Twayne wrote:

WRONG. Use the Norton removal tool and remove all the objects
required to be removed. It is NOT necessary, and is less effective,
to try to use a registry cleaner if you are a newbie to such things
and pick the wrong one. A couple are great programs; others not so
great, others better for newbies.


WRONG. Norton's footprint is now very small and they even show it in a
monitor if you wsh to watch it at work in real time. McAfee I no
longer bother checking out but you have obvously not checked anything
out about any of the programs you speak of; you are way behind the
times and are presenting misinformation on almost everything you
mention.

That may be true, but Norton screwed the pooch by becoming the barnacle of
the software world. You had to visit the Control Panel/Add/Remove, then
download their SooperSekret removal tool (version and model dependent), then
scour the registry looking for instances of "Norton" "Symantec" and "Banana
Daiquiri", and EVEN THEN you could not be sure you had ripped the
sonofabitch out root and branch.

And Norton STILL interferes with installation of 3rd party software and the
pitiful thing is NORTON DOESN'T TELL you it refused to install necessary
components of third party software!

****ers should die from some loathsome venereal disease involving festering,
fungating, squishy-sounding carbuncles.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
That may be true, but Norton screwed the pooch by becoming the barnacle of
the software world. You had to visit the Control Panel/Add/Remove, then
download their SooperSekret removal tool (version and model dependent), then
scour the registry looking for instances of "Norton" "Symantec" and "Banana
Daiquiri", and EVEN THEN you could not be sure you had ripped the
sonofabitch out root and branch.

And Norton STILL interferes with installation of 3rd party software and the
pitiful thing is NORTON DOESN'T TELL you it refused to install necessary
components of third party software!

****ers should die from some loathsome venereal disease involving festering,
fungating, squishy-sounding carbuncles.

==================

Totally agree with you on that one!

Norton should be in prison for the damage he inflicted on millions of
systems.

--

Eric

On 8/15/2011 11:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Twayne wrote:

WRONG. Use the Norton removal tool and remove all the objects
required to be removed. It is NOT necessary, and is less effective,
to try to use a registry cleaner if you are a newbie to such things
and pick the wrong one. A couple are great programs; others not so
great, others better for newbies.


WRONG. Norton's footprint is now very small and they even show it in a
monitor if you wsh to watch it at work in real time. McAfee I no
longer bother checking out but you have obvously not checked anything
out about any of the programs you speak of; you are way behind the
times and are presenting misinformation on almost everything you
mention.

That may be true, but Norton screwed the pooch by becoming the barnacle of
the software world. You had to visit the Control Panel/Add/Remove, then
download their SooperSekret removal tool (version and model dependent), then
scour the registry looking for instances of "Norton" "Symantec" and "Banana
Daiquiri", and EVEN THEN you could not be sure you had ripped the
sonofabitch out root and branch.

And Norton STILL interferes with installation of 3rd party software and the
pitiful thing is NORTON DOESN'T TELL you it refused to install necessary
components of third party software!

****ers should die from some loathsome venereal disease involving festering,
fungating, squishy-sounding carbuncles.


The problem with Norton is that it is only a purchased name and product
that is no longer being developed. For he last several years it has
been a patched version of the original. Every year a new patch
disguised under the name of Norton 20xx. Every few years or so the
patch looks good then there are the not so good years.
When Symantic bought Norton, the original PcTools, that great FAX
program, for got the name, GoBack, etc it was all down hill from.there,

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:31:51 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2011 11:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Twayne wrote:

And Norton STILL interferes with installation of 3rd party software and the
pitiful thing is NORTON DOESN'T TELL you it refused to install necessary
components of third party software!

****ers should die from some loathsome venereal disease involving festering,
fungating, squishy-sounding carbuncles.

Indeed.


The problem with Norton is that it is only a purchased name and product
that is no longer being developed. For he last several years it has
been a patched version of the original. Every year a new patch
disguised under the name of Norton 20xx. Every few years or so the
patch looks good then there are the not so good years.
When Symantic bought Norton, the original PcTools, that great FAX
program, for got the name, GoBack, etc it was all down hill from.there,

Peter Norton was a DOS god. Once his company switched into the
Windows arena, it lost power. I believe that he recognized that his
day was done and sold it. Unfortunately, they got rights to his good
name, and he has been done major disservices since that day.

IMHO, Slymantic Norton products are absolute ****. Ptui!

The only product on the market with the Norton name should be the
removal tool. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On 8/16/2011 10:15 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 06:31:51 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/15/2011 11:09 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Twayne wrote:

And Norton STILL interferes with installation of 3rd party software and the
pitiful thing is NORTON DOESN'T TELL you it refused to install necessary
components of third party software!

****ers should die from some loathsome venereal disease involving festering,
fungating, squishy-sounding carbuncles.

Indeed.


The problem with Norton is that it is only a purchased name and product
that is no longer being developed. For he last several years it has
been a patched version of the original. Every year a new patch
disguised under the name of Norton 20xx. Every few years or so the
patch looks good then there are the not so good years.
When Symantic bought Norton, the original PcTools, that great FAX
program, for got the name, GoBack, etc it was all down hill from.there,

Peter Norton was a DOS god. Once his company switched into the
Windows arena, it lost power. I believe that he recognized that his
day was done and sold it. Unfortunately, they got rights to his good
name, and he has been done major disservices since that day.

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.





IMHO, Slymantic Norton products are absolute ****. Ptui!

The only product on the market with the Norton name should be the
removal tool. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

--
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort.
-- Franklin D. Roosevelt

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:07:15 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/16/2011 10:15 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Peter Norton was a DOS god. Once his company switched into the
Windows arena, it lost power. I believe that he recognized that his
day was done and sold it. Unfortunately, they got rights to his good
name, and he has been done major disservices since that day.

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.

Yeah, it was alright, too. But _now_ look who owns it. Slymantec.
I'll bet they ruined -it-, too.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 08:15:24 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:



Peter Norton was a DOS god.

I used to refer to him as St. Peter.

Once his company switched into the
Windows arena, it lost power. I believe that he recognized that his
day was done and sold it. Unfortunately, they got rights to his good
name, and he has been done major disservices since that day.

IMHO, Slymantic Norton products are absolute ****. Ptui!

The only product on the market with the Norton name should be the
removal tool. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Agreed!
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Leon" wrote:

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.
------------------------------
I was also a PC Tools fan.

SFWIW, found Power Desk from Avanquest to be a good replacement.

Lew

On 8/16/2011 12:22 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:07:15 -0500, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/16/2011 10:15 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:

Peter Norton was a DOS god. Once his company switched into the
Windows arena, it lost power. I believe that he recognized that his
day was done and sold it. Unfortunately, they got rights to his good
name, and he has been done major disservices since that day.

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.

Yeah, it was alright, too. But _now_ look who owns it. Slymantec.
I'll bet they ruined -it-, too.

They acquired it back when Win 95 came out, Norton Navigator copied it
and another popular file manager. Then they ditched it like several
other industry leading softare's

There is a current PCTools however I don't think it is the same.






--
...in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On 8/16/2011 2:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.
------------------------------
I was also a PC Tools fan.

SFWIW, found Power Desk from Avanquest to be a good replacement.

Lew



I used Power Desk for years until It and Norton did not play well.

If you want an infinitely adjustable file manager.. look at Directory Opus.

I found Dopus about 3 years ago.

If you like file managers, this one will do just about anything you wish
and you can make it look just like you want. And you can configure and
save listers/configurations to open in a multitude of ways for specific
things you might want to do with it. I HIGHLY recommend it. Worth a
look with a 60 day free trial.

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:41:04 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 8/16/2011 2:29 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Leon" wrote:

A lot of people liked Norton in the DOS days, I much preferred
CentralPoint PCTools.
------------------------------
I was also a PC Tools fan.

SFWIW, found Power Desk from Avanquest to be a good replacement.

Lew



I used Power Desk for years until It and Norton did not play well.

I ran Norton Commander and Norton Editor for years and years, even
under Win3 and up. Happy days!


If you want an infinitely adjustable file manager.. look at Directory Opus.

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

On 8/16/2011 6:54 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

I want to see attributes also. Directory Opus will show you more that
you would ever want to know about a file. I just counted a possible 99
columns that you can choose to show information about a file and that is
all customizable to any particular directory.

There are sizes printed on the side a socket???? Seriously I never
could understand why sizes are printed on a socket, the size is not
printed on the head of a bolt or nut. When you look at a nut or bolt
you don't suddenly need to translate that into a size. I guess it makes
it easier to buy a replacement or ask some one to bring you a 7/16
socket. ;~) I guess you work with them enough you get used to simply
looking at the physical size, assuming you don't mix them with metric!




Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

Leon brought next idea :
On 8/16/2011 6:54 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

I want to see attributes also. Directory Opus will show you more that you
would ever want to know about a file. I just counted a possible 99 columns
that you can choose to show information about a file and that is all
customizable to any particular directory.
MS Explorer will display all those things, View Choose Details. and
if you do not choose Tools Folder Options View Apply to All
Folders. then it should only apply to the current folder.
(I am not a particular MS lover but the facilities are there.)

There are sizes printed on the side a socket???? Seriously I never could
understand why sizes are printed on a socket, the size is not printed on the
head of a bolt or nut. When you look at a nut or bolt you don't suddenly
need to translate that into a size. I guess it makes it easier to buy a
replacement or ask some one to bring you a 7/16 socket. ;~) I guess you
work with them enough you get used to simply looking at the physical size,
assuming you don't mix them with metric!




Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

--
John G.

"Puckdropper" wrote in message
.com...

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

==============

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

--

Eric

Eric wrote:


"Puckdropper" wrote in message
.com...

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

==============

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need
to see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them.
Just open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

Me and the OS (operating system). Sometimes we disagree about the way I
wish to proceed.




--

Eric

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 19:01:18 -0400, Bill
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!

I think it's the mindset difference. We want to know every detail
about our computers. They don't even want to know how they work, what
the file name is, or what type of file it is. They just want to press
one button and have the computer spit out the item they need.

Y'know, kinda like Engineer Scott talking to the 20th century
computer, not getting any answer, and then speaking into the mouse.
(Catherine Hicks was at her hottest in "The Voyage Home", eh?)

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

"Bill" wrote in message ...

Eric wrote:


"Puckdropper" wrote in message
.com...

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

==============

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need
to see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them.
Just open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

Me and the OS (operating system). Sometimes we disagree about the way I
wish to proceed.


==============

Yabbut we only expect to get things in the way we are trained.

They keep changing the style somewhat though. As an old system software guy
I like to see it all, but users may only want to see the results and don't
care where or how they get them. This was the old way the Macs did it. MS
only copied it more each release. I remember statements from the experts
(Byte magazine) years back in the MsDos times stating that a mouse OS was
only Mickey Mouse and the GUI would never survive.

We got some OCD control freaks, here, and can't let go and just become
users. LOL

--

Eric

Eric wrote:

Yabbut we only expect to get things in the way we are trained.

They keep changing the style somewhat though. As an old system software
guy I like to see it all, but users may only want to see the results and
don't care where or how they get them. This was the old way the Macs did
it. MS only copied it more each release.


I remember statements from the
experts (Byte magazine) years back in the MsDos times stating that a
mouse OS was only Mickey Mouse and the GUI would never survive.

The command line and scripts are still alive and well!
When the going gets tough, a mouse is no match for the command line.


We got some OCD control freaks, here, and can't let go and just become
users. LOL


Typo: you meant to type, "... and just become *helpless* users"

*helpless:* adjective
1.
unable to help oneself; weak or dependent: a helpless invalid.

2.
deprived of strength or power; powerless; incapacitated.

--

Eric

On 8/16/2011 8:04 PM, John G wrote:
MS Explorer will display all those things, View Choose Details. and if
you do not choose Tools Folder Options View Apply to All Folders.
then it should only apply to the current folder.
(I am not a particular MS lover but the facilities are there.)

By crackly you are correct! I guess where I was going is that with
DOpus you can have it open an unlimited number of ways. Say you often
want to compare two folders to make sure your flash drive has certain
current data one it, you open in that saved configuration and let it
compare and copy to the desired folder the changes. It almost works
like a back up program. There are countless savable ways for the
program to open and display.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/16/2011 8:04 PM, John G wrote:
MS Explorer will display all those things, View Choose Details. and if
you do not choose Tools Folder Options View Apply to All Folders.
then it should only apply to the current folder.
(I am not a particular MS lover but the facilities are there.)

By crackly you are correct! I guess where I was going is that with
DOpus you can have it open an unlimited number of ways. Say you often
want to compare two folders to make sure your flash drive has certain
current data one it, you open in that saved configuration and let it
compare and copy to the desired folder the changes. It almost works
like a back up program. There are countless savable ways for the
program to open and display.

There is a 60 day free evaluation, but then I would have to pay over
USD100. No way, matey, not for me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/17/2011 6:53 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/16/2011 8:04 PM, John G wrote:
MS Explorer will display all those things, View Choose Details. and if
you do not choose Tools Folder Options View Apply to All Folders.
then it should only apply to the current folder.
(I am not a particular MS lover but the facilities are there.)

By crackly you are correct! I guess where I was going is that with
DOpus you can have it open an unlimited number of ways. Say you often
want to compare two folders to make sure your flash drive has certain
current data one it, you open in that saved configuration and let it
compare and copy to the desired folder the changes. It almost works
like a back up program. There are countless savable ways for the
program to open and display.

There is a 60 day free evaluation, but then I would have to pay over
USD100. No way, matey, not for me.


No, that is not how that works, you get to evaluate and use it for 60
days, IIRC if you register it you get it for an additional 30 days.
Then if you decide that it is not for you for what ever reason then you
simply don't continue to use it.
You do not have to pay for it if you don't continue to use it.

You are assuming that you may not feel that it is worth $100. You might
find that it is worth $200 to you.

After having used it almost daily for about three years I would have to
think before paying $300 but certainly not $100. I actually bought 5
licenses at a considerable discount off the single price. I did use the
entire evaluation period as I was being very picky about what I wanted
out of a file manager. I could find no hitches or anything wrong with
the program which is something I cannot say about the other 15-20 file
managers I tried out when looking for a replacement for Power Desk.
After seeing what it would do, my father, wife, and son wanted it on
their computers.
Swingman bought a copy too.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

snipped

Now you've got me curious ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 8/17/2011 9:37 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

snipped

Now you've got me curious ...


LOL, does not hurt to look and putter. If you like file managers that
can configured many many many ways....

And I might add, spend some time with it. You can get it to work in
short order but to learn what all it can do takes some time. This is
not one of those programs that you mess with for an hour or two and you
know everything about it and what it will.

And as I mentioned earlier you can save unlimited set ups for your
specific needs.

On 8/17/2011 3:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 8/17/2011 9:37 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

snipped

Now you've got me curious ...


LOL, does not hurt to look and putter. If you like file managers that
can configured many many many ways....

And I might add, spend some time with it. You can get it to work in
short order but to learn what all it can do takes some time. This is not
one of those programs that you mess with for an hour or two and you know
everything about it and what it will.

And as I mentioned earlier you can save unlimited set ups for your
specific needs.

One last thing,, maybe. ;~) And I do not earn a commission, the screen
shots do not show it but you can save tabs to take you to your most
visited directories instantly, you do not have to hunt them down in the
tree unless you just want to.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 8/17/2011 3:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 8/17/2011 9:37 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

snipped

Now you've got me curious ...


LOL, does not hurt to look and putter. If you like file managers that
can configured many many many ways....

And I might add, spend some time with it. You can get it to work in
short order but to learn what all it can do takes some time. This is
not one of those programs that you mess with for an hour or two and
you know everything about it and what it will.

And as I mentioned earlier you can save unlimited set ups for your
specific needs.

One last thing,, maybe. ;~) And I do not earn a commission, the
screen shots do not show it but you can save tabs to take you to your
most visited directories instantly, you do not have to hunt them down
in the tree unless you just want to.

I installed it, but I did 1 search for files with vizio in thr name and
that was excruciatingly slow. Now the program is obviously not optimized
for that, but my "Search Everything" is much, much faster ...

Will work it more ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon wrote:
On 8/17/2011 3:09 PM, Leon wrote:
On 8/17/2011 9:37 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

snipped

Now you've got me curious ...


LOL, does not hurt to look and putter. If you like file managers that
can configured many many many ways....

And I might add, spend some time with it. You can get it to work in
short order but to learn what all it can do takes some time. This is not
one of those programs that you mess with for an hour or two and you know
everything about it and what it will.

And as I mentioned earlier you can save unlimited set ups for your
specific needs.

One last thing,, maybe. ;~) And I do not earn a commission, the screen
shots do not show it but you can save tabs to take you to your most
visited directories instantly, you do not have to hunt them down in the
tree unless you just want to.

I create shortcuts in IE which I leave on my desktop for that.
It works for file folders or URLs (web pages). Very handy!

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Puckdropper" wrote in message
b.com...

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

==============

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
communications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same as a
photograph of a repair to be made?
Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the whole
name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL

--

Eric

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
xcommunications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Or, somebody e-mailed a file with the same base name as something you already
have.

Or, more than one person uses the machine, and wasn't aware of the other
file.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same as a
photograph of a repair to be made?

Maybe the 'honey do' list, the spreadsheet of the purchases needed for each
project, and the directory of pictures of the results.

Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the whole
name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL

Yup. *UNTIL* somebody imports it into Word to to make a large-print hard-
copy, and saves "house fixups-text.doc"


Windows will also out-and-out *lie* to you about the case of the letters in
file names under some circumstances.

On 8/18/2011 9:16 AM, Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
communications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not
need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different
extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same
as a photograph of a repair to be made?
Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the
whole name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL


It is not uncommon for a program, actually many programs, to periodically
automatically back up an open file that you are working on.
It uses the same file name with a different extension.
Whether you do or do not name your files very well is a moot point.

On Thu, 18 Aug 2011 05:55:49 -0500, (Robert
Bonomi) wrote:

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Puckdropper" wrote in message
eb.com...

Bill wrote in :

Larry Jaques wrote:

I'm surprised that Mickeysoft's Windows Explorer never did color, but
I guess most computer users -hide- the extensions, anyway. Maroons.
I don't use a file manager a whole lot any more, though.


I Do Not understand the desire to hide the extensions...I've seen it
too, and from people I'd expect not to do that!


The trouble, at least with Explorer, is that they're off by default. It's
the single most useful piece of metadata aside from the filename, and for
"cleanliness" or "to avoid confusion" they're hidden. It's like not
printing the size of a socket on the wrench... Sure, there's no confusion
as to whether or not it's a socket, but what size nut does it fit?

Some programs want to hide filenames as well. All you get is a picture
(and a tiny one at that!)

Puckdropper

==============

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.

The "type" is normally shown, which is what Windows will do with it if it's
(double) clicked.

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
xcommunications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need
to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different
extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Or, somebody e-mailed a file with the same base name as something you
already
have.

Or, more than one person uses the machine, and wasn't aware of the other
file.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same as a
photograph of a repair to be made?

Maybe the 'honey do' list, the spreadsheet of the purchases needed for each
project, and the directory of pictures of the results.

Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the whole
name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL

Yup. *UNTIL* somebody imports it into Word to to make a large-print hard-
copy, and saves "house fixups-text.doc"


Windows will also out-and-out *lie* to you about the case of the letters in
file names under some circumstances.

==============

The first few points may be moot as operating systems would tell you if a
file has a dup name before saving. Extension shown on the file, or not won't
matter. It will replace it or warn you.

As for the rest of the rattle, I always have extensions showing because I
need to know what type of file it is. I couldn't klive like that but I am
OCD when it comes to organizational things like that.

Wife worked in a big insurance industry and they did everything in Word.
Databases, spreadsheets, photo albums etc... I couldn't even listen to the
tech talk. It drove me insane to hear people working like that. It's an old
carry over from WOrst-Perfect where the word processor becomes the operating
system.

The fine print...
() uncheck here to not download and permanently install our quick acchole,
in-your-face toolbar, that only takes up 10%** of your screen realestate!

**based on having screen space left for the user

--

Eric

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
oxcommunications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need
to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different
extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Or, somebody e-mailed a file with the same base name as something you
already
have.

Or, more than one person uses the machine, and wasn't aware of the other
file.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same as a
photograph of a repair to be made?

Maybe the 'honey do' list, the spreadsheet of the purchases needed for each
project, and the directory of pictures of the results.

Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the whole
name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL

Yup. *UNTIL* somebody imports it into Word to to make a large-print hard-
copy, and saves "house fixups-text.doc"


Windows will also out-and-out *lie* to you about the case of the letters in
file names under some circumstances.

==============

The first few points may be moot as operating systems would tell you if a
file has a dup name before saving. Extension shown on the file, or not won't
matter. It will replace it or warn you.

Read *carefully*. I said 'base name'. Yes, if the _entire_ name is
identical, you'll get the over-write warning. But _not_ if they have
different extensions, with the extension hidden. Say you have a worksheet
with the schedule for the wedding ("wedding.xls") and somebody emails
you their batch of pictures from the wedding ("wedding.zip") No over-
write warning, just to files with the same name.

As for the rest of the rattle, I always have extensions showing because I
need to know what type of file it is. I couldn't klive like that but I am
OCD when it comes to organizational things like that.

Me, I have 'CDO' -- it's like OCD, but 'with the letters in the RIGHT order!'
grin

I know what I'm doing, I always have extensions showing -- the MS
'associations' are useless -- I have several programs that use the _same_
extension for their own file types. sigh

I also make all system/hidden files visible, because I want to -see- what
all is there.

On 8/19/2011 2:15 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

I also make all system/hidden files visible, because I want to -see- what
all is there.

First thing I do when someone asks me to 'help out' with their computer.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
communications...

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Eric wrote:


"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
oxcommunications...

They are attempting to copy the old Macintosh OS where users do not need
to
see extensions or system files. It causes trouble t play with them. Just
open the file. Who cares what method of encoding it isÉ

All well and good, *UNTIL* you have several files with different
extensions,
but the same base name -- you _can't_tell_ which is which.


==========
It could be said you didn't name your files very well.

Or, somebody e-mailed a file with the same base name as something you
already
have.

Or, more than one person uses the machine, and wasn't aware of the other
file.

Would you name a text file on fixups to do, around the house, the same as
a
photograph of a repair to be made?

Maybe the 'honey do' list, the spreadsheet of the purchases needed for each
project, and the directory of pictures of the results.

Not likely with 256 characters to name things with. (PITA to read the
whole
name though)

"house fixups_text.txt" LOL

Yup. *UNTIL* somebody imports it into Word to to make a large-print hard-
copy, and saves "house fixups-text.doc"


Windows will also out-and-out *lie* to you about the case of the letters in
file names under some circumstances.

==============

The first few points may be moot as operating systems would tell you if a
file has a dup name before saving. Extension shown on the file, or not
won't
matter. It will replace it or warn you.

Read *carefully*. I said 'base name'. Yes, if the _entire_ name is
identical, you'll get the over-write warning. But _not_ if they have
different extensions, with the extension hidden. Say you have a worksheet
with the schedule for the wedding ("wedding.xls") and somebody emails
you their batch of pictures from the wedding ("wedding.zip") No over-
write warning, just to files with the same name.

As for the rest of the rattle, I always have extensions showing because I
need to know what type of file it is. I couldn't klive like that but I am
OCD when it comes to organizational things like that.

Me, I have 'CDO' -- it's like OCD, but 'with the letters in the RIGHT
order!'
grin

I know what I'm doing, I always have extensions showing -- the MS
'associations' are useless -- I have several programs that use the _same_
extension for their own file types. sigh

I also make all system/hidden files visible, because I want to -see- what
all is there.

Are you, also, a member of DAM (Mothers Against Dyslexia)?

-------------

"Robert Bonomi" wrote in message
communications...
Me, I have 'CDO' -- it's like OCD, but 'with the letters in the RIGHT
order!'
grin

In article ,
Josepi wrote:
Are you, also, a member of DAM (Mothers Against Dyslexia)?


Nope. I do, however support DAMN -- that's "Nude Mothers Against Dyslexia"
They get lots of things backwards.

Swingman wrote:
On 8/19/2011 2:15 PM, Robert Bonomi wrote:

I also make all system/hidden files visible, because I want to -see-
what all is there.

First thing I do when someone asks me to 'help out' with their
computer.

First thing I do is turn on detailed views....

--

-Mike-