undisclosed wrote:
(Paul1307 using vBulletin USENET gateway)
<snip>
Shenan said:
You do realize you responded to an old (July 1, 2008 - welecom to
December 20, 2009...) posting and did it without quoting any of the
previous conversation, right?
For those who are interested in the really old posting and/or what
Paul1307 added to it a year and a half later...
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.general/browse_frm/thread/b4c860e3a7800d53/
Enjoy!
Yes, I know it's old, but a quick scan through Google shows that
it's still relevant and somewhat prevalent. There are posts out
there - same problem - with Windows 7 demonstrating that it hasn't
gone away.
BTW - you're still monitoring this thing a year-and-a-half later!
LOL
Shenan said:
Monitoring? No. It popped up as a *new* message in my newsreader.
I saw the "Re:" and noticed it seemed to be an answer with no
actual reference. I then used Google Groups to search for the
subject line - in hopes you had not changed it. You had not, I got
a hit and provided the link to the full posting.
All you had to do was quote some of the original post or do what I
did and provide people with a link to the original conversation so
your posting was not just sitting out there - alone for most
people. Doesn't seem that difficult to me.
Your 'answers' seem to have little to do with the problem at hand.
• They were talking about the arrangement of icons on the desktop..
The order that the icons were placed, etc.
• You seem to be talking about permissions on files/folders.
No relation.
If I like my "My Computer" (or "Computer" dependent on the OS) icon
at the bottom right-most area of my screen - the permissions
granted on that icon/shortcut/link are not really in question or a
necessary component of my arrangement techniques (nor do they
affect the arrangement I have chosen.)
My last sugggestion for you would be that you review the older
topics you are reviving carefully before responding. ;-)
Well this will probably get fragged too. "Permissions don't matter."
Hmm, and where do you think this info is stored? The icon
permissions are part of the user's profile, which is in a file. And
the user noted that it was different in two locations, home, and
"in the morning" if I remember correctly, implying home and work.
Presumably, when he's at work he's on a network, and when he's on a
network his profile is stored on a network file server.
Which is why so many people seem to think that the problem of
self-motivating icons is a problem, of what, some precious whim of
their desktop and the auto-arrange function. Hardly. Two different
profiles implies two different icon arrangements, or if you prefer,
the two different icon arrangements point to two unsynchronized
profiles. Which implies two distinct locations for those profiles,
one on the local computer, the other on a network store. And on the
network store, the ownership and permissions on the folder(s) and
files where the "roaming profile" and redirected folders are stored
has everything to do with whether when a user logs in he can
successfully pull his profile (that would be the one containing the
location and arrangement of the desktop icons, wallpaper,
screen-saver, etc.) is stored and retrieved, and where changes made
to the profile are stored when the user logs off.
i guess maybe you had to have spent 10 years or so trouble-shooting
some of the world's largest computer networks to make the oblique
connection between desktop icons and permissions on a network
store...
So it's my fault that when you post a reply on the site it's too
dumb to associate with the thread within which it is posted? Sorry,
didn't realize I had to quote from previous threads to tie things
together; aren't computers supposed to be smart enough to do that
without manual intervention?
Still not quoting, eh? No worries - I put it all back.
Let's go with your paraphrase - it's not what I said. You say I said,
"Permissions don't matter." <-- you even put it in quotation marks like that
is what I said exactly. Nope. Luckily - it is archived indefinitely and I
quote what I am responding to when it is important. Notice - everything is
back above. ;-) My problem was not with your answer originally - and if you
want to throw out some theories on year and a half old postings and discuss
them - sure - I'll be continuing to do that for at least one more posting.
My issue was/still is your lack of quotation of previous posting - points of
reference. You cannot tell from your posting what you are replying to, what
was said before, etc - unless you happen to use the same news server as you
do (or web forum or whatever) or you go and look it up yourself. Poor show.
Now - you somehow made a connection with the original poster saying, "Using
Windows XP SP3, my laptop is connected to a docking station that utilizes
two monitors. At the end of the day I logged off, and take my laptop. When I
come back in the morning, I reconnect to the docking station and my icons
are rearranged."; and what you decide it is, "At the office the icon
arrangement is a part of you user profile stored on a network server"...
Okay... When the other two answers - the ones that were not disputed over a
year and a half of time - have to do with nothing but the actual placement
of the icons, I am unsure how you can jump to that conclusion.
Unless the network is highly restricted (don't believe this to be the case -
after all they *take their laptop* at night) - it is doubtful they are using
*any* sort of roaming profile/redirected folders. Maybe offline folders,
but even that would not rearrange your desktop. Unless the network admin
decided to use mandatory profiles or the profile itself is corrupted -
nothing you state is probable. In fact - the most probable answers have
been covered. Screen resolution difference (night time use vs. daytime
use - dual monitors vs. the single monitor of the laptop) - and painfully
obvious in this case is the fact they use their laptop as a laptop and as a
desktop with two monitors. So they probably put icons on both monitors,
take it home and the laptop will automatically adjust to the new resolution
of the single monitor so all icons are accesible and then it will *keep*
things that way - even when reconnected to the higher resolution dual
monitor setup the next day.
The solution given that works best IMO - something to remember/save icon
placement and allow you to restore it (or automatically restore it).
Several exist. Some come with the full software for the video cards.
It is a weak spot of Windows OSes - agreed - not remembering between monitor
swaps (or sometimes, remembering where open windows were placed even when
you don't have the monitors there anymore.)
I have spent _longer than 10 years_ on very large networks with romaing
profiles and 10's of thousands of users and know that unless you are doing
something very strict (mandatory profiles), are somehow corrupting profiles
or - as I think in this case - something that you think would be mundane
(the use of dual monitors in one location, single in another), the icon
placement will remain the same as you last set it for. Permissions,
re-synching with the network stored roaming profile, etc - won't do anything
to your icon placement as long as your ntuser.dat (registry) stays intact.
Only if there is a network hiccup during logon/logoff, some other corruption
of the ntuser.dat or (again) a mandatory profile in place would this rarity
occur where the icons get resorted with a roaming profile.
I don't believe this person has a roaming profile (active directory based)
and even if they do, I don't believe it is mandatory. I believe the
simplest and most obvious answer was/is still correct: They use dual
monitors at work, and just the laptop elsewhere and the Windows has
*nothing* built in to remember the location of monitors between different
resolutions. You have taken what was a simple issue, which would occur
whether he was on the same actual network and just switching between a
single monitor dock and dual montior dock, and made it something much more
than anyone (I suppose even the OP - considering they did not dispute the
answer in a year and a half) would normally assume it to be. While there is
some credence to your theory - if you put it in exact terms of roaming
profiles/network stored profiles/mandatory profiles/corruption of the
ntuser.dat - it is a much better bet that it's just a case of a problem that
occurs when anyone switches from multiple monitors to single monitor and
back again. ;-)
So I think that your original assumption was flawed. The explanation
there-after is not horrible (is within the realm of possibility) - but has
some mis-information in it without further explanation. I believe, quite
simply, you are assuming too much and figured you would not be questioned on
it because the post was so old, the user may not even remember they posted.
;-)
