Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafemuddy

Post to this Thread - Sort Descending - Printer Friendly - Home


Tech: Windows stupidity

Bert 01 Apr 12 - 10:57 PM
GUEST,999 02 Apr 12 - 12:10 AM
katlaughing 02 Apr 12 - 12:20 AM
Bert 02 Apr 12 - 12:23 AM
Bert 02 Apr 12 - 12:26 AM
katlaughing 02 Apr 12 - 03:47 AM
Ole Juul 02 Apr 12 - 04:30 AM
JohnInKansas 02 Apr 12 - 09:49 AM
EBarnacle 02 Apr 12 - 11:04 AM
Bert 02 Apr 12 - 03:09 PM
JohnInKansas 02 Apr 12 - 04:52 PM
Bert 02 Apr 12 - 05:00 PM
frogprince 02 Apr 12 - 05:19 PM
JohnInKansas 02 Apr 12 - 08:35 PM
GUEST,leeneia 03 Apr 12 - 01:25 PM
JohnInKansas 03 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM
Artful Codger 03 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM
Bert 03 Apr 12 - 04:25 PM
gnu 03 Apr 12 - 04:38 PM
GUEST,leeneia 03 Apr 12 - 05:08 PM
JohnInKansas 03 Apr 12 - 07:28 PM
Bill D 03 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM
Tootler 03 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM
Bert 03 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM
JohnInKansas 03 Apr 12 - 09:06 PM
Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:









Subject: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 01 Apr 12 - 10:57 PM

I've just been doing some back ups. Why the Hell do Windows insist on telling us the 'time remaining' when copying something when what they tell us has absolutely nothing to do with the time remaining.

The time keeps jumping about now 15 minutes, now 8 minutes now 19 minutes.

If they can't get it right why do they keep the message. The only reason that I can think of for it to exist at all is because the program was written by the nephew of some big boss or other.

So Microsoft, FIX it or SCRAP IT!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 12:10 AM

Stop holding back, Bert. You're among friends here. Say what you really mean.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 12:20 AM

It's there for the little kid in every user who wants to know "are we there, yet?" And, the grown-ups keep lying and saying it'll only be a few more minutes and to "hold it until we get there!"

Me? I just leave it and take a piss.**bg**

Resist the Windoze!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 12:23 AM

Yer right 999.

When I was studying computer science we were told "If the program doesn't work don't bother to turn it in because it's automatically an F."

And I can't get a job programming because those losers at Microsoft keep employing people who can't even count.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 12:26 AM

I wish I could use Linux Katmeluv, but I have a CAD program that only works on Windows.

The way we deal with kids who keep asking "Are we there yet" is to say yes. Stop and let them out, and then drive on. You don't even have to let them out of sight before they are cured completely.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 03:47 AM

Oh, I did that once when mine wouldn't quit fighting. Worked a treat and, you're right, I only drove about a block before they were ready to get in and behave.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Ole Juul
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:30 AM

The author of the Windows file copy dialog visits some friends.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 09:49 AM

My personal opinion is that Microsoft has "lost it completely" with respect to file management. Unfortunately there are few options that an individual user can find to make things work reliably, and Microsoft doesn't really care, since there are still lots of people who will "buy whatever" as long as it has lots of buttons, flashes and beeps, and costs enough to bully those with older stuff that actually worked.

I believe I've followed Microsoft instructions for making a "system backup" for everything since MS-DOS 3.1, using almost every available kind of storage media from floppy disks, tape, Bernoulli disks, CD, DVD, and hard drive partitions. The "backups" invariably are compressed and encrypted, so that it's almost impossible to restore a few files. It's "all or nothing" to put something back, so people don't try very often. (A "restore" destroys almost everything you've done since the backup was made.) In every case where I've tried to restore from a "Microsoft backup" (or "image") the result has been total failure. Backup is exclusively to WOM! (Write Only Memory).

You can COPY your personal files to another place, and while most people refer to this as a "backup" it would be better to call it an "Archive," if only because an "Archive" like this sometimes works, while "Backups" seldom do.

Some "annoying new features" began to appear with WinXP, became "bothersome" in Vista, and are nearly impenetrable in Win7. Since Win8 apparently is not intended to allow users to do much of anything except "tweet" and "be social," I haven't looked much at it.

THE INACCURACIES IN TIME REMAINING ESTIMATES are because it's very difficult to make an accurate estimate, and Microsoft doesn't do hard stuff any more. (And an accurate estimate would take longer than just copying the stuff?)

It appears that the system looks at the size of the first folder, and at how many folders there are (at that level), and calculates a time from only that information, assuming that all the folders are "about the same size." When it goes to a new folder with different contents, the folder size probably is different and the number of folders left is reduced by one, and a new wrong estimate is calculated.

Doing much more than that becomes exceedingly difficult, since a folder with one 10GB file in it will copy at least twice as fast as a folder with 10 1GB files, and an even slightly more accurate guess would require looking at how many folders are in the folder and how many folders are in each folder in the folder and ....

Since you KNOW that the estimate is inaccurate, you can ignore it. The system will let you know when it's done, and that's really all that matters much. You can go get a cup of coffee, but even if the estimated time is 10 hours, if you leave the process will stop within 30 seconds with a "do you want to replace this existing file" or "the file name is too long to copy, what do you want to do about it" or ... or ... - so you have to "Keepen Die Handen Offen Die Komputeren und Watch Das Blinken Lichts" (or whatever that old cartoon said). (But the blinking lights actually meant something and the estimates don't really tell you much of anything.)

Any estimate that's persistent for more than a minute is probably a lot longer time than the process actually will take - based on my experience, if that's any help to you. But of course that just a "usually" and is no guarantee.

The biger problem is when Explorer (the file management one) LIES about what folder you're pointing at, and what's in it. LEARN TO USE F5 every time, before you believe anything it says if your storage is even moderately large.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: EBarnacle
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 11:04 AM

Regarding transfer time: The time remaining, except at the end when you are dealing with that interminable final "1 second remaining," is also a function of changes in transfer rate. As your transfer rate goes down, time remaining goes up. For the rest, I agree with John.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 03:09 PM

If it is always wrong why the hell don't they just drop it and tell us which item they are working on instead.

When copying a directory it would be quite easy to tell us, "copying file number 1" and up it by one each time they get to a new file. OR are they, as I suspect, unable to even count to one.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 04:52 PM

Bert -

If you open a Command Prompt and use COPY or XCOPY you'll see each file listed as it gets copied. It's pretty easy to tell where you are (if you can read fast enough).

Unfortunately, the mangled file management causes the more convenient XCOPY to require an enormous amount of memory (for what it does) and you often get an "interruption" or a "stall" instead of Windows "Explorer has stopped working and will be closed" (which I see far too often using Copy/Paste).

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:00 PM

That would work John. But of course the command window isn't really using Windows, what you are doing is going back to DOS. Hmmm, that may not be a bad idea.

Now if only DOS were like the Bourne Again Shell. Bert you are never bloody satisfied;-)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: frogprince
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:19 PM

My "favorite things" re winduhhs are incompatibility with expensive peripherals purchased for prior versions, and incompatability with documents produced in prior versions. I did finally get my flatbed scanner and film scanner operable with Seven after about two full days of loading and trying different software suggested on assorted forums. Wound up paying for an independently produced driver that works for both; operation still isn't as straightforward as what I had previously, but usable.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 08:35 PM

The one that hurt me going to Win7 was Photoshop Elements. I've been using ver 2 for about 5 years, and it works great; but Win7 says it doesn't have a valid certificate and demands an Administrator password every time I open it.

I bought PSE 7 when Vista said something similar, but it was so crapped up that I ignored the warnings and put PSE 2 back on. Vista ran ver 2 okay, and gave me lots of "warnings," but didn't keep asking for Administrator. I bought PSE 10 for Win 7 in the vain hope it might be better, but it was even worse, with illegible (nearly invisible) and unintelligible icons all over the place (they show as indistinguishable blobs), many useful functions removed and others hidden so deep it takes 12 clicks to do what 2 would do in the old one. There are lots of useful things I can't find a way to do, and the "work space" is so cramped you can't enlarge anything enough for detail work. (The invisible icons take up the whole screen.)

I have both ver 2 and ver 10 on the machine, but I use #2 for almost everything. F**k 'em if they can't take a joke. I've found a few things I have to "do backward" but I'm getting them done.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 01:25 PM

Bert, we all should know that computers work in a borning, linear, one-step-at-a-time way. So how is your computer supposed to know how big a new file is before it has had a chance to download it and "see" how big it is?

Sure, they try to give you an estimate. You've got to keep in mind that this is aimed at people on the job. For them the critical question is, will my computer be down long enough for me to -

a. hit the restroom
b. make microwave popcorn
c. call a client?

While 19 minutes isn't much different from 14, 19 is a lot different from, say, 59.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:02 PM

Bert -

the command window isn't really using Windows.

While the Command Window uses commands similar to DOS, it is a part of Windows and there's no good reason not to use it when it works better than the "graphical interface" that's only the "top layer." The Command utilities in Windows do resemble "old DOS" but they really aren't "just DOS."

"Another" part of Windows that few people use much is the "Power Shell" set that some people denigrate as "just a super DOS" but it's immensely powerful, and allows you to do lots of things that take a little more than just clicking an icon. Unfortunately the Shell is misused by many of those who've figured out how to get into it. Saying that using Command isn't using windows is like saying the engine isn't part of the car because you only change the oil once in the life of the car.

leenia -

The problem with believing the "1 hour remaining" is that 3 seconds after you get up to go pee the computer will stop to ask "File already exists in dstination. Do you want to Copy and Replace the existing file, Copy and Rename the new file, or skip this file." The computer will then sit there doing nothing until you come back an hour later and tell it what to do, and you'll still have an hour remaining - until it changes its mind again.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Artful Codger
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:01 PM

Yes, there's no compelling reason to hold up the handling of all files just because you need to get a response concerning some limited number of files--the system could queue them up while continuing to handle the rest. The response isn't going to abort the entire operation, and even if you explicitly abort using Ctl-C, the system won't undo what it's already done with the preceding files. It's pure short-sightedness (and laziness) on Microsoft's part.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:25 PM

Thanks for the Power Shell info John. I had never heard of it and I bought two new Windows computers in the past year and none of the documentation mentioned it.

I guess Microsoft don't want too many people to find out about it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: gnu
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:38 PM

John... they should have an audio prompt for stoppages for decision making... "YO! You in the can! I gotta question for ya!"


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:08 PM

Brilliant, gnu, simply brilliant!

John, the 3-second problem will still occur whether or not Microsoft provided the estimate of how long this is gonna take. We need a new thread on this life-or-death topic.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:28 PM

On another front -

With NTFS format, the maximum legal length for a file name is 128 characters. The exception that Windows Explorer allows only 124 characters is noted. There is an additional limit on total path length but it's not clearly stated for NTFS format (althugh it's a real problem for CDs).

During a recent copy operation, I received a notice of "file name too long to copy" although of course it didn't identify what filename was too long to copy.

Having noticed some long file names at one particular source where I might have saved some notes, I did a sort on a few of my "saves," and found one Microsoft web "help file" with a default filename with 219 characters in the name, and another with 212.

They won't tell me howcum they can do it but I can't.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 07:50 PM

There are other programs which offer more control over moving & copying...

http://ultracopier.first-world.info/

and many other programs which compare, backup etc...

backups

The little box Windows adds as a timer 'help' can be useful if you are copying a number of files of uniform size & type, but as noted, it can't cope with many directories of varying types.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Tootler
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:06 PM

I wish I could use Linux Katmeluv, but I have a CAD program that only works on Windows.

Bert, You can use Linux. Either set your computer up to dual boot or use Virtual Box or similar so that you can have your CAD program running under Windows and other things using Linux.

There is also Wine, the Linux package that lets you run Windows programs within Linux but I suspect your CAD program has too many specialist libraries so would probably not work with Wine.

Being retired I don't need to use big Windows programs any longer so I am now entirely Linux, but at first I set up as dual boot and it worked fine. I now have just three small Windows programs that I use and they all run happily with Wine.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 08:43 PM

Thanks Tootler. A while back I tried to install Linux on a separate disk drive. It installed itself fine but wiped out all of my C drive, so I am somewhat loath to try it again.

I'll probably install it on an old machine, when I get around to making room on my desk for another screen and keyboard.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: Tech: Windows stupidity
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 09:06 PM

Bert -

The Power Shell isn't mentioned much anywhere, although it's used by a lot of people in systems administration and to some extent for website design. The sources for books and stuff seem mostly mixed in with those subversives who use 'Nix and Sun and the like. It's mentioned fairly often at the MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network) and they tell you bits on how to write scripts sometimes, but don't tell you much about how to run them.

An example (without really recommending anything) for a place to find out about it is (maybe) at the rather weird publisher called Manning Publications. Even if you don't want a book on it, it might be interesting to take a look at the site. They have what they call the MEAP (Manning Early Access Program) where you can sign up to read chapters as the authors finish them, you can supposedly send your comments to the authors while they're still writing, and you get the book (or not) by download or hardcopy when (if?) it gets done. Nearly all their books seem to be available for download as PDFs if you'be bought the hard copy, or you can just buy the PDF or one or two other "digital" formats.

I bought one book, and downloaded the PDF, so I get their ads. Mostly I don't know what the $!#@% most of their stuff might be about, but some of it looks like it might be interesting if I wasn't too old and wore out to get into it.

John


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
  Share Thread:
More...

Reply to Thread
Subject:  Help
From:
Preview   Automatic Linebreaks   Make a link ("blue clicky")


Mudcat time: 20 October 2:02 PM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.