ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Windows 10 Announced

<< < (178/253) > >>

MilesAhead:
I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between. 
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)
--- End quote ---

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC.  Before that, there wasn't any equivalent.  And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20120307-00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)
--- End quote ---

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space.  Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional.  It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

wraith808:
I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between. 
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)
--- End quote ---

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC.  Before that, there wasn't any equivalent.  And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20120307-00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)
--- End quote ---

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space.  Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional.  It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 07:42 AM)
--- End quote ---

How did it break anything other than 16-bit applications?  The capabilities of Windows 95 allowed for spaces.  Before that, there were no central locations.  Also, applications that would have been running on 16-bit windows would see PROGRA~1 no matter what as directories had a limit of 8 characters (ah the 8.3 days).  The space makes literally no extra difference for those applications.  There were errors, sure because of the change.  But the change that you're referring to has literally no difference to any legacy program that would be affected by it.

MilesAhead:
I was only talking about way back when they changed the name of the folder where programs were installed to "Program Files" including the space between. 
-MilesAhead (October 17, 2016, 05:45 PM)
--- End quote ---

That was because of upgraded capabilities in the OS, IIRC.  Before that, there wasn't any equivalent.  And that was introduced in Windows 95?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20120307-00/?p=8153/#10279251
-wraith808 (October 17, 2016, 06:09 PM)
--- End quote ---

If they were not deliberately throwing in a monkey wrench all they had to do to avoid the path error I noted was to name the folder ProgramFiles without the space.  Since they went out of their way to include the space one has to assume creating the launch errors was intentional.  It broke some of their own software so it is impossible for me to believe these errors did not show up during testing.

-MilesAhead (October 18, 2016, 07:42 AM)
--- End quote ---

How did it break anything other than 16-bit applications?  The capabilities of Windows 95 allowed for spaces.  Before that, there were no central locations.  Also, applications that would have been running on 16-bit windows would see PROGRA~1 no matter what as directories had a limit of 8 characters (ah the 8.3 days).  The space makes literally no extra difference for those applications.  There were errors, sure because of the change.  But the change that you're referring to has literally no difference to any legacy program that would be affected by it.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 09:32 AM)
--- End quote ---

I don't get the point of the argument.  MS is known for breaking code and forcing other software to conform to its non-compliant conventions historically.  The space in the path is just one example.

I see no point in carrying on.  If you think the space was not deliberately used as a booby trap then nothing I say will convince you otherwise. 

wraith808:
You haven't given any argument otherwise, other than that you were inconvenienced by it.  While I've given many counter examples.

There used to be a trend in blaming Microsoft for everything bad, and that it was intentional, rather than unforeseen.  That's what this feels like. 

In all honesty, I wish they would move ahead, and not take older Windows 3.1 16-bit applications into account when developing the file system.  Not worry about legacy compatibility.  Anything that can't handle spaces in the name in this day and age is either (a) old, or (b) not developed correctly. 

Windows wouldn't be so much of a mish mash if they quit taking into account old legacy applications.  But they don't.

But we do agree on something.  If you can't look at the arguments and links I provided above, and see how it explains away the fact that they were using spaces to booby trap the file system, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.

MilesAhead:
You haven't given any argument otherwise, other than that you were inconvenienced by it.  While I've given many counter examples.

There used to be a trend in blaming Microsoft for everything bad, and that it was intentional, rather than unforeseen.  That's what this feels like. 

In all honesty, I wish they would move ahead, and not take older Windows 3.1 16-bit applications into account when developing the file system.  Not worry about legacy compatibility.  Anything that can't handle spaces in the name in this day and age is either (a) old, or (b) not developed correctly. 

Windows wouldn't be so much of a mish mash if they quit taking into account old legacy applications.  But they don't.

But we do agree on something.  If you can't look at the arguments and links I provided above, and see how it explains away the fact that they were using spaces to booby trap the file system, then nothing I say will convince you otherwise.
-wraith808 (October 18, 2016, 10:48 AM)
--- End quote ---

The "old" software that cannot handle the spaces in filenames is Windows cmd.exe.  If they want to make the space a legitimate filename character, then it should not be a path separator character.  They did it both ways because they do not want to update their code.  Just like the 260 character path limit in explorer.exe that is not limited in the API file calls.  They don't want to open a can of spaghetti.  I bet all that code was written by some guy who got fired or hit by a car or something.  Nobody wants to fix it.  Just let it zombie-fy until nobody uses Windows anymore.  That's the way to run a "modern" OS.  :)

Edit: supposedly there is a Registry hack in Windows 10 that allows Explorer.exe to handle paths longer than 260 characters.  I would be curious how much of a performance hit is involved.

Afa doing things deliberately goes, the fact that various Windows programming books were published under variations on the title "Undocumented Windows" is proof in itself.  The programmers on the buddy list got a cheat sheet of undocumented calls.  The other programmers got to trial and error it.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version