Setup oddities

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerry
  • Start date Start date
J

Jerry

An XP install results in the following (partial) directory tree:

\Windows
\help
\inf
\system
\system32
etc

I have noticed that once everything\anything is installed there are
instances where files do not end up where expected; for instance: *.chm,
*.cnt, and *.hlp files not ending up in the \windows\help folder. Plus *.inf
files not ending up in \windows\inf, *.dll not in \windows\system, and
*32.dll not in windows\system32.

Is there some kind of unknown requirement/procedure that is not being
enforced/followed that causes this foolish discrepancy?

It sure seems to be that it would be logical and make more sense for the
files, as indicated above, to end up in the folders they seem to belong to
by name and/or function.

Jerry
 
Jerry said:
An XP install results in the following (partial) directory tree:

\Windows
\help
\inf
\system
\system32
etc

I have noticed that once everything\anything is installed there are
instances where files do not end up where expected; for instance:
*.chm, *.cnt, and *.hlp files not ending up in the \windows\help
folder. Plus *.inf files not ending up in \windows\inf, *.dll not in
\windows\system, and *32.dll not in windows\system32.

Is there some kind of unknown requirement/procedure that is not being
enforced/followed that causes this foolish discrepancy?

It sure seems to be that it would be logical and make more sense for
the files, as indicated above, to end up in the folders they seem to
belong to by name and/or function.

Jerry
Click to expand...

Depends on what they are. You'll have DLLs et al all over the place after
you get everything going. If you're not getting errors, don't worry about
it.

IMO,

Pop`
 
Poprivet said:
Depends on what they are. You'll have DLLs et al all over the place after
you get everything going. If you're not getting errors, don't worry about
it.

IMO,

Pop`
Click to expand...

I am well aware of where stuff ends up - that's not an answer to the
question: Why are files not installed where they should when function is
taken into account.? That is the question.
 
Jerry said:
I am well aware of where stuff ends up - that's not an answer to the
question: Why are files not installed where they should when function
is taken into account.? That is the question.
Click to expand...

OK: Because they are being saved where the software authors chose to
install them to. You're asking the kind of silly question I was sure you
didn't mean to ask, in this case. That's like asking why you can't see air.

Pop`
 
Poprivet said:
OK: Because they are being saved where the software authors chose to
install them to. You're asking the kind of silly question I was sure you
didn't mean to ask, in this case. That's like asking why you can't see
air.

Pop`
Click to expand...

The author is Microsoft. They designed the operating system and the
parameters for installing files.

The least they could have done was to, by default, install files to the
folders as I indicated above.

Further, the software development kit for all other authors should have
required them to abide by the same rules.

It is your opinion the question is/was silly. I learned after 27+ years in
the military that there is no such thing as a silly question; obviously you
lack an education or training

The question was meant to question the programming parameters of the most
used operating system on the planet and why they seemed to not follow there
own directions and layout procedures.

Jerry
 
Jerry said:
The author is Microsoft. They designed the operating system and the
parameters for installing files.

The least they could have done was to, by default, install files to
the folders as I indicated above.

Further, the software development kit for all other authors should
have required them to abide by the same rules.

It is your opinion the question is/was silly. I learned after 27+
years in the military that there is no such thing as a silly
question; obviously you lack an education or training
Click to expand...

Afraid I'm entitled to my own opinions there. I said it's stilly because
you're asking the wrong people. If you want to question the design
philosophy of say Microsoft, the I would suggest you contact (wait for it
.... ) MICROSOFT! This is nothing but a self help group for MS products
comprised mostly of people like myself and the others who post/respond here.
The question was meant to question the programming parameters of the
most used operating system on the planet and why they seemed to not
follow there own directions and layout procedures.
Click to expand...

You don't KNOW what their directions and layout procedures were and even if
you could find out I doubt you'd find any consistancy to them for such an
evolved system. So again, I say this is a silly thing to be asking about.

BTW also military here, with more time than you put in, but I'm not
trying to make that any kind of support for my opinions. All it means in my
case is I managed to kill and maim a bunch of people and trained to do much
more than that. But it's of NO use for supporting any kind of MS opinions.
YOu need to do more recon and actually find MS, not a news group.

Sensing trollish attitudes here, I've no more to say to you.

Pop`
 
Back
Top