Chkdsk/Scandisk

glee wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...
glee wrote:
"Char Jackson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 14 May 2012 17:36:22 -0500, "BillW50"
wrote:

In ,
Char Jackson typed:
On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:27:28 -0500, wrote:
I once read that the OS should remain invisible, and only provide
a means to run the visible software installed to it. I guess MS
has forgotten that, since these days the OSs are *in your face*
annoying....

You wouldn't believe some of the things I once read.

No it is true. OS were once created to be invisible and not get in the
way of the user. This was great since the user had the freedom to do
whatever they wanted too. It isn't that way with newer OS. As newer
OS assumes the user is a total moron and slaps their hand if it thinks
you
shouldn't be doing something you shouldn't. And all this does is to
make users dumber and dumber with each generation.

The OS of today is expected and demanded to do far more than at
anytime in the past. You can pine for the old days if you like, but
you'd have to drag me back there kicking and screaming.

Ah, the voice of sanity. There are a lot of things about Seven I do
not like at all.... particularly the Vista/Seven version of Windows
Explorer, which drives me crazy....

snip

??? I almost hate to ask, but I am curious as to what they did to
windows explorer. It was already one step backward in XP when they
removed the file extension column and replaced it with "file type".

Not sure what you mean, Bill. Win98 also had the "File type" column in
Explorer, and did not have an "extension" column. File extensions were
shown by using Tools Folder Options View to uncheck "Hide extensions
for known file types" or something like that.

I think my memory was a bit off on this one. Sorry. :-)

Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager, the
menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP. :-)

Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...windows-7/1020

--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

"Bill in Co" wrote in message
news
glee wrote:
snip
Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me
it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager, the
menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP. :-)

Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...windows-7/1020

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when working
in Seven.
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

In ,
Yousuf Khan typed:
On 15/05/2012 1:24 PM, BillW50 wrote:
What is even odder, is apparently *none* of the above is actually
true. As Cambridge University had no such research study for one. I
first saw this paragraph like 7 years or so ago and I don't know
where it originally came from.

reading jumbled letters
http://dan.hersam.com/2005/01/27/rea...mbled-letters/

And while I can't find examples right now, but others since then has
created paragraphs by the same rules which are almost impossible to
read. So I really don't understand how sometimes it works and
sometimes it doesn't.

Maybe if the words become too long, then the jumbling doesn't work any
more? Just as a guess, let's say that as long as the words are 7
letters long or less, then jumbling works, but beyond that, then you
do notice what the internal letters of the words are? Just a
hypothesis.

I was thinking about it yesterday and playing around with changing the
letters around in words. And it seems to me that if it at least would be
pronounced somewhat close to what the word really is, and then they seem
to be easy to read. But if it is phonemically totally different, it
becomes very hard to read.

Another possibility is that it works with dyslexic people better than
with others? I'm somewhat dyslexic and I had little problem reading
that paragraph.

Yes I am sure that changes things. I always suspected that I am also
dyslexic. Another thing about me is that I appear to be able to read
upside down and mirror images very well too. I don't know what that
means, except I am good at solving the Rubik's Cube too.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2

In news Ken Blake, MVP typed:
On Wed, 16 May 2012 11:56:43 -0400, Yousuf Khan
wrote:

Microsoft's older programmers were known for creating bugs more than
anything else. Spaghetti code was another description.

"Spaghetti code" does not mean buggy code. "Spaghetti code" is code
that is tangled with up and down gotos. It is the opposite of
Structured Programming.

I love spaghetti code! I even love machine language code even better. As
nothing runs faster and tighter. Plus you didn't have to worry about
bugs in programming language software. And the only bugs were your own.
Assembly language is my second favorite. Nobody seems to write in either
anymore.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...

??? I almost hate to ask, but I am curious as to what they did to
windows explorer. It was already one step backward in XP when
they removed the file extension column and replaced it with "file
type".

Not sure what you mean, Bill. Win98 also had the "File type" column
in Explorer, and did not have an "extension" column. File
extensions were shown by using Tools Folder Options View to
uncheck "Hide extensions for known file types" or something like
that.

The File Type isn't the same as the file extension. Sure you can show
the file extension under XP Explorer, but you don't sort by file
extension.

In Win98, you couldn't sort by extension either in Windows Explorer,
you sorted by file type. There was no 'file extension" column in
Details view in Explorer It was the same as XP.

You're kidding? Was it that way with Windows 95 too? I must be thinking
of Fileman.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

In ,
glee typed:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
news
glee wrote:
snip
Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me
it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager,
the menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP. :-)

Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...windows-7/1020

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when working
in Seven.

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time to
get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and up
either. :-(

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2

In ,
BillW50 typed:
On 5/15/2012 12:01 AM, glee wrote:
Ah, the voice of sanity. There are a lot of things about Seven I do
not like at all.... particularly the Vista/Seven version of Windows
Explorer, which drives me crazy.... but overall, the system is much
more trouble-free than previous operating systems. I was a big fan
of Win95, was a very late adopter of both 98SE and XP, but
eventually found them each to be progressively better than the
previous systems.... once software and hardware companies caught up
with the curve in making their products and drivers compatible.

Every version of Windows 3.1 and since, offered me a feature or two
that I really wanted. This worked for me all the way up to XP. And
Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8 doesn't have any features that I
could use and want. Worse is that those later OS eats much of the
processor power and leaves much less for applications.

For example, most of my machines has no problems recording TV programs
under XP. And it can also convert the video in real time from MPEG to
say WMV format at the same time. Although any OS later since XP can't
do this without dropping video frames with any of my over 20 laptops.

Another thing that newer versions of Windows did was support for newer
applications. This also isn't doing anything for me with Vista and
Windows 7/8 either. As everything I want to run still runs under XP.
And actually, Vista and Windows 7/8 runs less of what I want to run.
So for me, these newer Windows OS are far less useful to me
than XP is.

Another annoying thing in Windows 7/8 is when I hit CTRL-H (here we go
again with CTRL-H) under Word 2000, the find and replace window pops up
so slow. It is like watching grass grow. But under XP and under, this
same thing is very snappy. I don't understand why Microsoft thinks that
a newer OS should be bloated and slow for?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP2

In message , BillW50
writes:
In ,
typed:
[]
The CPU is a 1000mhz Intel Celeron, and I have 160 gigs of HD space
(Fat32). [I've never known if this CPU is a Pentium II or III]

If it is a Celeron that is what it is. A Pentium II and III are
different CPUs by Intel. Control Panel and System Properties should tell
you what CPU it is.
[]
Yes, but each successive generation of Celerons were actually in effect
a cut-down version of the current mainstream Pentium - in other words,
the speed/functionality/capability of the Celeron range approximately
mapped that of the front runner, with slight lags (or leaving out parts
that some applications, especially games, need).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... his charming, bumbling best, a serial monogamist terrified of commitment,
who comes across as a sort of Bertie Wooster but with a measurable IQ. - Barry
Norman on Hugh Grant's persona in certain films, Radio Times 3-9 July 2010

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
m...

??? I almost hate to ask, but I am curious as to what they did to
windows explorer. It was already one step backward in XP when
they removed the file extension column and replaced it with "file
type".

Not sure what you mean, Bill. Win98 also had the "File type"
column
in Explorer, and did not have an "extension" column. File
extensions were shown by using Tools Folder Options View to
uncheck "Hide extensions for known file types" or something like
that.

The File Type isn't the same as the file extension. Sure you can
show
the file extension under XP Explorer, but you don't sort by file
extension.

In Win98, you couldn't sort by extension either in Windows Explorer,
you sorted by file type. There was no 'file extension" column in
Details view in Explorer It was the same as XP.

You're kidding? Was it that way with Windows 95 too? I must be
thinking of Fileman.

It was the same in Win95, in Explorer. I'm looking at it right now.
The File Manager (winfile.exe, not fileman) doesn't have a file
extension column either... it also doesn't have a File Type column. The
available columns in the File Manager are Name, Size, last Modification
Date and Time, and File Attributes. You can choose the View menu By
File Type, then in the box that appears you can type in a file extension
(such as *.txt), and the File Manager will show only the files with that
extension in the right pane.... not the same as what you describe, no
columns showing file type OR extension. The file extensions are only
shown as part of the file name, in the Name column.
Well I think that's enough of doing someone else's homework, for now.
:-)
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
news
glee wrote:
snip
Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me
it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager,
the menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP. :-)

Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...windows-7/1020

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of
the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when
working
in Seven.

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time
to get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and
up either. :-(

I know.... that sux, doesn't it?
--
Glen Ventura
MS MVP Oct. 2002 - Sept. 2009
CompTIA A+

On Wed, 16 May 2012 20:18:33 -0400, "glee"
wrote:

"BillW50" wrote in message
...
In ,
glee typed:
"Bill in Co" wrote in message
news glee wrote:
snip
Windows Explorer in Vista and Seven are a bit different, and for me
it
is much harder to manipulate files and folders with it. You can't
travel through the folder trees as easily, the Back button works
differently, it acts more like a web browser than a file manager,
the menus that Explorer used to have are gone... the list goes on.

I don't like the sound of that at all!!
I think I'll stick with XP. :-)

Some big changes are coming for Windows Explorer in Windows 7:
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/win...windows-7/1020

Some people love it. For me, it's one of the biggest drawbacks of
the
operating system. I miss the old Windows Explorer often, when
working
in Seven.

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time
to get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and
up either. :-(

I know.... that sux, doesn't it?

In Windows 7, you hold the Shift key while right clicking on the
desired folder. The right click context menu includes an item called
"Copy as path".

Granted, this is different from XP and earlier, but it works well and
places the selected path in the clipboard.

On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:55:17 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

Another annoying thing in Windows 7/8 is when I hit CTRL-H (here we go
again with CTRL-H) under Word 2000, the find and replace window pops up
so slow. It is like watching grass grow. But under XP and under, this
same thing is very snappy. I don't understand why Microsoft thinks that
a newer OS should be bloated and slow for?

In Word 2010 and Windows 7 64bit, the Ctrl-H dialog pops up instantly.
I don't know what that says about MS apps and operating systems, but
there you go.

On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:42:55 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the time to
get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under Vista and up
either. :-(

Just use the right click context menu...

On 16 May 2012, "BillW50" wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

I copy and paste from the Address menu from Explorer all of the
time to get the path of the folder. Can't do that anymore under
Vista and up either. :-(

Select your folder. Click in the address bar above to select the path.
Hit Ctrl-C to copy. Hit Ctrl-V to paste wherever you like.

Menus are not needed for this task.

"Char Jackson" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 16 May 2012 18:55:17 -0500, "BillW50" wrote:

Another annoying thing in Windows 7/8 is when I hit CTRL-H (here we go
again with CTRL-H) under Word 2000, the find and replace window pops up
so slow. It is like watching grass grow. But under XP and under, this
same thing is very snappy. I don't understand why Microsoft thinks that
a newer OS should be bloated and slow for?

In Word 2010 and Windows 7 64bit, the Ctrl-H dialog pops up instantly.
I don't know what that says about MS apps and operating systems, but
there you go.


In Word 2003 and Win7 32-bit, the CTRL+H box pops up almost before I can get my fingers off the keys :-) (And that's on
a 4 year old laptop)
--
SC Tom