Microsoft's perennial incompetence...

[John Doe]

File attributes:
Date Last Saved 13/11/23
Date Created 13/11/24
That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will.

 

[Paul]

File attributes:
Date Last Saved 13/11/23
Date Created 13/11/24
That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will.

If a system clock is wrong on a system, the creation date
could be wrong later.

You're assuming, for some reason, they would correct any
out of range dates. But that would be a mistake, as the date,
even if tragically wrong, should be preserved for later analysis
and correction (as needed).

On the file systems, NTFS uses UTC. FAT32 uses DST, and it's
more possible to see peculiar situations on FAT32, than on
NTFS. (Like, copy files between NTFS and FAT32, and the
translation between UTC and DST etc. Lots of permutations
and combinations there are possible. And a headache for
the people designing backup software.)

And changing the FAT32 spec now, is not an option.
It has to be left broken, for compatibility with all
those hardware boxes also implementing FAT32 that way.

Paul

 

[John Doe]

My clock is fine. That's not the problem.

--

Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.astraweb.com!border3.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newsfeed1.swip.net!peer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post01.iad.highwinds-media.com!fx13.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Wolf Kirchmeir <wolfmac sympatico.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Subject: Re: Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
References: <l6sjct$nro$2 dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <l6sjct$nro$2 dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <rFrku.258889$DT4.179430 fx13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse(at)newshosting.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 18:35:03 UTC
Organization: Newshosting.com - Highest quality at a great price! www.newshosting.com
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:35:00 -0500
X-Received-Bytes: 1063
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2007402582
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:28801 alt.comp.os.windows-8:8203



Your clock is flaky.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

You're assuming, for some reason, they would correct any out of
range dates. But that would be a mistake, as the date, even if
tragically wrong, should be preserved for later analysis and
correction (as needed).

The creation date is obviously the oldest date associated with the
file. Why can't they maintain the oldest date as the creation
date? It's obviously a major blunder that keeps going and going...

I'm surprised this isn't well-known. All you have to do to prove
it is copy a file from one folder to another. The creation date
changes to the copy date. You might consider the copy date to be
the creation date but I certainly don't, and it destroys the real
creation date of the copied file. That totally messes up backups
if you ever need to use them, since they are copies.

Or maybe the real creation date is maintained as one of the other
15 or so different date properties? Please advise.

 

[Keith Nuttle]

Your clock is flaky.

At one time there was an internal rechargeable battery that keep parts
of the computer hot, When this battery died the first symptoms were time
discrepancies.

Does your computer have a battery, that should be replaced?

When, where, how, and if there is a battery is determined by the
manufacture, model, and type of the computer.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere, but there
is good reason for CreationDate > ModifyDate.

When a file is copied, the copy gets the current date as a
creation date, but the modification date is copied from the
original file.

Yeah, but what happened to the creation date? I guess that
programmers think computers are more important than people. When
the file is copied, somehow the computer is "creating" a file. And
who cares when the human being originally created the file...

There are so many file date attributes, you would think that
Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was
created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you
want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute.

You have to wonder what they're thinking up there in Redmond.

 

[David Trimboli]

There are so many file date attributes, you would think that
Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was
created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you
want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute.

The date attributes are not there to tell *you* when the file's
*content* was created or modified; they're there to tell the *operating
system* when the *file* was created or modified, primarily for archiving
purposes.

 

[John Doe]

The date attributes are not there to tell *you* when the file's
*content* was created or modified; they're there to tell the
*operating system* when the *file* was created or modified,
primarily for archiving purposes.

If that *were* true, then they wouldn't be selectable in *Windows
Explorer columns*. But *in fact* they are listed along with
*hundreds of other file attributes* that are obviously for the
user. Yes, Microsoft is too *lazy* to clean up its *obsolete* and
*misnamed* file attributes. But *knowing* when I started a file is
more *useful* than *95%* of the other *400+* attributes
*Microsoft* has *decided* to *recognize*. *Microsoft* is too
*lazy* to *add* such *useful* code to *Windows Explorer*, even
*though* *it* *already* *records* *the* *original* *creation*
*date*. *Instead*, *we* *have* *a* *misleading* *file* *attribute*
"meant for the operating system".








<snipped spam signature, typically accompanying a bullshit answer>



--

 

[John Doe]

IT DOESN'T MAKE MY UNDERWEAR BUNCH UP EITHER, IT'S JUST ONE OF
DOZENS OF IDIOTIC IN-YOUR-FACE THINGS WINDOWS DOES THAT SHOWS HOW
INCOMPETENT/LAZY/WHATEVER MICROSOFT IS. IT'S JUST ONE OF SO MANY
CONSTANT REMINDERS THAT MICROSOFT ISN'T A GENUINE HIGH TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY AND THAT THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT
THEIR MONOPOLY POWER.

--

 

[Nil]

Your argument makes much more sense now that you've capitalized it.

If you feel you must interact with this clown, please try to remove the
gratuitous crossposted groups he added.

 

[John Doe]

Poor little Nildo hasn't learned how to ignore a thread...

--

Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news.albasani.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Nil <rednoise REMOVETHIScomcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-8
Subject: Re: Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 23:10:23 -0500
Organization: (?!)
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <XnsA282EBBAA385Cnilch1 wheedledeedle.moc>
References: <l6sjct$nro$2 dont-email.me> <OvOdnX7fV7vICA_PnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d mchsi.com> <l6u5se$tcl$1 dont-email.me> <hcSdna1HbZBSKQ_PnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d mchsi.com> <l6ugvn$cmh$2 dont-email.me> <OPydnR7vWMVDVg_PnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d mchsi.com>
X-Trace: individual.net XF7ZgZQT8Yym2KD9jOoPFgzwDrqvvT9XalBm2ZWEWd3UWD36ze
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ixmdyleVlRjDluofUewVJes/dzw=
User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.24
X-Face: esm\a~e7BW-JD"t0\Ww_~\t!z_p0}xokJ"]a4/!ZtMGxQ>t_J`\IuTO++qOqVx0&Y.=z(B!:d?HNxL}yTuIS^5T8W\iGv_s'oSFfLp%X|naUNr
Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:28814 alt.comp.os.windows-8:8221

Your argument makes much more sense now that you've capitalized it.

If you feel you must interact with this clown, please try to remove the
gratuitous crossposted groups he added.

 

[Bill]

The date attributes are not there to tell *you* when the file's
*content* was created or modified; they're there to tell the *operating
system* when the *file* was created or modified, primarily for archiving
purposes.

Just to put this in a real-world perspective, I have been trying to help a
writer friend whose problem is that he has too many backups of all his
store of old files, some of which have been modified. He isn't terribly
technical and so I was trying to find a decent program to help him copy
and combine all his backups, putting the last-modified version into his
brand new computer. None of the "clever" backup programs (eg RoboCopy)
worked well enough to offer to him and he has started by copying
everything across and then trying to sort things manually.

Yesterday he rang me saying that because some musician had died he wanted
to contribute an old article he wrote about him for the magazine
"Downbeat" in the 80's to someone writing a book. He found the article OK
- all 8 copies.

It isn't easy to sort sensibly on dates.

 

[dadiOH]

The creation date is obviously the oldest date associated
with the file. Why can't they maintain the oldest date as
the creation date? It's obviously a major blunder that
keeps going and going...

I'm surprised this isn't well-known. All you have to do
to prove it is copy a file from one folder to another.
The creation date changes to the copy date. You might
consider the copy date to be the creation date but I
certainly don't, and it destroys the real creation date
of the copied file. That totally messes up backups if you
ever need to use them, since they are copies.

Or maybe the real creation date is maintained as one of
the other 15 or so different date properties? Please
advise.

When you copy a file, the "creation date" of the original file becomes the
"modified date" of the copy.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

 

[dadiOH]

Yeah, but what happened to the creation date? I guess that
programmers think computers are more important than
people. When
the file is copied, somehow the computer is "creating" a
file. And who cares when the human being originally
created the file...

There are so many file date attributes, you would think
that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when
the file was created. And it would probably be called
"date created". If you
want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a
different attribute.

You have to wonder what they're thinking up there in
Redmond.

They're thinking that when you copy a file the date it was copied is the
date it was created. They are right. A copied file is a different entity
than the one from which it was copied.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

 

[RayLopez99]

LOL.



SS

Don't use "LOL" with the John Doe clown, since he'll accuse you of having a comedian inside your head, LOL!

But the John Dough Bozo does have a useful purpose, acting like a simpleton foil to allow us to answer the questions he poses.

BTW a good utility for batch changing the date and time properties of files, and it's freeware, is this one: Rname-it (c) 1999 "E-Mail: (e-mail address removed)
Homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/kent/
http://members.xoom.com/listerman/fileutil.htm"

Very useful and free.

RL

PS--Hey John Doe, can you read me now? LOL!

 

[John Doe]

Naturally a perennially annoying Google Groups user gets it wrong...
The problem with "LOL" is when a person regularly laughs at their
own unfunny puns/jokes, not when they are responding to something
someone else said.

--

 

[John Doe]

They're thinking that when you copy a file the date it was copied is the
date it was created. They are right. A copied file is a different entity
than the one from which it was copied.

Another idiotic answer...

 

[mechanic]

Personally, I would prefer the creation date to remain intact across a
file copy, as it's more conformed to the idea that the dates are about
to contents of the file rather than the container. It doesn't really
make my underwear bunch up, though, as it is.

Just put the creation date in the file itself as a comment for
example, rather than rely on the OS to track it for you. File
meta-data is not designed for configuration management for the user.

 

[John Doe]

When you copy a file, the "creation date"

To an English speaker, the term "creation date" is very easily
understood to be the date that the file was created by the user.
It has an ordinary English meaning. And then there's the fact that
knowing when I created the file can be very useful. Like when I
started keeping track of something. It's not rocket science...

[the creation date] of the original file becomes the "modified
date" of the copy.

The modified date is not the creation date.

Microsoft's aim is to please the masses. Ignorance is bliss.

 

[John Doe]

Just put the creation date in the file itself as a comment for
example, rather than rely on the OS to track it for you.

That's a ridiculous workaround.

File meta-data is not designed for configuration management for
the user.

But seriously...

Microsoft's Windows Explorer recognizes over 400 file attributes.
Right-click on the columns bar and select More. And you're welcome
for the lesson.

--