OT Very deep OS/software stuff

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Doe
  • Start date Start date
J

John Doe

If you don't understand the suggestion, I will be happy to
clarify. Please do not shoot from the hip.

Windows should or should have this ability... Copy all files in a
folder. Navigate to another folder. Select all files in the second
folder. Replace all of those files with your files in the
clipboard.

If I'm not mistaken, that would mirror other Windows copy and
paste functions. Taking a look. Currently, apparently that
operation replaces only the files that are in the clipboard. So
the question would be "Is there any reason to select files in the
second folder if you don't want them either replaced or deleted?"

I think everything else works that way. When you select text,
doesn't matter how much text, it gets deleted or replaced with
whatever is in the clipboard. Same with individual files. Same
with pictures.

So what would be the point? When I select all files in a folder
and navigate to another folder in order to replace all of the
second folder's files with the clipboard files, I have to go
through the additional step of deleting the second folder's files
before pasting the clipboard content files.

If that's a run-on sentence, sorry, I've been doing some
discussion on the open Internet :D
 
John said:
If you don't understand the suggestion, I will be happy to
clarify. Please do not shoot from the hip.

Windows should or should have this ability... Copy all files in a
folder. Navigate to another folder. Select all files in the second
folder. Replace all of those files with your files in the
clipboard.

If I'm not mistaken, that would mirror other Windows copy and
paste functions. Taking a look. Currently, apparently that
operation replaces only the files that are in the clipboard. So
the question would be "Is there any reason to select files in the
second folder if you don't want them either replaced or deleted?"

I think everything else works that way. When you select text,
doesn't matter how much text, it gets deleted or replaced with
whatever is in the clipboard. Same with individual files. Same
with pictures.

So what would be the point? When I select all files in a folder
and navigate to another folder in order to replace all of the
second folder's files with the clipboard files, I have to go
through the additional step of deleting the second folder's files
before pasting the clipboard content files.

If that's a run-on sentence, sorry, I've been doing some
discussion on the open Internet :D
Click to expand...

The paradigm is "Copy, Paste, and Cut". The names of those
functions imply specific ways of doing things. You desire the
"Mirror" function, which is typically used in Sync or synchronization
or backup situations.

A tool like Robocopy, can operate in mirror mode, and it will blow
away destination files, which are not in the source folder. And copy the
source files over top of the ones in the destination. That would be
an example of a method of achieving the "Mirror" function.

If you were going to add your function to the Explorer menus, you'd
want to give it an unambiguous name, so there wouldn't
be unnecessary data loss from "pushing the wrong button".

The "Copy, Paste, and Cut" are intended to be simple primitives,
which you can combine a series of, to achieve a desired result.
It's all part of the "desktop metaphor", exemplified by the
Trash Can icon. It's partially that way, to make it easier for
first time users, to understand what the interface is doing.

Paul
 
Paul said:
John Doe wrote:

The paradigm is "Copy, Paste, and Cut". The names of those
functions imply specific ways of doing things. You desire the
"Mirror" function, which is typically used in Sync or
synchronization or backup situations.

A tool like Robocopy, can operate in mirror mode, and it will
blow away destination files, which are not in the source folder.
And copy the source files over top of the ones in the
destination. That would be an example of a method of achieving
the "Mirror" function.
Click to expand...

You understand what I'm trying to do, Paul, but apparently you
disagree with my assertion that the Windows Explorer Paste
function works differently than the other Windows Paste functions.
If you were going to add your function to the Explorer menus,
you'd want to give it an unambiguous name, so there wouldn't be
unnecessary data loss from "pushing the wrong button".
Click to expand...

I don't think so. What I am saying is that Paste works differently
in Windows Explorer than it works in all other parts of Windows.
The "Copy, Paste, and Cut" are intended to be simple primitives,
which you can combine a series of, to achieve a desired result.
It's all part of the "desktop metaphor", exemplified by the
Trash Can icon.
Click to expand...

I think you mostly understand what I'm talking about. What I am
saying is that the Copy, Paste, and Cut functions are
inconsistent. When working with files, Paste/Replace does effect
all selected files. When working with anything else in Windows,
the Paste/Replace function effects everything that is selected.

Again, hopefully my example is simple enough... Select all the
files in the first folder. Browse to the second folder. Select all
the files in the second folder. Then do a Ctrl+V to paste the
clipboard files to the second folder.

Yes, your Mirror function is the same thing. But apparently that's
the way Paste in Windows works with everything except manipulating
files in Windows Explorer.
It's partially that way, to make it easier for first time users,
to understand what the interface is doing.
Click to expand...

I do not understand how.

In my simple "first and second folder" example above, why would
anyone be confused enough to select all of the files in the second
folder before doing the Paste if he did not want all of the files
to be affected?

If you right click on the second folder name in the left-hand
pane, and select Paste (none of the files in that folder would be
selected), naturally the paste will only affect files with the
same names as the files in the clipboard.

Normally, the Paste function replaces everything that is selected.
The only place it doesn't is in Windows Explorer. But even in
Windows Explorer, if you paste one file over another, Windows does
not just replace similar text and leave all of the other text in
that file alone. That would be weird, and beyond Microsoft's
abilities.

Can you think of any Windows Explorer file manipulation examples
that would be problematic with a Paste/Mirror function that works
exactly the same way Paste works for everything else in Windows?
--
 
If you don't understand the suggestion, I will be happy to
clarify. Please do not shoot from the hip.

Windows should or should have this ability... Copy all files in a
folder. Navigate to another folder. Select all files in the second
folder. Replace all of those files with your files in the
clipboard.

If I'm not mistaken, that would mirror other Windows copy and
paste functions. Taking a look. Currently, apparently that
operation replaces only the files that are in the clipboard. So
the question would be "Is there any reason to select files in the
second folder if you don't want them either replaced or deleted?"

I think everything else works that way. When you select text,
doesn't matter how much text, it gets deleted or replaced with
whatever is in the clipboard. Same with individual files. Same
with pictures.

So what would be the point? When I select all files in a folder
and navigate to another folder in order to replace all of the
second folder's files with the clipboard files, I have to go
through the additional step of deleting the second folder's files
before pasting the clipboard content files.

If that's a run-on sentence, sorry, I've been doing some
discussion on the open Internet :D
Click to expand...

Copy and paste is rudimentary (so's Windows Explorer to my mind).
Hence a decent system file interface was something introduced by
Norton at DOS 2.x-3.0, now more like Turbo or Total Commander with
ties to 20-year-old residual stubs tied to Peter. All mid-level when
the sky's the limit with Windows built-in scripting and system
commands, which also avail themselves to CMD processing at other
levels, such as 4NT (formerly the 4DOS command interpreter). So many
filters and conditional disc operands for files and directory
structures, although not without some ability in the case of text for
branch decisions. An interface or program such as LUPAS file renamer
is no more than a program coded on those same precepts. One is tied
to logical rules based on ASCII and the other to a disc's absolute
substructure, once DOS. Pictures, graphics are essentially point-to-
point coordinates, 'drawing' operands, still in part shared by
dedicated reserves on the CPU (my AMD Orleans works harder for
instance with onboard graphics and nothing on the PCI-E busline).
Then math functions and last data routing and memory address
controllers. How much more complicated does it really have to be for
brilliant system engineers working in highly secret fabrication plants
over vast concrete pads poured for minute degrees of geo-stability for
designing tomorrow's chip-die processes at Intel or AMD?
 
Flasherly <Flasherly live.com> wrote:

Copy and paste is rudimentary (so's Windows Explorer to my
mind). Hence a decent system file interface was something
introduced by Norton at DOS 2.x-3.0, now more like Turbo or
Total Commander with ties to 20-year-old residual stubs tied to
Peter. All mid-level when the sky's the limit with Windows
built-in scripting and system commands, which also avail
themselves to CMD processing at other levels, such as 4NT
(formerly the 4DOS command interpreter). So many filters and
conditional disc operands for files and directory structures,
although not without some ability in the case of text for branch
decisions. An interface or program such as LUPAS file renamer
is no more than a program coded on those same precepts. One is
tied to logical rules based on ASCII and the other to a disc's
absolute substructure, once DOS. Pictures, graphics are
essentially point-to- point coordinates, 'drawing' operands,
still in part shared by dedicated reserves on the CPU (my AMD
Orleans works harder for instance with onboard graphics and
nothing on the PCI-E busline). Then math functions and last data
routing and memory address controllers. How much more
complicated does it really have to be for brilliant system
engineers working in highly secret fabrication plants over vast
concrete pads poured for minute degrees of geo-stability for
designing tomorrow's chip-die processes at Intel or AMD?
Click to expand...

"Ground control to Major Tom..."
 
Flasherly <Flasherly live.com> wrote:

<Snip, since it has nothing to do with the reply -- Currently, apparentlythat operation replaces only the files that are in the clipboard. So the question would be "Is there any reason to select files in the second folder if you don't want them either replaced or deleted?" >..(null set)..<
Click to expand...

What's a filter: [Upon absolutes] 1) a file attribute set or not, 2)
date ranges, 3) file size, 4) if & namely -outside DOS (and hardwired
absolutes)- where the above conditions would be applicable to a
resultant error-level returned from, say, programs comparing, inside
files, comparative differences for further processing. Yes, then
there is indeed reason conceivably to exist for files apart from the
clipboard to qualify as exceptions to any limitation within
clipboard's functional capacity.

Offhand, it could be integrity results from CRC checksum and various
hash tables. In a simpler software form this is one (some do, though
CDCheck may not directly offer itself for command-line driven
redundance qualifications off the clipboard in such as scripts outside
the GUI for a fuller aspect of dedication) . . .

http://www.kvipu.com/CDCheck/

Bugs are bugs. Fact of life. The game is about what you've got
planned when that most definitely will happen, and something you want
is replaced by something less.
 
Flasherly said:
John Doe said:
Flasherly <Flasherly live.com> wrote:

<Snip, since it has nothing to do with the reply -- Currently,
apparently
Click to expand...
that operation replaces only the files that are in the
clipboard. So the question would be "Is there any reason to
select files in the second folder if you don't want them either
replaced or deleted?" >..(null set)..<

What's a filter: [Upon absolutes] 1) a file attribute set or
not, 2) date ranges, 3) file size, 4) if & namely -outside DOS
(and hardwired absolutes)- where the above conditions would be
applicable to a resultant error-level returned from, say,
programs comparing, inside files, comparative differences for
further processing. Yes, then there is indeed reason
conceivably to exist for files apart from the clipboard to
qualify as exceptions to any limitation within clipboard's
functional capacity.

Offhand, it could be integrity results from CRC checksum and
various hash tables. In a simpler software form this is one
(some do, though CDCheck may not directly offer itself for
command-line driven redundance qualifications off the clipboard
in such as scripts outside the GUI for a fuller aspect of
dedication) . . .

http://www.kvipu.com/CDCheck/

Bugs are bugs. Fact of life. The game is about what you've got
planned when that most definitely will happen, and something you
want is replaced by something less.
Click to expand...

I'll be more careful...
 
Back
Top