Classic example of how DUMB Microsoft programmers really are

[Adam Albright]

As I've said many times before I do video work and accordingly move,
copy and alter files constantly. It is common to move files around and
open and close them in various applications.

We all know the BS Microsoft attempts to claim with it's new phony
"security" which is suppose to "protect" you. What a laugh! This is
another example of how utterly lame and useless Micosoft's sham
"security" really is in the real world.

I can open a file in some application, perhaps make a screen capture
to make a thumbnail, even edit the video file in Vista and it won't
complain. Once done, Vista lets me move the file. So far so good. As
it should be. Now watch how utterly dumb Vista can be and how it
needlessly interfers with harmless common everyday operations.

Next I move the altered video file from Drive E to F. Again Vista
doesn't nag, no reason for it to. Now to simply clean up the EMPTY
folder from drive E, I try to delete it. Remember the folder is
E M P T Y and presents absolutely no security threat to anything...
how could it? The damn folder is empty!

What does Vista do? Nag like druken mother-in-law saying:

"The action can't be completed because the folder is open in another
application. Close the folder and try again".

Now remember this same folder was also open when I altered the file.
It also was open when I did some at least potentially threatening
action...altering and moving the file, yet Vista said nothing and
didn't attempt to stop me.

Yet once I've moved the file and potentially done damage to the system
and then when I only want to clean up and get rid of a now empty
folder Vista freaks and nags I can't remove a empty folder pretending
that could be a threat, but actually altering a file and moving it
Vista doesn't consider a threat. Laughable!

Such stupid, not thought through, sloppy and reckless programming is
what Microsoft is famous for. To continue I now have to shut down the
application the file WAS open in only to immediatley reopen the same
application again to work on the next file and naturally again go
through this same bullshit over and over.

Microsoft, wake up and hire programmers that have at least a clue what
they're doing. PLEASE! I mean come on... even a ten year old kid knows
the different between the potential "threat" posed by altering a
file's name and/or moving it and the harmless act of deleting a emply
folder.

How come your programmers don't know the difference?

 

[Dave R.]

Seeing how other threads have gone, I hesitated to even post a reply to
this. However, just so that others who read this thread get something
closer to an accurate picture, I decided to go ahead.

If you can read this without trying to turn this into a flame war or
similar, please proceed. If not, please don't bother continuing.

Still here? Good. For the record, I'm not a Windows fanboy, although I
do use Windows. I'm also not a Linux fanboy, although I do use Linux.
I don't love or hate Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman or
anyone else involved in the computing industry. I also don't always
agree or disagree with their decisions, business practices or even the
way they dress.

As I've said many times before I do video work and accordingly move,
copy and alter files constantly. It is common to move files around and
open and close them in various applications.

We all know the BS Microsoft attempts to claim with it's new phony
"security" which is suppose to "protect" you. What a laugh! This is
another example of how utterly lame and useless Micosoft's sham
"security" really is in the real world.

I can open a file in some application, perhaps make a screen capture
to make a thumbnail, even edit the video file in Vista and it won't
complain. Once done, Vista lets me move the file. So far so good. As
it should be. Now watch how utterly dumb Vista can be and how it
needlessly interfers with harmless common everyday operations.

Next I move the altered video file from Drive E to F. Again Vista
doesn't nag, no reason for it to. Now to simply clean up the EMPTY
folder from drive E, I try to delete it. Remember the folder is
E M P T Y and presents absolutely no security threat to anything...
how could it? The damn folder is empty!

What does Vista do? Nag like druken mother-in-law saying:

"The action can't be completed because the folder is open in another
application. Close the folder and try again".

Sure - one of the applications you used still has the folder in use.
Same thing happens if you have the folder open in Explorer, or are at a
command prompt and are at that directory, etc., whether in Vista, XP,
Windows 2000, or likely any other Windows version.

Now remember this same folder was also open when I altered the file.
It also was open when I did some at least potentially threatening
action...altering and moving the file, yet Vista said nothing and
didn't attempt to stop me.

Yet once I've moved the file and potentially done damage to the system
and then when I only want to clean up and get rid of a now empty
folder Vista freaks and nags I can't remove a empty folder pretending
that could be a threat, but actually altering a file and moving it
Vista doesn't consider a threat. Laughable!

Nowhere do I see from what you have posted that Vista considers
attempting to delete the folder as a threat - it just says you can't
delete it because it is in use.

Such stupid, not thought through, sloppy and reckless programming is
what Microsoft is famous for. To continue I now have to shut down the
application the file WAS open in only to immediatley reopen the same
application again to work on the next file and naturally again go
through this same bullshit over and over.

Naturally - the application that you were using still had the folder
open. Restarting it released the folder so it could be deleted. Call
it what you will, but from my perspective it would be more reckless to
allow Vista to delete a folder that was still in use by an application.

Microsoft, wake up and hire programmers that have at least a clue what
they're doing. PLEASE! I mean come on... even a ten year old kid knows
the different between the potential "threat" posed by altering a
file's name and/or moving it and the harmless act of deleting a emply
folder.

Again, nowhere is Vista saying it is a threat. It seems pretty clear
from what you've posted so far that the programmers of one of the
applications you are using has left the folder open / in use internally.
If anything, they are the ones that need to do something different, not
Vista's programmers.

How come your programmers don't know the difference?

I'll leave this as an exercise for the class...

Regards,

Dave

 

[Adam Albright]

Seeing how other threads have gone, I hesitated to even post a reply to
this. However, just so that others who read this thread get something
closer to an accurate picture, I decided to go ahead.

If you can read this without trying to turn this into a flame war or
similar, please proceed. If not, please don't bother continuing.

Still here? Good. For the record, I'm not a Windows fanboy, although I
do use Windows. I'm also not a Linux fanboy, although I do use Linux.
I don't love or hate Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman or
anyone else involved in the computing industry. I also don't always
agree or disagree with their decisions, business practices or even the
way they dress.




Sure - one of the applications you used still has the folder in use.
Same thing happens if you have the folder open in Explorer, or are at a
command prompt and are at that directory, etc., whether in Vista, XP,
Windows 2000, or likely any other Windows version.


Nowhere do I see from what you have posted that Vista considers
attempting to delete the folder as a threat - it just says you can't
delete it because it is in use.


Naturally - the application that you were using still had the folder
open. Restarting it released the folder so it could be deleted. Call
it what you will, but from my perspective it would be more reckless to
allow Vista to delete a folder that was still in use by an application.


Again, nowhere is Vista saying it is a threat. It seems pretty clear
from what you've posted so far that the programmers of one of the
applications you are using has left the folder open / in use internally.
If anything, they are the ones that need to do something different, not
Vista's programmers.


I'll leave this as an exercise for the class...

Regards,

Dave

The exercise would be to notice how carefully Dave cherry picked what
I said and totally ignored the fact that a EMPTY folder is prevented
by Vista from being deleted, without first closing the application
that USED it, (note not using now... as in still in use, USED), yet a
file in the folder getting altered, renamed, copied or moved isn't
flagged.

This is the same moronic logic that can cause UAC to throw up a
warning if you attempt to delete a shortcut from your desktop.

If or not the application left a folder open isn't the point. That's a
ruse. Vista, as the OPERATING SYSTEM is suppose to be control, surely
of file operations. If the OS is too dumb to think deleting a empty
folder that the user requested is more a concern that working on the
contents of the folder, then the logic of the OS must be called into
question. Of course fanboys ALWAYS forgive Microsoft and try to shift
the blame.

Thanks for playing. ;-)

 

[Dave R.]

The exercise would be to notice how carefully Dave cherry picked what
I said

I wasn't cherry picking in the way you are implying. I responded to
points you made that I felt were inaccurate or off-base. I left it to
others to discuss anything else they felt it appropriate to discuss.

and totally ignored the fact that a EMPTY folder is prevented
by Vista from being deleted,

I didn't comment on the folder being empty because that isn't an issue.
If an application has notified Windows that it has a folder open, it
doesn't matter if there are one, one million, or zero files in the
folder. The fact that the application hasn't notified Windows that it
is done with the folder is what is important.

without first closing the application
that USED it, (note not using now... as in still in use, USED),

But, the application IS STILL USING the folder from the operating
system's perspective until the application releases it's hold on the
folder. I think this is where your understanding of what is happening
starts to diverge from what is really happening. Instead of closing the
application, next time use the application to open a file in a different
folder. That will release the applications hold on the original folder
which will notify the operating system that it is no longer in use.

Mind you, not all applications handle folder access this way. Some are
better written than others and don't hold a folder in use unless they
are actually using the folder. Your application appears to be taking
the easy way out and as a consequence Windows takes the safe approach
and does not allow the folder to be deleted until the hold is released.

yet a
file in the folder getting altered, renamed, copied or moved isn't
flagged.

If an application still had the file marked as in use, it *would* get
flagged the same way the folder is.

This is the same moronic logic that can cause UAC to throw up a
warning if you attempt to delete a shortcut from your desktop.

Just so you don't argue that I'm cherry picking again, I'll comment on
this as well. If UAC is warning about deleting shortcuts from your
desktop, then I agree that is a problem. The only way I can think of
(and even here, I don't completely agree) where a UAC prompt when
deleting a shortcut from the desktop might be appropriate is that, if
the shortcut isn't a per-user shortcut (i.e. a shortcut in the Public
desktop) since you are leaving your private user space and affecting
another user's space. If UAC is prompting for deleting desktop
shortcuts under other circumstances, I'd have to know what the
circmstances were to decide if I thought it was appropriate or not, but
nothing else comes to mind.

If or not the application left a folder open isn't the point.

You aparently don't see it, but that's exactly the point. If the
application has opened the folder in the way your app does, effectively
saying "hey, operating system, I'm working in this folder, OK?" then for
the OS to allow it to be deleted wouldn't be appropriate. Allowing that
to happen would likely make your application crash since it thinks it
has the folder open.

That's a
ruse. Vista, as the OPERATING SYSTEM is suppose to be control, surely
of file operations.

And indeed it is in control of file operations. And one of the OS's
file operations jobs is traffic cop - that is, preventing one
application (Windows Explorer) from doing something inappropriate
(deleting) to a resource (the folder) that is being used by another
application (your application).

If the OS is too dumb to think deleting a empty
folder that the user requested is more a concern that working on the
contents of the folder, then the logic of the OS must be called into
question.

Again, you are missing it. It doesn't think deleting an empty folder is
more of a concern than working on the contents of the folder, it thinks
that allowing you to delete a folder that it has been told is *in use*
is more of a concern than modifying other resources that it has *not*
been told are *in use*.

Of course fanboys ALWAYS forgive Microsoft and try to shift
the blame.

<Sigh> I was afraid of this. OK, listen - I'm definitely not a fanboy.
There are plenty of things that Microsoft has done in Windows that I
think are misguided, poorly architected, badly implemented, and often
flat-out wrong. Windows continues to become more and more bloated with
useless garbage and eye candy. The UI continues to become less and less
usable and seems to be embracing change for the sake of change.
Microsoft has only recently decided that security is more than an
afterthought, and the product of that revelation is in Vista. In
general I think they are on the right path, but even though I understand
that this is just their first shot at it I think that their
implementation leaves much to be desired.

At home, I do not use a version of Windows newer than Windows 2000
because of those and other issues, not the least of which is the
draconian and flawed activation / validation / genuine advantage
nonsense. Where I can, I've moved to other operating systems entirely.
But for some things, and for my job, I still have to use Windows. In my
job, that means primarily XP and Server 2003, and now Vista (and
eventually Longhorn Server) so I do continue to have experience and
exposure to Micorsoft's current offerings. I just personally choose not
to use them.

In this case however, I'm not trying to forgive Microsoft, nor am I
trying to shift the blame (although if you call it shifting the blame
when I point out that something other than Windows is the cause of what
you are experiencing, then I suppose I'll admit guilt.) If you read
carefully what I've written it should be evident that I'm trying to
explain why it is that the behavior you are seeing is appropriate and
expected. If you can't or don't, then we'll just have to agree to
disagree. In either case, there is no need to stoop to name calling.

Thanks for playing. ;-)

You are welcome.

Regards,

Dave