Folder Views Randomly Change?

[(PeteCresswell)]

I always use Details sorted by name and Tools | Folder Options | Apply
to All Folders has been invoked.

But sometime in the last few months, I've started to see folders opening
up in List mode - and not sorted by name, so I have to do a View |
Details, and then click the "Name" column header.

Anybody else seeing this?

My first reaction is user RCI, but I can't figure out what I might have
done.

 

[JJ]

I always use Details sorted by name and Tools | Folder Options | Apply
to All Folders has been invoked.

But sometime in the last few months, I've started to see folders opening
up in List mode - and not sorted by name, so I have to do a View |
Details, and then click the "Name" column header.

Anybody else seeing this?

My first reaction is user RCI, but I can't figure out what I might have
done.

Don't know if it's a bu or a "feature", but Explorer sometimes forget all
folder view settings if the folder view settings storage is full. Normally,
when it's full, the oldest setting is discarded when a new one need to be
added, but sometimes, it just forgets them all and uses the saved default
setting.

The TweakUI tool do provide setting to adjust the folder view settings
storage size - the number of folder views it can hold. The number of folder
iews is equal to the number of unique folder paths you have viewed. But it
only give more time. Explorer will eventually forgets them all.

So, I stopped using Explorer as a file manager after realizing this
behaviour.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per JJ:

So, I stopped using Explorer as a file manager after realizing this
behaviour.

What do you use now?

 

[Paul]

Don't know if it's a bu or a "feature", but Explorer sometimes forget all
folder view settings if the folder view settings storage is full. Normally,
when it's full, the oldest setting is discarded when a new one need to be
added, but sometimes, it just forgets them all and uses the saved default
setting.

The TweakUI tool do provide setting to adjust the folder view settings
storage size - the number of folder views it can hold. The number of folder
iews is equal to the number of unique folder paths you have viewed. But it
only give more time. Explorer will eventually forgets them all.

So, I stopped using Explorer as a file manager after realizing this
behaviour.

I thought it stored 200 settings by default, but it
says here it stored 400.

http://windowsxp.mvps.org/folderviews.htm

There's a so-called "workaround" at the bottom of that page as well,
but I don't follow what they're trying to do. They're attempting
to reset all the folders, but it almost looks like you're supposed
to do it twice or something.

Paul

 

[JJ]

What do you use now?

FreeCommander. But it doesn't use shell namespace nor looks like Explorer.

For Explorer-like file manager, use Explorer++.

 

[Michael Asherman]

I always use Details sorted by name and Tools | Folder Options | Apply
to All Folders has been invoked.

But sometime in the last few months, I've started to see folders opening
up in List mode - and not sorted by name, so I have to do a View |
Details, and then click the "Name" column header.

Anybody else seeing this?

My first reaction is user RCI, but I can't figure out what I might have
done.

Hi Pete,

Montage (http://www.ideaxchg.com/montage/) can launch Windows Explorer in a
consistent state. I use it for Explorer (as well as other apps) to quickly
restore window layouts. For Explorer in particular it also restores the
View mode (Icons/List/Details/Thumbnails/etc.) and Folders Treeview ON/OFF
setting.

Mike

 

[Motor T]

Per JJ:

What do you use now?

I like good old fashioned Winfile.exe. You can get it here under
'Utilities for XP':

http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks2.htm

 

[Motor T]

Per JJ:

What do you use now?

I like good old fashioned Winfile.exe. You can get it here under
'Utilities for XP':
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks2.htm

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per (PeteCresswell):

My first reaction is user RCI, but I can't figure out what I might have
done.

Hopefully, this issue just became moot.

Had way too much money laying around, so I went out and bought a new
mobo and an Intel Core i7-4770k CPU.

Was hoping for maybe 25% better response time.

Sheesh!..... some operations seem to have speeded up by 200-300%.

And my IP cam server, which was bringing the old box to it's knees (as
in high nineties CPU usage - such that I had to install a utility to
downgrade it's CPU access) is only taking 10-15% of the new box's CPU.

All-in-all, a pleasant surprise.

 

[Paul]

Per (PeteCresswell):

Hopefully, this issue just became moot.

Had way too much money laying around, so I went out and bought a new
mobo and an Intel Core i7-4770k CPU.

Was hoping for maybe 25% better response time.

Sheesh!..... some operations seem to have speeded up by 200-300%.

And my IP cam server, which was bringing the old box to it's knees (as
in high nineties CPU usage - such that I had to install a utility to
downgrade it's CPU access) is only taking 10-15% of the new box's CPU.

All-in-all, a pleasant surprise.

That just means you'll be adding more IP cams

Paul

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Paul:

That just means you'll be adding more IP cams

At the risk of sounding like a Ginsu Cutlery ad:

But wait, there's more!....

This thing is only pulling half the watts that the old box was.

60-70 vs 130-140.... but I'm guessing a good part of that is the
industrial-strength graphics card on the old box vs on-board video on
the new...