New Bug in XP SP2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry Baker
  • Start date Start date
J

Jerry Baker

There is a bug in XP SP2 that I believe did not exist prior to SP2.
Luckily, it's easy to recreate. Create a directory somewhere named
"test". Now, create a file in another directory that is also named
"test". Now try to move that file into the same directory that contains
the "test" directory. Windows will ask you if you want to replace the
directory with the file. It won't let you place it no matter what you do.

EXAMPLE:

1. Create a directory C:\test
2. Create a file on your desktop called "test" (no extension).
3. Try to drag the file named "test" into the root directory of your C:
drive.

Windows shell should know the difference between a file and a directory.
That's pretty lame.
 
/Jerry Baker/ said:
There is a bug in XP SP2 that I believe did not exist prior to SP2.
Luckily, it's easy to recreate. Create a directory somewhere named
"test". Now, create a file in another directory that is also named
"test". Now try to move that file into the same directory that contains
the "test" directory. Windows will ask you if you want to replace the
directory with the file. It won't let you place it no matter what you do.

EXAMPLE:

1. Create a directory C:\test
2. Create a file on your desktop called "test" (no extension).
3. Try to drag the file named "test" into the root directory of your C:
drive.

Windows shell should know the difference between a file and a directory.
That's pretty lame.
Click to expand...

Using RC for SP2, works fine here...if the file has an extension.
 
dev said:
Using RC for SP2, works fine here...if the file has an extension.
Click to expand...

If I create C:\test.txt (a directory) I cannot then create a test.txt
file in the C:\ directory. Windows errors out, telling me a file with
that name already exists.
 
Jerry Baker said:
If I create C:\test.txt (a directory) I cannot then create a test.txt
file in the C:\ directory. Windows errors out, telling me a file with
that name already exists.
Click to expand...

Not yet installed SP2 (running XP HOME) & here's what I got
1.Created C:\test.txt directory.
2. TRIED to save a file called C:\test.txt - the save window says "SAVE IN"
C:\ & with "FILE NAME" test.txt - but when I click on "SAVE", rather than
save, it changes the save window to show "SAVE IN" as C:\test.txt - so I
can't save file test.txt on C:\ if C:\test.txt directory already exists - so
it may not really be a new SP2 problem (may have just changed).
 
Jerry Baker said:
You are going about it wrong. That has always happened, and that's not
the bug I am trying to describe. Try saving the file with another name
and then rename it using Windows Explorer.
Click to expand...

OK - tried it again. Here's what I did this time (Remember - I've not yet
installed SP2)

1. Created a directory called C:\test.txt
2. Saved a file as C:\jack.txt
3. In File Manager, right-clicked on C:\jack.txt & selected rename.
5. When I tried to change the name to test.txt I got the mesage "Cannot
rename jack: a file with the name you specified already exists. Specify a
different file name.".

Sorry - looks the problem predates SP2. And in terms of best practices, I'd
say trying to create a file & directory with the same name is generally a
bad idea anyway.
 
Enkidu said:
If the same name was allowed, Windows would have to check both the
name field and the type field *every* time an operation was performed
on a directory. It could be done, but the cost would be extra I/Os and
extra processing.

Cheers,

Cliff
Click to expand...

Windows already does this in the shell all the time. How else does it
know whether to display a "folder" or a file icon.
 
Jerry Baker wrote:

Windows already does this in the shell all the time. How else does it
know whether to display a "folder" or a file icon.
Click to expand...

Windows might know how to do it. How confident are you about that 7 year old
line of business accountancy application which still has to run on the
system to get the accounts done?

Or that 5 year old game that you don't even like very much yourself, any
more, but the kids love.

Or that funky alternative to explorer that was really written for Windows
98, but still "seems" to be compatible with Windows XP?

Its often people insisting on still running things like that which cause
Windows to have to do dumb looking things like this.

Rob
MS MVP
 
Robert said:
Its often people insisting on still running things like that which cause
Windows to have to do dumb looking things like this.

Rob
MS MVP
Click to expand...

What strikes me is this:

In situations like this you have two groups:

1) People who have legacy applications that require the operating system
to behave the way "it used to" or else their apps will break

2) People who want to do new things and cannot because of number 1.

Given that the two groups are for all intents and purposes equal, why
does MS usually chose to appease group #1?
 
Jerry said:
What strikes me is this:

In situations like this you have two groups:

1) People who have legacy applications that require the operating
system to behave the way "it used to" or else their apps will break

2) People who want to do new things and cannot because of number 1.

Given that the two groups are for all intents and purposes equal, why
does MS usually chose to appease group #1?
Click to expand...

It's a fine line to walk. Actually if you look at some of the changes with
XP SP2 to how various things would work, I'd say things have moved the other
way this time and we're seeing more balance between the two sets of needs.
And not before time.

Rob
 
Back
Top