Positioning the Windows Explorer windows

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| Obviously represents a VAST amount of work. Thanks a lot. (The rest of
| the browsertips page bears reading, too: be prepared for Mayayana's take
| on things

I'm guessing that refers to my biting wit and
general cynicism about corporate tech.

I try to be neutral, especially with the prefs, but
it's tricky. When "spam" is replaced by "useful
updates about services" and "spyware" is replaced
by "telemetry", it's not easy to find the right words
to steer between extremes. One person's spyware
is another's telemetry, and vice versa.

But I admit I do have a fondness for indignant
rants, especially against corporate interests who
have millions of dollars and hundreds of PR people
to spread their version of facts.

| The file is dated 2017. Still very useful for anyone using earlier
| versions (and probably fairly useful for later).

A lot of it is standard and has been there for
many years. Probably before too long I'll do an
update. I'm not sure I'll ever update to FF 58,
but even if I don't, the installer will have the new
prefs, so I can still update the help file. For anyone
interested, the full possible list should be he

\Program Files\Mozilla
Firefox\browser\omni.ja\defaults\preferences\firef ox.js

It's kept inside a .ja file, which 7-zip can open.
That file also contains a few comments that are
sometimes telling, though the Mozillians are very
fond of unix-style line returns. They need to be
fixed to make the file readable.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:00 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.



2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from
being the smallest one available.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount.
I use about 800GB, and I know many people who use substantially more.
Even my wife, who does next to nothing on her computer, uses about
70GB.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of
them? What is each one for, and how big is each one?



Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).


I have three physical drives: one 1GB SSD for Windows and installed
programs, one 2TB HD for data, one 2TB HD for data backup.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need. But I want substantial
extra space for growth. I don't want to have to buy more or larger
drives as my needs increase in the future, largely because I don't
want to have to argue with my wife about spending the money.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks of
backing up to an internal HD. That's why the second 2TB HD is not my
primary place for backup. I regularly backup to an external drive, and
use the internal one as another, more frequent, layer of backup. I
actually have five layers of backup.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.



You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.


Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.



Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 19:07:00 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/7/18 4:42 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Wed, 7 Mar 2018 15:04:37 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/6/18 8:22 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

Better than selling it as a DVD would be to provide it at no
additional charge with all new computers: a single sheet of paper with
nothing but the instruction "Go to this web site before using this
computer: http:..." in large letters. Or instead of a sheet of paper,
perhaps a sticker on the case that can be removed and thrown away
after you've gone to the site--similar to the "Call this number"
sticker that comes on credit cards.

Another choice is having the initial Windows setup program take you to
that site automatically.

And both ideas work only if the new user knows what to do once past
reading the sheet of paper, or going to the website.

One thing I've noticed about techy/geeky types, they take if for granted
the reader understands what was just presented. They have forgotten how
to think like a true new user.



I completely disagree with that. It ha nothing to do with taking
anything for granted. How well the reader understands depends on how
good the presentation is. Do a good job of it, and most readers will
understand; do a poor job and they won't.

For a year and a half, I worked in a repair shop. Often the tech would
be trying to explain something to a customer, and the customer didn't
understand. The tech simply didn't know how to communicate with someone
that had little to know experiences with the terminology.


I agree and I've also seen many people like that. That's why I say how
important it is that the presentation be done well.

J. P.

You're going up; I want to go down.

I don't think so. I'm just building upon what they already know to larger
stuff. Working my way down from a building to a filing cabinet and its
contents won't go down that well (of you pardon me the pun here :-) ).

make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum

Personally I think you're making a mistake there (which will probably bite
you in the behind at some time): there *is* a limit to how many folders you
can make, and this limit is influenced by the contents of each folder.

Which, using my earlier suggested cardbord boxes analogy, is easy to explain
and understand: there are only so many boxes you can place in a van. Even
when you buy a bigger van - or even a transport truck (or cargo ship!) -
you're still going to get full at some point ...

But I think I know where your "ad infinitum" comes from. Thats, as I
mentioned, why I suggested the cardboard boxes-within-boxes-within-boxes
approach.

but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles the OS partition
to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one.

I'm not so worried about that scrambling (though it happened to me once,
using a cheap drive bay). I'm more worried about an easy restore process
being sabotaged because of the datafiles (on that same partition) that would
get lost by it (as mentioned, for the OS partition I always assume a full
partition backup/restore).

I _image_ my OS-and-software partition ... but just _sync_ my data
partition

Same here. The OS is a clusterf*uck of interconnected files, and being able
to restore them one-by-one makes little sense (could well make the problem
larger instead of smaller). The datafiles on the other hand ...

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe

I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference between a single, multi-partition
setup, or a multi-drive one here. I also would not be too sure about
anything accidentally killing the OS (on its own drive) not as easily have
damaged (some of) the data (on another drive).

And in the case of *targetted* fauling up I would even say that the data is
much more interresting than the OS: If the backups are affected too the OS
can always be reinstalled. The data ? Well ...

In other words, my OS-seperate-from-the-data approach is because of the
difference in backup and retrieval methods, nothing more.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

If all that extra space is bothering you, there are
120GB SSDs for $50.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16820242399

Then, you can use an external HDD (1TB) for backups.

Paul

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.

:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.

Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?

You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?

Why do you have multiple folders on your data drive/partition ? I mean,
you *can* store everything in the root, can't you. :-p

What is each one for, and how big is each one?

#1 - OS partition. 50 G allocated, 6 used
#2 - "working" partition. 50 G allocated, 7 used
#3 - "documentation" and "temp" partition. 50 G allocated, 12 used
#4 - program origionals (ZIP or DVD image formats) backups. 50 G allocated,
14 used.

There is still about 270 G not assigned on that drive. I do not even
expect to ever use it.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need.

Same here, even though I've got just a single drive.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks
of backing up to an internal HD.

Phew! I was already thinking of how I could rant about how ... unadvisable
that would be. :-)

By the way, the 2 TByte drive I spoke of earlier is actually an USB one
which I use for backups.

*edit*
Ackkk... I just realized that I forgot to tell something that *might* make
a difference: The 'puter I'm talking about in the above is my main, "work"
machine.

I do have another machine on which I also run games, but that one isn't that
big either: 230 GB used, including DVD copies (for backup of the
origionals). Not much of a gamer I'm afraid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:39:55 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.

:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.


With sources like Amazon.com, and many others, almost everything is
available in every town.


And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.

Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?

You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?


No, you said "data partitions." I was asking why you had more than one
data partition.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.



You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.

True; there's a maximum path length for a start (though I think the old
subst command can circumvent that a little). But certainly for more
levels than a person struggling with the concepts is likely to go to.
And Microsoft themselves do rather love them ...
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\Microsoft\Assistance\Client\1.0\en-US
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Skype\Apps\login\js
C:\Documents and Settings\Toshiba\Local Settings\Application
Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Recovery\High\Last Active

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.



Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.

Yes; really only disk death, or certain kinds of catastrophic update
failure or similar software fault, will kill C: and not D:. Power
glitches/lightning _might_ just kill one drive, but it could equally be
either one. _Some_ viruses might only go for C:, but probably few these
days.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish
follow migrating caribou. - Paul Tomblin, cited by "The Real Bev", 2017-2-18.

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:25:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.



Yes, I just do a simple copy.

On 2018-03-03 00:06, B00ze wrote:

On 2018-03-02 09:29, Mayayana wrote:

"B00ze" wrote

| Hmmm, doesn't work well on my system. I end-up with two internet
| brw windows (positioned as requested,) and one explorer window (f2).

I wrote it on XP and haven't had a chance to test it
on 7. It may not work on all systems. That's why
I suggested to Ken that he test it first. Shell is
quirky, as you know.

Yeah, I really think it's Clover. It patches Explorer (installs a BHO)
and intercepts new windows and turns them into TABs.

[snip]

Just for fun, I disabled the Clover BHO and ran your beautiful little
program - this time I DID get 2 Explorer windows, but Windows 7 placed
them where it wanted (the same way it does when I start another instance
of Explorer.exe). I would have to really unInstall that Clover crap to
see if the problem is Windows 7 or Clover.

No I think the code's fine. It's fun that we can move the window around
and tell it to browse a folder ALL before making it visible, I was
afraid I'd see everything paint when I read the first few lines (before
seeing the visible = True).

That Clover program interferes with Classic Shell too, but I kinda like
having tabs. An explorer replacement is on the TODO list, then I can get
rid of the Clover hack.

Best Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo This tagline made from 100% recycled electrons.

"B00ze" wrote

| Just for fun, I disabled the Clover BHO and ran your beautiful little
| program - this time I DID get 2 Explorer windows, but Windows 7 placed
| them where it wanted

I just tried it on Win7-64 and got the same thing.
That's the problem with this UI stuff. Microsoft
keep breaking things. I then tried resizeTo and
moveTo, methods of the window object. That's not
working either.
A quick check finds no reason it shouldn't work.
The Win7 docs still list all these methods. Maybe
I'll get around to playing with it this weekend.
Could be a broken IE.... Could be some kind
of permissions or security changes....

OK. This one seems to work. Pain in the neck.
As you may know, a folder is officially an IE
instance, but once it's viewing a folder the document
object is actually a ShellFolderView object. It's all
messed up. Worse, it works differently on every system.

But there seems to be a general pattern: With each
Windows version MS moves a bit more away from the
IE/Explorer linkage.

Anyway, both versions of this script
work fine on XP. The original fails to adjust
window positions on 7. The difference here
with this second version is that it loads the
folder into an IE instance and then deals with
that as a Shell Windows object rather than as
an IE object. (If you check the TypeName of
each Win.document as it loops through windows,
you'll see that folders return something like
"IShellfolderViewDual2" while IE windows return
"HTMLDocument")

So the way it works:

Create an IE instance to get screen width.

Create 2 IE instances and send them to open the folders.

Leave all that and create a Shell Windows collection.

Loop through the collection to find LocationName
propertis that match the folder names of Fol1
and Fol2.

Once found, adjust those window sizes and locations
using the same IE properties but this time using the
Windows Explorer application object rather than the
IE application object.
(And to think, hundreds of millions of people are
running this discombobulated crap that Microsoft
keeps screwing up worse each time they mess with it!



'--------- begin code --------------------
Dim Fol1, Fol2, IE, ScrWidth, Fol1Name, Fol2Name

Fol1 = "C:\Windows\Desktop\Fol1"
Fol2 = "C:\Windows\Desktop\Fol2"
Fol1Name = "Fol1"
Fol2Name = "Fol2"

On Error Resume Next

Set IE = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")
IE.Navigate "about:blank"
While IE.ReadyState 4
Wend
ScrWidth = IE.document.parentWindow.screen.availWidth
IE.Quit
Set IE = Nothing

Set IE = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")
IE.Navigate Fol1
IE.visible = True
Set IE = Nothing

Set IE = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")
IE.Navigate Fol2
IE.visible = True
Set IE = Nothing

Dim ShAp, Wins, Win, sName
Set ShAp = CreateObject("Shell.Application")
Set Wins = ShAp.Windows
For Each Win in Wins
sName = Win.LocationName
If sName = Fol1Name Then
Win.Height = 600
Win.Width = 600
Win.Left = 0
Win.top = 100
End If
If sName = Fol2Name Then
Win.Height = 600
Win.Width = 600
Win.Left = ScrWidth - (Win.width + 50)
Win.Top = 100
End If
Next
Set Wins = Nothing
Set ShAp = Nothing

On 2018-03-15 10:55, Mayayana wrote:

OK. This one seems to work. Pain in the neck.
As you may know, a folder is officially an IE
instance, but once it's viewing a folder the document
object is actually a ShellFolderView object. It's all
messed up. Worse, it works differently on every system.

But there seems to be a general pattern: With each
Windows version MS moves a bit more away from the
IE/Explorer linkage.

It's still there in Win10; not separated enough for my taste. It has its
uses (you can open ANYTHING in IE and ANYTHING in the file manager, so
long as there is a protocol handler, plus the security zones apply
across the board) but I'd prefer a bigger separation.

Anyway, both versions of this script
work fine on XP. The original fails to adjust
window positions on 7. The difference here
with this second version is that it loads the
folder into an IE instance and then deals with
that as a Shell Windows object rather than as
an IE object. (If you check the TypeName of
each Win.document as it loops through windows,
you'll see that folders return something like
"IShellfolderViewDual2" while IE windows return
"HTMLDocument")

So the way it works:
Create an IE instance to get screen width.
Create 2 IE instances and send them to open the folders.
Leave all that and create a Shell Windows collection.
Loop through the collection to find LocationName
propertis that match the folder names of Fol1
and Fol2.

Wow, we have to iterate through all the Windows. Do you have to make
them visible before you can move them around? I haven't tried to move
the "IE.visible = True" to AFTER the resize, because I ran into another
problem: What if I want to open one window to C:\ and one to D:\ ? There
is no folder name, and if there was they'd be the same :-(

Regards,

--
! _\|/_ Sylvain /
! (o o) Memberavid-Suzuki-Fdn/EFF/Red+Cross/SPCA/Planetary-Society
oO-( )-Oo "With all due respect ... BEGONE! ... Sir." -Worf

"B00ze" wrote


| Wow, we have to iterate through all the Windows.

Only IE and Explorer windows.

| Do you have to make
| them visible before you can move them around?

I don't know. On XP it's instant for me. On 7 it's a
bit slow. But on both I don't find it distracting.

| What if I want to open one window to C:\ and one to D:\ ? There
| is no folder name, and if there was they'd be the same :-(

Try it. Add a msgbox:

For Each Win in Wins
sName = Win.LocationName
MsgBox sName 'add this line