Chkdsk/Scandisk

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Microsoft's older programmers were known for creating bugs more than
anything else. Spaghetti code was another description.

"Spaghetti code" does not mean buggy code. "Spaghetti code" is code
that is tangled with up and down gotos. It is the opposite of
Structured Programming.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP

 

[glee]

glee wrote:
snip

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP.

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when working
in Seven.

 

[BillW50]

In Yousuf Khan typed:

Maybe if the words become too long, then the jumbling doesn't work any
more? Just as a guess, let's say that as long as the words are 7
letters long or less, then jumbling works, but beyond that, then you
do notice what the internal letters of the words are? Just a
hypothesis.

I was thinking about it yesterday and playing around with changing the
letters around in words. And it seems to me that if it at least would be
pronounced somewhat close to what the word really is, and then they seem
to be easy to read. But if it is phonemically totally different, it
becomes very hard to read.

Another possibility is that it works with dyslexic people better than
with others? I'm somewhat dyslexic and I had little problem reading
that paragraph.

Yes I am sure that changes things. I always suspected that I am also
dyslexic. Another thing about me is that I appear to be able to read
upside down and mirror images very well too. I don't know what that
means, except I am good at solving the Rubik's Cube too.

 

[BillW50]

In Ken Blake, MVP typed:

"Spaghetti code" does not mean buggy code. "Spaghetti code" is code
that is tangled with up and down gotos. It is the opposite of
Structured Programming.

I love spaghetti code! I even love machine language code even better. As
nothing runs faster and tighter. Plus you didn't have to worry about
bugs in programming language software. And the only bugs were your own.
Assembly language is my second favorite. Nobody seems to write in either
anymore.

 

[BillW50]

In glee typed:

In Win98, you couldn't sort by extension either in Windows Explorer,
you sorted by file type. There was no 'file extension" column in
Details view in Explorer It was the same as XP.

You're kidding? Was it that way with Windows 95 too? I must be thinking
of Fileman.

 

[BillW50]

In glee typed:

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when working
in Seven.

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time to
get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and up
either. :-(

 

[BillW50]

In BillW50 typed:

Every version of Windows 3.1 and since, offered me a feature or two
that I really wanted. This worked for me all the way up to XP. And
Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 doesn't have any features that I
could use and want. Worse is that those later OS eats much of the
processor power and leaves much less for applications.

For example, most of my machines has no problems recording TV programs
under XP. And it can also convert the video in real time from MPEG to
say WMV format at the same time. Although any OS later since XP can't
do this without dropping video frames with any of my over 20 laptops.

Another thing that newer versions of Windows did was support for newer
applications. This also isn't doing anything for me with Vista and
Windows 7/8 either. As everything I want to run still runs under XP.
And actually, Vista and Windows 7/8 runs less of what I want to run.
So for me, these newer Windows OS are far less useful to me
than XP is.

Another annoying thing in Windows 7/8 is when I hit CTRL-H (here we go
again with CTRL-H) under Word 2000, the find and replace window pops up
so slow. It is like watching grass grow. But under XP and under, this
same thing is very snappy. I don't understand why Microsoft thinks that
a newer OS should be bloated and slow for?

 

[glee]

In glee typed:

You're kidding? Was it that way with Windows 95 too? I must be
thinking of Fileman.

It was the same in Win95, in Explorer. I'm looking at it right now.
The File Manager (winfile.exe, not fileman) doesn't have a file
extension column either... it also doesn't have a File Type column. The
available columns in the File Manager are Name, Size, last Modification
Date and Time, and File Attributes. You can choose the View menu> By
File Type, then in the box that appears you can type in a file extension
(such as *.txt), and the File Manager will show only the files with that
extension in the right pane.... not the same as what you describe, no
columns showing file type OR extension. The file extensions are only
shown as part of the file name, in the Name column.
Well I think that's enough of doing someone else's homework, for now.

 

[glee]

In glee typed:

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time
to get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and
up either. :-(

I know.... that sux, doesn't it?

 

[Char Jackson]

I know.... that sux, doesn't it?

In Windows 7, you hold the Shift key while right clicking on the
desired folder. The right click context menu includes an item called
"Copy as path".

Granted, this is different from XP and earlier, but it works well and
places the selected path in the clipboard.

 

[Char Jackson]

Another annoying thing in Windows 7/8 is when I hit CTRL-H (here we go
again with CTRL-H) under Word 2000, the find and replace window pops up
so slow. It is like watching grass grow. But under XP and under, this
same thing is very snappy. I don't understand why Microsoft thinks that
a newer OS should be bloated and slow for?

In Word 2010 and Windows 7 64bit, the Ctrl-H dialog pops up instantly.
I don't know what that says about MS apps and operating systems, but
there you go.

 

[Char Jackson]

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time to
get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and up
either. :-(

Just use the right click context menu...

 

[Nil]

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the
time to get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under
Vista and up either. :-(

Select your folder. Click in the address bar above to select the path.
Hit Ctrl-C to copy. Hit Ctrl-V to paste wherever you like.

Menus are not needed for this task.

 

[SC Tom]

In Word 2010 and Windows 7 64bit, the Ctrl-H dialog pops up instantly.
I don't know what that says about MS apps and operating systems, but
there you go.

In Word 2003 and Win7 32-bit, the CTRL+H box pops up almost before I can get my fingers off the keys (And that's on
a 4 year old laptop)

 

[SC Tom]

In glee typed:

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time to get the path of the folder. Can't do that
anymore under Vista and up either. :-(

I don't know what you mean. If I open up a folder, I can copy from the address bar in Win7 and paste it in a text file,
a new Explorer window, or the location box of a shortcut. I C&P'd this from the address bar by right-clicking on
"\preferences" in the address bar and picking "Copy address":

C:\Program Files\Complitly\[email protected]\defaults\preferences

(Now all I have to do is remember what the heck Complitly is )

 

[Char Jackson]

I don't know what you mean. If I open up a folder, I can copy from the address bar in Win7 and paste it in a text file,
a new Explorer window, or the location box of a shortcut. I C&P'd this from the address bar by right-clicking on
"\preferences" in the address bar and picking "Copy address":

C:\Program Files\Complitly\[email protected]\defaults\preferences

(Now all I have to do is remember what the heck Complitly is )

I'm guessing you complitly forgot. ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

I think each successive OS version seems to get further bimbo-i-zed, if
there is such a word. I just dislike bloated OS's and apps, and more
hand-holding interfaces, and extra bells and whistles in apps and OS's that
nobody really needs.

One person's bloat is another person's must-have feature.

 

[Char Jackson]

Can you name such a must-have-feature(s)?

No, because it's different for everyone. If I name a feature that I
like, someone else will scoff at it. Then someone else will name a
feature that they like and I will scoff at it. Where does it get us?
We each like the things that we like, and at one extreme end of that
scale there are people who like as few features as possible. They
consider everything else to be bloat. Fortunately for the majority of
us, those people are in the tiny minority.

 

[BillW50]

In Char Jackson typed:

No, because it's different for everyone. If I name a feature that I
like, someone else will scoff at it. Then someone else will name a
feature that they like and I will scoff at it. Where does it get us?
We each like the things that we like, and at one extreme end of that
scale there are people who like as few features as possible. They
consider everything else to be bloat. Fortunately for the majority of
us, those people are in the tiny minority.

No, every single Windows version had a feature or two that it was worth
upgrading to for me. This all stopped with Vista and later. And all of
the features you probably like in Windows 7, I probably already have
from third party developers under XP anyway. And all without the
slowness of Windows 7.

I can't even record TV programs worth a dang under Windows 7/8 with a
Core2 Duo T7400 with 1.5GB of RAM. But a much slower computer with XP
has no problems at all. And what about Windows 7 and Word 2000? Where
the find and replace window pops up so slow, yet so fast under XP and
older versions of Windows.

At least up to Windows 7, I could even use any shell (desktop
replacement) I want too. But now with Windows 8, Microsoft so far has
taken this option away. You are not seeing what is going on here Char!
Microsoft isn't making these later versions better. As they are taking
more and more options away from you and hope you won't notice. What is
next? Windows 9 and later won't work at all unless you pay a monthly
subscription fee?

 

[Char Jackson]

In Char Jackson typed:

No, every single Windows version had a feature or two that it was worth
upgrading to for me. This all stopped with Vista and later. And all of
the features you probably like in Windows 7, I probably already have
from third party developers under XP anyway. And all without the
slowness of Windows 7.

Do you know who cares what YOU like and consider to be worthwhile
features versus bloat? You do, that's who. The point is, we each get
to make that decision for ourselves. You can claim that the newer OS's
have nothing you want or need, but that's you. You don't speak for
anyone else. I don't get to speak for anyone else, either. Each of us
only speaks for ourselves.

I can't even record TV programs worth a dang under Windows 7/8 with a
Core2 Duo T7400 with 1.5GB of RAM. But a much slower computer with XP
has no problems at all. And what about Windows 7 and Word 2000? Where
the find and replace window pops up so slow, yet so fast under XP and
older versions of Windows.

Your problem with recording video has nothing to do with the OS, I'd
bet. You're probably using older low quality hardware and buggy
drivers, right? (AverMedia, if I remember correctly.) Try a HDHomerun
or Ceton tuner and prepare to be amazed.

Regarding Win 7 and Word 2000, what can I tell you? The issue you
describe isn't there with newer versions of Word. Sometimes, when you
decide to stick with older software you have to be prepared to give
something up in return.

At least up to Windows 7, I could even use any shell (desktop
replacement) I want too. But now with Windows 8, Microsoft so far has
taken this option away. You are not seeing what is going on here Char!
Microsoft isn't making these later versions better. As they are taking
more and more options away from you and hope you won't notice. What is
next? Windows 9 and later won't work at all unless you pay a monthly
subscription fee?

Windows 8 is irrelevant until it's released. Focus on Windows 7.