File sorting issue, XP loss of function that was found in Win98

[Shawna]

Lemon Jelly,

You said, "It would be useful if others would confirm if
the sub-folders jump from 1st to last"

Both Win98 cause the sub-folders jump from 1st to last.

The difference is that:
In Win98 the Folders are first when you sort NEWEST TO
OLDEST.
In WinXP the Folders are first when you sort OLDEST TO
NEWEST.

When you use the file system day after day it becomes
clear that the way Win98 does it is by far the most
convenient.

Thanks again,
Shawna

 

[mrtee]

Your 20 megs is used up, can't see.

--
Just my 2¢ worth
Jeff
__________in response to__________
|
|
|
|
| Kelly,
| Thanks for looking into it.
| I'm sorry, those pop ups are not mine. They are from the
| cheap (free) web host, O.catch.com. If you know where I
| can free *clean* web hosting. I will use that in the
| future.
| Thanks again, and sorry - again.
| Shawna
|

 

[mrtee]

www.v-com.com PowerDesk keeps folders on the top level.

--
Just my 2¢ worth
Jeff
__________in response to__________
|
| Wow, thanks, John, for your work. I have had this trouble
| on every XP machine I have ever seen. It's the way it
| comes for MS.
|
| I agree that Folders are important enough to always be on
| top. I suppose one may way to see all items including
| folders listed by date to get a chronological history of
| the file and folder structure.
|
| I'm afraid to say this now but:
| Ultimately I wish to Arrange the Icons inside my Folders
| thus:
|
| All concurrently:
| 1st by: all folders (Alphabetically a-z)
| 2nd by: all files (by Date with newest files at the top-
| just under the folders)
| Then, set that regime to apply to all folders
|
|
| I hope this is possible. It would greatly assist in
| locating my files.
| Windows 98 did this just fine, and I got spoiled I guess.
|
| Shawna

 

[Shawna]

Thanks Jeff,
I posted it to another funky host but I won't keep it
updated there.
http://www.scn.org/~bb523/Screenshots.htm
Can somebody tell me of a free web host that is not so
limited?

 

[Shawna]

Jeff,

Thanks for the info. Maybe I'll need to get that.

The trouble with using 3rd party software is that it
becomes more difficult to walk other's through proceedures
since your system is out of sync with their's. It's
especially difficult when doing this telephonically.

Shawna

 

[Star Fleet Admiral Q]

I see now Shawna, but I've been using Win2k/WinXP for so long, that I've
just gotten used to "Folders" being at the bottom in a reverse sort - I
apologize for not taking longer into seeing what your complaint was.

 

[Shawna]

Star Fleet Admiral Q,
Apology accepted, thank you. You are an admirable admiral.
Now, that it appears you understand my complaint, can you
verify that Win2k sort identically to WinXP with respect
to my stated concerns?
Thanks.
Shawna

 

[Quaoar]

Here is the difference between win98 and XP that has
driven me nuts since XP's launch.

-------
In "details" display, click the column header "Date
Modified". When the files are listed from newest to
oldest:

In Win98 the folders are at the TOP.

In WinXP the folders are at the BOTTOM.
-------

Window 98 does it exactly the opposite of Windows XP.

We shouldn't have to search around each folder just to see
both the folders and the most recent files. Both should
appear when we simply open the folder. Win98 worked well.

On the advice of some wise poster, I put up a web page
with screen shots to better explain the problem.
http://321.0catch.com/Screenshots.htm
Please check it out.
Shawna

Crossposting the entire known usenet universe is considered seriously
bad form and some knowledgeable people will not respond since they
"know" someone in a crossposted group will respond. I have seen
crossposted queries go unanswered as a result.

Q

 

[Kelly]

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by

design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

"This is by design." )

 

[Shawna]

Yes Kelly,

It all make sense now. It's part of the easter egg hunt
XP. Now you can hunt for every file! Now you can
frequently change your sort order so the files can be
*anywhere*! Now you never find both your folders and your
most recent files in the same place (unless your list of
files and folders is short)! You get to use many more
repetitive key strokes, mouse points and clicks! Thus
making the hunting game much more fun!

MS really is getting into the gaming world. And why not?
The serious software is just too boring and not enough fun!

Hurrah,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

"This is by design." )

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

Soooo, I get an A for effort?

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

John

.

 

[David Candy]

I know how the Office team thinks. They strive for internal consistancy.

By this the 98 way is wrong. If a user reverses the sort order then one would expect the whole list to reverse, not just files.

The fact that someone is used to one way isn't a reason to always do things wrong in the future. Try adapting to the software. Regard 98 as teaching you to use a computer the wrong way.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.g2mil.com/Dec2003.htm

Yes Kelly,

It all make sense now. It's part of the easter egg hunt
XP. Now you can hunt for every file! Now you can
frequently change your sort order so the files can be
*anywhere*! Now you never find both your folders and your
most recent files in the same place (unless your list of
files and folders is short)! You get to use many more
repetitive key strokes, mouse points and clicks! Thus
making the hunting game much more fun!

MS really is getting into the gaming world. And why not?
The serious software is just too boring and not enough fun!

Hurrah,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

"This is by design." )

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

Soooo, I get an A for effort?

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

John

.

 

[Shawna]

Dear David,
You can't be serious. You really *are* saying this is by
design? I don't really care so much if the whole list is
reversed each time you click the column header. Win98 did
that too, that's fine. Most importantly, just put the
most recent files where they can be seen along with the
folders instead of the oldest files that have apparently
been unused, or at least unchanged for some time. New
files are sought after far more than old files. It's like
putting your most frequently used tools somewhere in the
back of the shed where you have to trip over other tool to
get to them.

If you still think you are right, please explain how Win98
is wrong. It is consistent in every way XP is, just more
user friendly too - in this regard.

BTW
MS Excel has a sort tool for spreadsheets that allows you
to sort by three key sort orders concurrently. It works
very well for Excel. It would be ideal if MS would
implement a similar tool for Explorer.
I posted a shot of that tool on my web page at
http://321.0catch.com/Screenshots.htm
Anyhow, I'm not looking to get this developed right now
for XP, I just have a hard time going backwards. If it's
ok to go backwards for you, then bully for you.

Toodle-oo,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----
I know how the Office team thinks. They strive for internal consistancy.

By this the 98 way is wrong. If a user reverses the sort

order then one would expect the whole list to reverse, not
just files.

The fact that someone is used to one way isn't a reason

to always do things wrong in the future. Try adapting to
the software. Regard 98 as teaching you to use a computer
the wrong way.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.g2mil.com/Dec2003.htm

Yes Kelly,

It all make sense now. It's part of the easter egg hunt
XP. Now you can hunt for every file! Now you can
frequently change your sort order so the files can be
*anywhere*! Now you never find both your folders and your
most recent files in the same place (unless your list of
files and folders is short)! You get to use many more
repetitive key strokes, mouse points and clicks! Thus
making the hunting game much more fun!

MS really is getting into the gaming world. And why not?
The serious software is just too boring and not enough fun!

Hurrah,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

"This is by design." )

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

Shawna wrote:
Wow, thanks, John, for your work. I have had this trouble
on every XP machine I have ever seen. It's the way it
comes for MS.

Soooo, I get an A for effort?

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

John

.

.

 

[David Candy]

I'm not saying it was by design as I don't know. I was just giving insight in how one programming team at MS thinks.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.g2mil.com/Dec2003.htm

Dear David,
You can't be serious. You really *are* saying this is by
design? I don't really care so much if the whole list is
reversed each time you click the column header. Win98 did
that too, that's fine. Most importantly, just put the
most recent files where they can be seen along with the
folders instead of the oldest files that have apparently
been unused, or at least unchanged for some time. New
files are sought after far more than old files. It's like
putting your most frequently used tools somewhere in the
back of the shed where you have to trip over other tool to
get to them.

If you still think you are right, please explain how Win98
is wrong. It is consistent in every way XP is, just more
user friendly too - in this regard.

BTW
MS Excel has a sort tool for spreadsheets that allows you
to sort by three key sort orders concurrently. It works
very well for Excel. It would be ideal if MS would
implement a similar tool for Explorer.
I posted a shot of that tool on my web page at
http://321.0catch.com/Screenshots.htm
Anyhow, I'm not looking to get this developed right now
for XP, I just have a hard time going backwards. If it's
ok to go backwards for you, then bully for you.

Toodle-oo,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----
I know how the Office team thinks. They strive for internal consistancy.

By this the 98 way is wrong. If a user reverses the sort

order then one would expect the whole list to reverse, not
just files.

The fact that someone is used to one way isn't a reason

to always do things wrong in the future. Try adapting to
the software. Regard 98 as teaching you to use a computer
the wrong way.

--
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.g2mil.com/Dec2003.htm

Yes Kelly,

It all make sense now. It's part of the easter egg hunt
XP. Now you can hunt for every file! Now you can
frequently change your sort order so the files can be
*anywhere*! Now you never find both your folders and your
most recent files in the same place (unless your list of
files and folders is short)! You get to use many more
repetitive key strokes, mouse points and clicks! Thus
making the hunting game much more fun!

MS really is getting into the gaming world. And why not?
The serious software is just too boring and not enough fun!

Hurrah,
Shawna

-----Original Message-----

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

"This is by design." )

--
All the Best,
Kelly

MS-MVP Win98/XP
[AE-Windows® XP]

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Utilities for Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_u.htm#xp_util

Shawna wrote:
Wow, thanks, John, for your work. I have had this trouble
on every XP machine I have ever seen. It's the way it
comes for MS.

Soooo, I get an A for effort?

Actually, I'm just waiting around to hear the dreaded words, "This is by
design." and am surprised it hasn't been said already.

John

.

.

 

[John]

"This is by design." )

Thanks a lot Kelly.

You are correct, though. It turns out that both Win95 and WinME put the
folders on the bottom with any reverse sort. I suspect Win98 does this also.

<sheepishly> Obviously I never noticed this during the last eight years,
so it cannot be an issue for me. :-/

John

 

[David Candy]

I never noticed it either. If you turn on Show In Groups and look at that absolutely stupid sort. Then if;
Sorting by name folders are intermingled,
Sorting by type they are under F with a - e appearing above.

 

[Shawna]

Regardless of what is forward and reverse: Somewhere
between Win 98 SE and XP, Microsoft began putting the OLD
files next to the folders instead of NEW files next to the
folders in date sorts.

My main point is that both FOLDERS and NEW FILES should
appear together - at the SAME END of the list. Not at
OPPOSITE ENDS.

FOLDERS and NEW FILES are sought after far more than old
files.

Putting FOLDERS and NEW FILES at opposite ends of the list
creates the need to hunt for one or the other. It's like
putting your most frequently used tools somewhere in the
back of the shed where you have to trip over junk to get
to them. They both (FOLDERS and NEW FILES) should appear
readily seen at the same end of the list - no hunting, no
key strokes, no mouse points and clicks.

--- These file management programs understood this:
Horton Commander (under dos and windows) did it back in
the late eighties. I was first spoiled using this.
Windows 95 did it. I continued to be spoiled.
Windows 98 (original 4.10.1998) did it! I continued to be
spoiled.
Windows 98 SE did it! Still spoiled.
Windows 2k (unknown) (I don't have an operating copy of
this, anyone who does is invited to provide a screen shot)
Windows ME (unknown) (I don't have an operating copy of
this, anyone who does is invited to provide a screen shot)

---These file management programs do not understand this:
Windows XP forgot how! (This is BAD)
Windows XP SP1 forgot how! (I thought they would fix XP in
SP1)(This is really BAD that they didn't get this basic
kink worked out the second try)

* Note to all: If you disagree with my findings, please
send me a screen shot of your file display.
Email (e-mail address removed)

 

[Kelly]

so it cannot be an issue for me. :-/

I hear you! )

 

[John]

Shawna wrote:

Regardless of what is forward and reverse: Somewhere
between Win 98 SE and XP, Microsoft began putting the OLD
files next to the folders instead of NEW files next to the
folders in date sorts.

Shawna calls it. Here are your screen shots, sans Win98.
http://www.jwfunke.net/windate/windate.htm

How weird! (or More things I never noticed. )
Win95 sort- new to old
WinME sort- old to new
*But* using File Manager instead of Explorer in WinMe gives the Win95
style sort.
WinXP sort- old to new

Unfortunately for you, Shawna, it seems "This is by design." (They also
got rid of the sometimes useful winfile.exe in XP.)

John

 

[Kelly]

Hi John,

Winfile.exe (Line 71) Right hand side
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm

 

[John]

Outstanding!!! Thank you Kelly!

John