Telling Explr to settle down

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote:

wrote in message ...

Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
re-saved!

I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.

Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.

-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but to each his own.
gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

Good point - the other day I had to apply a simple update to all files in a
folder. As I saved each one after the update the next one popped to the top
of the folder listing automatically!
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote in message
news
snip


I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.

Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.


One thing this tread wil show if nothing else, is that any "feature" can be
considered good by one and bad by another!
gm

Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could do this
with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my super-duper
2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much crap
the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't have time
to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack come
through but it ain't looking good so far!
gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

That's not how processing items in a list works in W98. If there is any
possibility that any details (even a non-displayed item) in a listed entry
has changed, the item has to be removed from the list and re-added. Adding
an item at the end of a list is trivial - refreshing the list so that it is
sorted properly is major overhead.

Adding the item back into its proper place would involve finding out how the
list is currently sorted and finding the correct sort position, remembering
that the sort item, such as date, might have been changed. It's doable, but
it's not simple.

It is an OS issue, not a file system issue. I am ussuming that FAT32
performance is a reason that the list was not automatically refreshed,
because I have seen how FAT32 performs under heavy load. The issue could
have been overcome by more sophisticated list processing, but they chose not
to - having written list processing routines myself, I understand how
comlicated it can get.

AFAIK thre is no magic switch to turn auto-refresh on, but if someone proves
my wrong I would be happy to add the tweak to my list of useful W9x tips.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
wrote in message ...
Thanks for the input Jeff. That makes sense if it were a choice between
sorting and doing nothing. However, WE is not "doing nothing", it is
removing
the file from the list where it was originally, and putting it at the
bottom
(presumable by a sort by date default function but that's a guess).

If the goal was indead to maximize performance, then leaving the file
where it
was in the list would be the faster performance. The name hasn't changed,
why
move it. (It wasn't necessary for FM to move the file!!) I use Windows
2000
at work, and it does the same thing. I am pretty certain the computer
there
is using NTFS so it seems like and OS problem not a file system problem to
me!

So, still waiting for the expert hacker to post a way to correct
this....!!
-gm

Why are you running Windows 98 on a machine with that specification?
Surely you would use a newer OS that could take advantage of all that
processing power. I don't think it's worth sticking with W98 for anything
faster than about 800Mhz.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
wrote in message ...
Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could
do this
with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my
super-duper
2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much
crap
the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't
have time
to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack
come
through but it ain't looking good so far!
gm

I have Win98 on a P3-700 and a P4-2800 with similar other hardware including
the same amount of memory and virtually identical video cards. The P4 is
noticably faster, so as far as I can tell staying with 98 doesn't inhibit
improvement as you suggest. Perhaps you are running some specific application
that can benefit from a newer windows. But I've tried XP, and in the interest
of not further getting way off topic, I will just say I personally saw no
reason to stay with that OS.

But to directly answer your question, because I OWN Win98 already!
-gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

Why are you running Windows 98 on a machine with that specification?
Surely you would use a newer OS that could take advantage of all that
processing power. I don't think it's worth sticking with W98 for anything
faster than about 800Mhz.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
wrote in message ...
Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could
do this
with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my
super-duper
2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much
crap
the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't
have time
to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack
come
through but it ain't looking good so far!
gm

wrote:

In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was good. But
alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff from the
old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is the
case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I open a
file from WE, do something with it, and close/save, this
stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the bottom
of the folder listing, regardless of the order the folder is
sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the right
thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
accending by date then it would make sense, but otherwise it
is completely idiotic!

So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop this
rediculas action, please post it!

Thanks
gm

Thanks for all the commentary. However I really would like to
redirect this thread to the question posted. Specifically, is
there a way to tweak WE so that it doesn't put the file at the
bottom every time I access it? If someone knows a way to
accomplish this please post it!
Thanks,
gm