Unnavigable folders - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on Unnavigable folders - Microsoft Windows ; Jan Kannemacher wrote: [assorted rudeness snipped and totally ignored] > Operating system version > Patch level > Hardware (mainboard, chipset, graphics card, memory yadda yadda yadda) > Driver versions > and so on Well if this is what you wanted ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: Unnavigable folders

  1. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Jan Kannemacher wrote:
    [assorted rudeness snipped and totally ignored]
    > Operating system version
    > Patch level
    > Hardware (mainboard, chipset, graphics card, memory yadda yadda yadda)
    > Driver versions
    > and so on


    Well if this is what you wanted to know, why didn't you just SAY so?
    Instead we've been around this merry-go-round about four times and only
    now do you bother to ask these things? If that's all you wanted you
    should have simply asked, right away, instead of expecting me to read
    your mind or something.

    Anyway, it's Windows XP, service pack 2, and fully up to date. The
    machine is an Athlon 64 3800+ with a gigabyte of memory. There's a ton
    (hundred plus gigs) of disk space free. There's an integrated ATI Radeon
    Express 200 graphics card but it's been superseded by a GeForce 6800GS
    in the PCI-E slot. As for things like the main board, driver versions,
    and such, I don't have that info handy, other than to say that
    everything is up to date.

    However, I seriously doubt the behavior of Explorer is due to a hardware
    or driver problem. Its inconsistently interpreting the same mouse
    gesture two different ways just about has to be a software bug in
    Explorer itself. I'd expect, say, video hardware problems to produce a
    lot more than a subtle mismatch of some sort between where I think I'm
    dropping a file and where Explorer thinks I'm dropping it, especially
    because when it goes in the wrong place it misses by a country mile
    rather than a file icon width or two, and I don't have anything else
    acting like the occasional click happened far away from where it should
    have, nor does even Explorer do so at all consistently.








    --
    There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
    death.

  2. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote in
    news:f6gve7$puc$1@aioe.org:



    > Anyway, it's Windows XP, service pack 2, and fully up to
    > date. The machine is an Athlon 64 3800+ with a gigabyte of
    > memory. There's a ton (hundred plus gigs) of disk space
    > free. There's an integrated ATI Radeon Express 200 graphics
    > card but it's been superseded by a GeForce 6800GS in the
    > PCI-E slot. As for things like the main board, driver
    > versions, and such, I don't have that info handy, other
    > than to say that everything is up to date.


    All this is totally irrelevant.

    > However, I seriously doubt the behavior of Explorer is due
    > to a hardware or driver problem.


    For once you sound like you have a clue.



    I told you, idiot, IE is DESIGNED to work badly. The ONLY way to
    easily manage files is to have TWO PANES to work with.

    ..P.E.R.I.O.D. .

    How thick IS your ****ing head? How much longer will you be
    providing amusement for people who visit this group? Our bellies
    are beginning to hurt, while our souls weep for your ignorance.

    Stop whining self-righteously about "what you have" and "how it
    SHOULD work" and get a real file manager. Read my "thanapod"
    post again for more complete info.

    Regards,
    Randolph Carter


    --
    Everyone who installs Vista is insane.

  3. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Randolph Carter wrote:
    > All this is totally irrelevant.


    Jan didn't seem to think so.

    > I told you, idiot


    OKBye-PLONK-

    --
    There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
    death.

  4. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote:

    >Well if this is what you wanted to know, why didn't you just SAY so?


    Look, YOU are trying to make the impression of a knowledgable person who
    has everything down pat, so it's your bloody job to provide this
    information WITHOUT needing to be told.

    >Instead we've been around this merry-go-round about four times and only
    >now do you bother to ask these things? If that's all you wanted you
    >should have simply asked, right away, instead of expecting me to read
    >your mind or something.


    My mind, I see. Once again you're trying to blame somebody or something
    else for your own shortcomings. See a pattern, perhaps?

    Let me tell you a secret. Most likely you'll consider it rude again, but
    what do I care about your goofy beliefs?

    Self-assertive appearance in spite of total cluelessness is a myth. It
    doesn't work because it can only succeed when speaking to people who are
    on your own level of being ignorant. Then again, you wouldn't bother
    asking them for help, would you?

    You don't know at all what you're talking about. This is the core of the
    problem at hand.

    >Anyway, it's Windows XP, service pack 2, and fully up to date.


    You have established that exactly which way?

    >The
    >machine is an Athlon 64 3800+ with a gigabyte of memory. There's a ton
    >(hundred plus gigs) of disk space free. There's an integrated ATI Radeon
    >Express 200 graphics card but it's been superseded by a GeForce 6800GS
    >in the PCI-E slot. As for things like the main board, driver versions,
    >and such, I don't have that info handy, other than to say that
    >everything is up to date.



    But OF COURSE it is up to date. Everything else would be downright
    unimaginable, right? Phil Cartwright's system has to be up there with
    the stars.

    "I don't have that info handy" translates directly into "I have no idea
    whatsoever where to find this information", which leads once more to the
    conclusion that you have no clue about computers or operating systems
    and should just stay away from them.

    So even when being asked you're either refusing to provide the required
    information, or unable to. Either way it doesn't improve the situation.

    >However, I seriously doubt the behavior of Explorer is due to a hardware
    >or driver problem.


    Frankly, I don't care what you doubt. You've proven several times now to
    NOT have the knowledge required to pass such a judgment, no matter how
    clever you think you are. That's nothing but the bare truth.

    >Its inconsistently interpreting the same mouse
    >gesture two different ways just about has to be a software bug in
    >Explorer itself.


    Are you actually addicted to talking about things you don't know dick
    about?

    >I'd expect, say, video hardware problems to produce a
    >lot more than a subtle mismatch of some sort between where I think I'm
    >dropping a file and where Explorer thinks I'm dropping it, especially
    >because when it goes in the wrong place it misses by a country mile
    >rather than a file icon width or two, and I don't have anything else
    >acting like the occasional click happened far away from where it should
    >have, nor does even Explorer do so at all consistently.


    Why don't you leave such things to people who have years of experience?
    I've had systems with mouse cursors going crazy without anybody even
    touching the mouse. The cursor shot all over the screen, closing
    windows, opening them, resizing them and so on, and that's just one
    example.

    The case is closed now. I've tried to help you, knowing well that people
    like you don't deserve help, and this is the end of the line. You failed
    to provide me with the information I need, instead you annoyed me with
    further irrelevant crap about what you believe, expect, doubt or think,
    not to forget your constant whining about being insulted without ever
    realising that waving your stupidity in other people's faces is a lot
    more insulting than anything you have seen coming your way.

    Go away, idiot. Don't touch computers anymore. They're so far over your
    head that you couldn't see them with the Hubble telescope.




    JK'07

  5. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote:

    >Jan didn't seem to think so.


    You didn't understand (as usual) what I needed to know, so you provided
    me with nothing useful at all.




    JK'07

  6. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Jan Kannemacher wrote:
    [insulting twaddle and separate, purely-insulting post ignored]
    >>Anyway, it's Windows XP, service pack 2, and fully up to date.

    >
    > You have established that exactly which way?


    By keeping it up to date with Windoze Update perhaps? Gee, I wonder!

    > But OF COURSE it is up to date. Everything else would be downright
    > unimaginable, right? Phil Cartwright's system has to be up there with
    > the stars.


    See above. It is up to date because there are no updates available that
    I have not already installed. Simple, nuh?

    > So even when being asked you're either refusing to provide the required
    > information, or unable to. Either way it doesn't improve the situation.


    Well, I'm not about to actually open the case and read the serial number
    off the mobo just to satisfy *you*. Not after the way you've treated me.
    The very concept of calm and civil discourse is obviously alien to you.

    > Why don't you leave such things to people who have years of experience?
    > I've had systems with mouse cursors going crazy without anybody even
    > touching the mouse. The cursor shot all over the screen, closing
    > windows, opening them, resizing them and so on, and that's just one
    > example.


    That's either bot/macro recorder playback software or a problem with the
    mouse (physically, most likely, though the driver could be to blame). A
    frayed mouse cord near a source of RF interference would do the trick.
    So would a wireless mouse with the right sort of interference source,
    such as other wireless mice sharing the same frequency located at nearby
    workstations.

    [snip parting insult]

    Okay. Obviously, despite the name "comp.os.ms-windows.misc" is not the
    correct newsgroup for asking for information on tweaking Explorer's
    behavior. Now will someone please tell me what newsgroup would be a
    better choice?

    --
    There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
    death.

  7. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote:

    >By keeping it up to date with Windoze Update perhaps? Gee, I wonder!


    Apparently the limitations of Windows Update are among the great many
    things you don't know the first thing about.

    >See above. It is up to date because there are no updates available that
    >I have not already installed. Simple, nuh?


    Yes, see above. You're definitely a complete retard.

    >Well, I'm not about to actually open the case and read the serial number
    >off the mobo just to satisfy *you*. Not after the way you've treated me.
    >The very concept of calm and civil discourse is obviously alien to you.


    You are missing the point by an unimaginable distance, idiot. YOU want
    advice, already forgotten? So it's YOUR bloody obligation to provide the
    required information. I couldn't care less about your crappy box.

    So you're posting like an idiot, arguing like an idiot, behaving like an
    idiot - that doesn't leave a whole lot of choices about you.

    You're trying to blame me as rabid anti-Microsoft first, then as
    dogmatic pro-Microsoft, but of course this is not insultingly stupid
    because YOU said it. Right.

    Familiarise yourself with a simple concept: if you want something, you
    have to provide everything necessary. No childish whining about
    "boo-hoo, you treated me so bad", understood? You're simply such a prick
    that NOBODY will try to help you after such a stunt.

    >That's either bot/macro recorder playback software or a problem with the
    >mouse (physically, most likely, though the driver could be to blame). A
    >frayed mouse cord near a source of RF interference would do the trick.


    Oh, you've tried to use Google? Cute. Again, stay away from computers.
    Use chisel and stone, because pen and paper are already over your head.

    >Okay. Obviously, despite the name "comp.os.ms-windows.misc" is not the
    >correct newsgroup for asking for information on tweaking Explorer's
    >behavior. Now will someone please tell me what newsgroup would be a
    >better choice?


    You need a newsgroup for people with severe mental disorders, or better
    go and see a psychiatrist. These guys know a lot about people who think
    they are always right. Then again, suicide is always an option. If you
    didn't understand by now, nobody here is willing to help you. Everybody
    has seen what happens.

    Now go away.




    JK'07

  8. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Jan Kannemacher wrote:
    > Phil Cartwright wrote:
    >> The very concept of calm and civil discourse is obviously alien to you.

    >
    > You are missing the point by an unimaginable distance, idiot. YOU want
    > advice, already forgotten? So it's YOUR bloody obligation to provide the
    > required information. I couldn't care less about your crappy box.
    >
    > So you're posting like an idiot, arguing like an idiot, behaving like an
    > idiot - that doesn't leave a whole lot of choices about you.
    >
    > You're trying to blame me as rabid anti-Microsoft first, then as
    > dogmatic pro-Microsoft, but of course this is not insultingly stupid
    > because YOU said it. Right.
    >
    > Familiarise yourself with a simple concept: if you want something, you
    > have to provide everything necessary. No childish whining about
    > "boo-hoo, you treated me so bad", understood? You're simply such a prick
    > that NOBODY will try to help you after such a stunt.


    Gee, what a perfect way to prove the man's point, Jan. This sort of /ad
    hominem/ argument in a technical group is quite simply uncalled for.

    Yes, it's a well known fact that Microsoft don't fix their software bugs
    in a timely fashion, if at all. Yes, it's an exercise in futility to
    expect a problem like this to be solved by a few Registry tweaks. Yes,
    the OP needs to learn to live with the limitations of Windows Explorer
    if he believes (and I think he is right in doing so) that he shouldn't
    have to go to the effort of downloading more software to do ordinary
    work that should be doable with the software included in the OS he
    bought with his machine.

    Still, there is a right way and a wrong way to convince someone to
    modify their expectations of Microsoft, and hurling insults is the wrong
    way. It doesn't help anyone, and only makes *you* sound like the prick here.

    Enough said.

    --
    Mike McManus
    Renton, WA

  9. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote:

    > So far this is still the highest quality of help that I've received. No
    > real answers to my specific, polite, and reasonable questions about
    > Explorer configuration and registry tweaks. Just sarcastic stuff like
    > this, together with claims that I have an "attitude problem" or
    > similarly because I want real technical information instead of responses
    > like the one quoted above.
    >
    > If this is not a newsgroup where people will provide actual technical
    > information and assistance regarding Windows problems, without judging
    > or questioning why I'm using Windows, then please tell me what newsgroup
    > is better for asking Explorer-related questions in. I'll gladly go there
    > and be out of your hair, if this news server carries the group in question.


    I don't think the issue is your posting to the wrong newsgroup.

    Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're seeing behavior that
    looks like it's caused by a bug in Explorer itself, and Microsoft is
    notorious for not fixing bugs in its software unless they cause security
    problems for which it is going to be smacked down in the trade press.
    Usability issues like this often get little attention. And if it's truly
    a software bug, no amount of configuration or tweaking the Registry is
    going to help. That is, I think, what the other posters have been trying
    to tell you all along.

    So you have two choices: live with the limitations of Explorer until
    Microsoft gets around to fixing it, or download a replacement (some are
    free software, others are commercial products). Oh, and make sure you
    aren't suffering from bad hardware (I think you have addressed that in
    previous posts).

    I know it is frustrating not to be able to use the OS software you
    bought with your PC for its intended purpose, but all software nowadays
    explicitly disclaims all types of warranty, including fitness for a
    particular purpose, so there's really no recourse for bad software other
    than replacement with (hopefully) better software from another source.

    I don't think you have an attitude problem. You just have high
    expectations of Microsoft, which are on their face perfectly reasonable
    but, sad to say, aren't warranted by the facts.

    Sorry to see you getting beat on like this. Hope this helps.
    --
    Mike McManus
    Renton, WA

  10. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Jan Kannemacher wrote:
    > Phil Cartwright wrote:
    >
    >>By keeping it up to date with Windoze Update perhaps? Gee, I wonder!

    >
    > Apparently the limitations of Windows Update are among the great many
    > things you don't know the first thing about.


    What limitations? Are you claiming that it might claim my system is up
    to date when it isn't? I'm fairly sure I've installed everything it's
    ever showed me in the way of hardware drivers and security patches. I've
    ignored just .NET and Genuine Advantage notification, as the one is
    bloody huge and not needed and the other is unnecessary and reportedly
    bad for you. (And rather disingenuously included in the "security patch"
    category, although it is nothing of the kind.)

    --
    There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
    death.

  11. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Mike McManus wrote:
    > Sorry to see you getting beat on like this. Hope this helps.


    It doesn't. Well, it does on the morale front, but not on the
    solving-the-problem front. Perhaps if you'd actually suggested a
    specific, non-commercial file manager that would not be true?

    --
    There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
    death.

  12. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Mike McManus wrote:

    >Still, there is a right way and a wrong way to convince someone to
    >modify their expectations of Microsoft, and hurling insults is the wrong
    >way.


    What gave you the idea that I want to convince this guy of anything at
    all? The mere attempt would set new records in futility because the
    option of having done something wrong doesn't exist in his world.

    So I'm free to speak as I please, which I did. I'm not around to
    convince people. Especially not the kind who try to act like having
    noteworthy IT knowledge while they are in fact much worse than just
    clueless.

    >It doesn't help anyone, and only makes *you* sound like the prick here.


    This is absolutely fine with me. Mr. Cartwright is beyond help, as you
    have seen yourself, yet he will never admit that it's his own fault from
    top to bottom.




    JK'07

  13. Re: Unnavigable folders

    Phil Cartwright wrote:

    >What limitations?


    It's not as limited as you, but Windows Update is exactly that: Windows
    Update. It's providing updates for Windows, not new or better drivers
    for $PRODUCT from $MANUFACTURER. From time to time Microsoft will
    include drivers for this or that piece of hardware, but this is nothing
    to count on. In fact it's not even their job to do that, because driver
    maintenance is the manufacturer's obligation. Look this word up, Mr.
    Cartwright. As you have demonstrated, you don't understand who has which
    obligation.

    >Are you claiming that it might claim my system is up
    >to date when it isn't?


    I'm not claiming. I'm simply stating again and again that you're
    clueless.

    >I'm fairly sure I've installed everything it's
    >ever showed me in the way of hardware drivers and security patches. I've
    >ignored just .NET and Genuine Advantage notification, as the one is
    >bloody huge and not needed and the other is unnecessary and reportedly
    >bad for you. (And rather disingenuously included in the "security patch"
    >category, although it is nothing of the kind.)


    I don't know what's bad about the WGA check, though I don't agree with
    that thing myself. Maybe you could spare a minute to think who has to do
    what, i.e. who has to write drivers for which hardware. As far as I
    know, Microsoft doesn't write drivers for non-Microsoft hardware with
    the possible exception of very basic ones. This is simply not their
    task. IF a new driver is distributed via Windows Update, it's usually
    because of a security problem with the piece of software in question.

    A good example for that would be a driver for Nvidia video cards which
    was constantly offered by Windows Update as "critical security update".
    This didn't change even when this driver was considerably more than half
    a year old and roughly 20 version numbers behind the latest versions
    from Nvidia, and Windows Update never bothered if newer drivers (which
    included the fixed code) were installed. It kept saying "here, there's
    this important update!"

    So I can only emphasise once more that you should stay away from
    computers.




    JK'07

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2