Martin Underwood wrote:
> "Triffid" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Martin Underwood wiffled:
>>> "Roy Schestowitz" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>>> Martin Underwood wrote:
>>> My experience with Windows Explorer in all versions of Windows (95, 98,
>>> Me, NT, 2000 and XP) is that the view options of folders exhibit this
>>> random tendency: you can open Explorer many times with the desired view
>>> and then spontaneously it will revert to the Windows default of Icon and
>>> you have to change it back and cascade to sub-folders again.
This is not the case when I change this properly in Windows 98.
>> I hope someone does know the fix for this - why does Windoze enforce
>> 'List View' when browsing for files to open? It's easily the most
>> pointless view there is, aand they've stuck with it for generations: they
>> even improved Solitaire ffs, so why not this aberration?
Probably they wish to retain consistency and make the transition between
versions easier to 'digest'.
> Yes, list view - a list of filename with no sizes or timestamps - is neith
> something nor nothing: it's neither a detailed view nor a graphical view
> with icons to represent the file types.
This always makes me wonder why Microsoft initiated extensions (or haven't
strived to deprecate it after DOS). File extensions do not exist in Linux,
apart from where Windows compatibility issues hit. If you hide extensions
and then use symbolic graphics, then just embed filetype in a file header.
> Another long-overdue feature to add to Windows Explorer is the ability to
> print the list of files in Detail view. If I have a long list of files to
> work on, it would be nice to be able to print a list of them and then
> cross the names off the list as I've processed them. Third-party
> replacements for Explorer can do this, so why have Microsoft never added
> this simple feature to their own file viewer?
What happens if you copy all files from the GUI and then spit them out in a
text editor? I know it works in KDE and it might, just might, work in
> Mind you, Microsoft's default settings are a mystery to me: they also turn
> on "hide file extensions" and (for XP) they use that hideous "Windows for
> Tellytubbies" user interface and make it quite difficult for the
> uninititiated to set it to Classic view - you have to make three different
> changes for the Start Menu, the Windows display and one other place that
> I've forgotten. Then there's the settings in Outlook Express such as send
> email immediately and disconnect line after send/receive, both of which
> are a pain in the bum and should not be the default. The "disconnect after
> send/receive" is a real nightmare if antivirus is installed because OE
> will drop the line while the AV package is still sending the email, even
> though OE thinks it's finished sending and hangs up.
Again, it's a matter of consistency. The applications also avoid being
verbose and asking you what you /want/ or /need/ upon first start-up.
> Still, I make my money by setting up computers the way they should be
> setup, undoing all Microsoft's strange defaults.
Don't change them. Let the users suit themselves... or burn images.
Roy S. Schestowitz