> over what is going on in those steps, and you don't mind looking up sets
>> of commands flags you never use, for 2-3 utilities. You, well... can't
>> do some of it at all in the GUI, not really, at least not as cleanly, or
>> clearly, as you can in the prompt.
> 
> 'dir' has switches to sort by different criteria. There is also a 'sort'
> command that works as a filter you can pipe stuff into.
> 
Hmm. Yeah. Come to think of it, they did eventually add "something", it 
was just less than helpful. lol Still, you can't pipe the result into a 
"list" command, if its a massive directory, so you still have to use 
'more', which won't let you page through the results. Well, unless you 
pipe it to a *giant* file, then read that in the new notepad. 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. Yeah. Come to think of it, they did eventually add "something", it 
> was just less than helpful. lol Still, you can't pipe the result into a 
> "list" command, if its a massive directory, so you still have to use 
> 'more', which won't let you page through the results. Well, unless you 
> pipe it to a *giant* file, then read that in the new notepad. lol

Wait... You want to sort a "massive" directory, page through it back and 
forth, but you don't want it going onto the disk?  You realize it doesn't 
work that way, right? By the definition of the problem, you have to 
completely generate the directory output before the sort can show you what 
the first result is. It's a classic offline computing problem. There's no 
such thing as an online sort.

BTW, what is this "list" command of which you speak?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message