Telling Explr to settle down

[[email protected]]

In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was good. But
alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff from the
old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is the
case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I open a
file from WE, do something with it, and close/save, this
stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the bottom
of the folder listing, regardless of the order the folder is
sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the right
thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
accending by date then it would make sense, but otherwise it
is completely idiotic!

So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop this
rediculas action, please post it!

Thanks
gm

[Ron Martell]

wrote:

>In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
>good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was good. But
>alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff from the
>old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
>later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is the
>case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I open a
>file from WE, do something with it, and close/save, this
>stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the bottom
>of the folder listing, regardless of the order the folder is
>sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the right
>thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
>accending by date then it would make sense, but otherwise it
>is completely idiotic!
>
>So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop this
>rediculas action, please post it!
>

New items are always added at the bottom of the list, until the view
is refreshed that is.

To sort the list again right-click on explorer panel and select
"refresh".

Or if you are using the Details view click on the Name column header
to sort again by name. Click again to invert the sort.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

[[email protected]]

Ron Martell wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
> >good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was good. But
> >alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff from the
> >old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
> >later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is the
> >case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I open a
> >file from WE, do something with it, and close/save, this
> >stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the bottom
> >of the folder listing, regardless of the order the folder is
> >sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the right
> >thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
> >accending by date then it would make sense, but otherwise it
> >is completely idiotic!
> >
> >So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop this
> >rediculas action, please post it!
> >
>
> New items are always added at the bottom of the list, until the view
> is refreshed that is.
>
> To sort the list again right-click on explorer panel and select
> "refresh".
>
> Or if you are using the Details view click on the Name column header
> to sort again by name. Click again to invert the sort.
>
> Good luck
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
re-saved! I prefer F5 for refresh personally, but the request it to not
need to do this since it is stupid for windows to move the file out of
it's appropriate sorted location in the first place! So I am still
hoping someone will post a hack to stop this ridiculous "feature"!
gm

[Greg]

If it has been changed in any way Win may
see it as a new file and put it at the bottom.
>-----Original Message-----
>Ron Martell wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
>> >good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was
good. But
>> >alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff
from the
>> >old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
>> >later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is
the
>> >case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I
open a
>> >file from WE, do something with it, and close/save,
this
>> >stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the
bottom
>> >of the folder listing, regardless of the order the
folder is
>> >sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the
right
>> >thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
>> >accending by date then it would make sense, but
otherwise it
>> >is completely idiotic!
>> >
>> >So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop
this
>> >rediculas action, please post it!
>> >
>>
>> New items are always added at the bottom of the list,
until the view
>> is refreshed that is.
>>
>> To sort the list again right-click on explorer panel
and select
>> "refresh".
>>
>> Or if you are using the Details view click on the Name
column header
>> to sort again by name. Click again to invert the sort.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
>> --
>> Microsoft MVP
>> On-Line Help Computer Service
>> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>>
>> "The reason computer chips are so small is computers
don't eat much."
>
>Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was
not referring
>to new items being added, I was referring to the item
already being
>there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the
bottom when
>re-saved! I prefer F5 for refresh personally, but the
request it to not
>need to do this since it is stupid for windows to move
the file out of
>it's appropriate sorted location in the first place! So
I am still
>hoping someone will post a hack to stop this
ridiculous "feature"!
>gm
>
>
>.
>

[WoofWoof]

wrote:

> Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
> to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
> there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
> re-saved! I prefer F5 for refresh personally, but the request it to not
> need to do this since it is stupid for windows to move the file out of
> it's appropriate sorted location in the first place! So I am still
> hoping someone will post a hack to stop this ridiculous "feature"!
> gm

Another annoying little habit:

If you open a window (where the contents more than fill the window),
and select and open a directory. Then navigate from there back (or up)
to the original window. The directory that you originally selected
(with its highlight) is scrolled up so that it's no longer visible and
you have to scroll it down again to get to it, or a few succeeding
directories. Very annoying if you're searching through directories in
sequence

[Jeff Richards]

It's a performance issue. To refresh the listing takes time. If it gets
automatically refresshed after every change it can seriously slow things
down, especially with a large folder and a slow PC. FAT32 has a number of
performance issues like this.

Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)

> wrote in message ...
> snip <
>
> Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
> to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
> there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
> re-saved! I prefer F5 for refresh personally, but the request it to not
> need to do this since it is stupid for windows to move the file out of
> it's appropriate sorted location in the first place! So I am still
> hoping someone will post a hack to stop this ridiculous "feature"!
> gm
>
>

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the input Jeff. That makes sense if it were a choice between
sorting and doing nothing. However, WE is not "doing nothing", it is removing
the file from the list where it was originally, and putting it at the bottom
(presumable by a sort by date default function but that's a guess).

If the goal was indead to maximize performance, then leaving the file where it
was in the list would be the faster performance. The name hasn't changed, why
move it. (It wasn't necessary for FM to move the file!!) I use Windows 2000
at work, and it does the same thing. I am pretty certain the computer there
is using NTFS so it seems like and OS problem not a file system problem to me!

So, still waiting for the expert hacker to post a way to correct this....!!
-gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

> It's a performance issue. To refresh the listing takes time. If it gets
> automatically refresshed after every change it can seriously slow things
> down, especially with a large folder and a slow PC. FAT32 has a number of
> performance issues like this.
>
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (DTS)
>
> > wrote in message ...
> > snip <
> >
> > Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
> > to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
> > there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
> > re-saved! I prefer F5 for refresh personally, but the request it to not
> > need to do this since it is stupid for windows to move the file out of
> > it's appropriate sorted location in the first place! So I am still
> > hoping someone will post a hack to stop this ridiculous "feature"!
> > gm
> >
> >

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

>> > wrote in message ...

>> > Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
>> > to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
>> > there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
>> > re-saved!

I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.

Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

[Jeff Richards]

That's not how processing items in a list works in W98. If there is any
possibility that any details (even a non-displayed item) in a listed entry
has changed, the item has to be removed from the list and re-added. Adding
an item at the end of a list is trivial - refreshing the list so that it is
sorted properly is major overhead.

Adding the item back into its proper place would involve finding out how the
list is currently sorted and finding the correct sort position, remembering
that the sort item, such as date, might have been changed. It's doable, but
it's not simple.

It is an OS issue, not a file system issue. I am ussuming that FAT32
performance is a reason that the list was not automatically refreshed,
because I have seen how FAT32 performs under heavy load. The issue could
have been overcome by more sophisticated list processing, but they chose not
to - having written list processing routines myself, I understand how
comlicated it can get.

AFAIK thre is no magic switch to turn auto-refresh on, but if someone proves
my wrong I would be happy to add the tweak to my list of useful W9x tips.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
> wrote in message ...
> Thanks for the input Jeff. That makes sense if it were a choice between
> sorting and doing nothing. However, WE is not "doing nothing", it is
> removing
> the file from the list where it was originally, and putting it at the
> bottom
> (presumable by a sort by date default function but that's a guess).
>
> If the goal was indead to maximize performance, then leaving the file
> where it
> was in the list would be the faster performance. The name hasn't changed,
> why
> move it. (It wasn't necessary for FM to move the file!!) I use Windows
> 2000
> at work, and it does the same thing. I am pretty certain the computer
> there
> is using NTFS so it seems like and OS problem not a file system problem to
> me!
>
> So, still waiting for the expert hacker to post a way to correct
> this....!!
> -gm

[Jeff Richards]

Good point - the other day I had to apply a simple update to all files in a
folder. As I saved each one after the update the next one popped to the top
of the folder listing automatically!
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
...
>>> <snip>

>
> I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
> has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
> the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.
>
> Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.
>

[[email protected]]

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" wrote:

> >> > wrote in message ...
>
> >> > Thanks for taking the time to respond Ron. However I was not referring
> >> > to new items being added, I was referring to the item already being
> >> > there, already being sorted, but being shoved to the bottom when
> >> > re-saved!
>
> I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
> has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
> the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.
>
> Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.
>
> >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Tip Of The Day:
> To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
> >-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but to each his own.
gm

[[email protected]]

Jeff Richards wrote:

> Good point - the other day I had to apply a simple update to all files in a
> folder. As I saved each one after the update the next one popped to the top
> of the folder listing automatically!
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (DTS)
> "cquirke (MVP Win9x)" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> <snip>
>
> >
> > I quite like that. If adding or changing 5 dirs in a location that
> > has 100 dirs in it already, it's nice that the right pane shows only
> > the changed ones if the parent dir is not expanded.
> >
> > Makes it easier to flip between them without wading through the rest.
> >

One thing this tread wil show if nothing else, is that any "feature" can be
considered good by one and bad by another!
gm

[[email protected]]

Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could do this
with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my super-duper
2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much crap
the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't have time
to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack come
through but it ain't looking good so far!
gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

> That's not how processing items in a list works in W98. If there is any
> possibility that any details (even a non-displayed item) in a listed entry
> has changed, the item has to be removed from the list and re-added. Adding
> an item at the end of a list is trivial - refreshing the list so that it is
> sorted properly is major overhead.
>
> Adding the item back into its proper place would involve finding out how the
> list is currently sorted and finding the correct sort position, remembering
> that the sort item, such as date, might have been changed. It's doable, but
> it's not simple.
>
> It is an OS issue, not a file system issue. I am ussuming that FAT32
> performance is a reason that the list was not automatically refreshed,
> because I have seen how FAT32 performs under heavy load. The issue could
> have been overcome by more sophisticated list processing, but they chose not
> to - having written list processing routines myself, I understand how
> comlicated it can get.
>
> AFAIK thre is no magic switch to turn auto-refresh on, but if someone proves
> my wrong I would be happy to add the tweak to my list of useful W9x tips.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (DTS)
> > wrote in message ...
> > Thanks for the input Jeff. That makes sense if it were a choice between
> > sorting and doing nothing. However, WE is not "doing nothing", it is
> > removing
> > the file from the list where it was originally, and putting it at the
> > bottom
> > (presumable by a sort by date default function but that's a guess).
> >
> > If the goal was indead to maximize performance, then leaving the file
> > where it
> > was in the list would be the faster performance. The name hasn't changed,
> > why
> > move it. (It wasn't necessary for FM to move the file!!) I use Windows
> > 2000
> > at work, and it does the same thing. I am pretty certain the computer
> > there
> > is using NTFS so it seems like and OS problem not a file system problem to
> > me!
> >
> > So, still waiting for the expert hacker to post a way to correct
> > this....!!
> > -gm

[Jeff Richards]

Why are you running Windows 98 on a machine with that specification?
Surely you would use a newer OS that could take advantage of all that
processing power. I don't think it's worth sticking with W98 for anything
faster than about 800Mhz.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (DTS)
> wrote in message ...
> Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could
> do this
> with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my
> super-duper
> 2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much
> crap
> the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't
> have time
> to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack
> come
> through but it ain't looking good so far!
> gm

[[email protected]]

I have Win98 on a P3-700 and a P4-2800 with similar other hardware including
the same amount of memory and virtually identical video cards. The P4 is
noticably faster, so as far as I can tell staying with 98 doesn't inhibit
improvement as you suggest. Perhaps you are running some specific application
that can benefit from a newer windows. But I've tried XP, and in the interest
of not further getting way off topic, I will just say I personally saw no
reason to stay with that OS.

But to directly answer your question, because I OWN Win98 already!
-gm

Jeff Richards wrote:

> Why are you running Windows 98 on a machine with that specification?
> Surely you would use a newer OS that could take advantage of all that
> processing power. I don't think it's worth sticking with W98 for anything
> faster than about 800Mhz.
> --
> Jeff Richards
> MS MVP (DTS)
> > wrote in message ...
> > Well, all I can think is that if my 33MHz Windoze 3.1 File manager could
> > do this
> > with no noticable delay whatsoever, then one would surely think my
> > super-duper
> > 2.8GHz Win98 machine (~84 times faster) could also! Just shows how much
> > crap
> > the newer windoze must be doing in the background such that it doesn't
> > have time
> > to keep up with the simple stuff, but I digress. I just hope that hack
> > come
> > through but it ain't looking good so far!
> > gm

[[email protected]]

wrote:

> In the beginning, Bill created File Manager, and it was
> good. Then Bill created Explorer, and it too was good. But
> alas, as with every "update/upgrade" the good stuff from the
> old is often forsaken, (usually so it can be added back
> later and resold as the next "u/u"!). This sadly is the
> case of the hyper-active Windows Explorer, for when I open a
> file from WE, do something with it, and close/save, this
> stupid programs decides the file needs stuck at the bottom
> of the folder listing, regardless of the order the folder is
> sorted! Why the !#% this programs thinks that is the right
> thing to do is beyond me! If the folder was sorted
> accending by date then it would make sense, but otherwise it
> is completely idiotic!
>
> So, if you happen to know a tweak to WE that will stop this
> rediculas action, please post it!
>
> Thanks
> gm

Thanks for all the commentary. However I really would like to
redirect this thread to the question posted. Specifically, is
there a way to tweak WE so that it doesn't put the file at the
bottom every time I access it? If someone knows a way to
accomplish this please post it!
Thanks,
gm