Ever since Windows Migrated to the NT Kernel, I’ve been a fan, its just been a matter of making the NT system compatible with all of the things a normal user likes. As for stability, I’ve been running the same XP installation for about a year and a half now. That’s a record for me!
Nonsense: it’s writeable based on your user permissions. For example, non-admins cannot access/delete large portions of the registry or change system behavior outside the user’s scope. Am I missing something?
Hmm, a unix user is complaining about cryptic syntax? :eek:
Exactly. If a file is open and you delete or move it, everything keeps working as expected. The file remains on disk (or in memory, who knows) until it’s no longer in use, but the directory entry is gone and the user doesn’t have to worry about it.
If there were an option “Always redial immediately; never waste my time” then believe me, I would have checked it.
Or when the goblins decide it’s time for a change. Or when you press F5. Sometimes that’s a feature, but usually it’s just an annoyance.
How about this little gem: Open a folder in two windows. Drag the icons around in one of them, change the view in the other. Now close both windows. Which layout will the folder have next time you open it?
See, on the old MacOS, each folder had a persistent layout just like your desk. Your papers don’t move around on the desk while you’re away. You can’t have the same desk open in two views at once. And it made sense that way. You weren’t just looking at a certain view of the files inside a folder; the view was the folder.
Don’t get me wrong… I hated MacOS with the burning passion of a thousand suns. But it did get one thing right.
What harm could it do to inexperienced users? What’s an inexperienced user going to think when he can’t rename a file, and can’t find the program that’s preventing it from being renamed?
Yes, if possible. In this case I’d settle for the aforementioned check box.
Oh, one more thing.
That’s not the only time. For example:
-
Open two command prompts. In the first one, type “more a_very_long_text_file.txt”. In the second, type “del a_very_long_text_file.txt”. Notice that Windows prevents you from deleting the file, even though it’s only open for reading.
-
Open two command prompts. In the first one, type “mkdir foo” then “cd foo”. In the second, type “rmdir foo”. Notice that Windows prevents you from removing the directory, since it’s the CWD of another process.
Unix handles both of these situations correctly.
I only wish Windows would ask me this question.
I had the flip side of this problem. WinXP Home really likes being connected to the internet. For the two weeks I was using a dial-up connection, everytime I terminated my connection, WinXP would start dialing up again in ten seconds. Cancel that, and ten seconds later it started again. This is extremely frustrating when I’ve disconnected to make a phone call or somesuch, and disabling auto-connect, redial, removing it as the default connection and everything else I could think of at the time did not stop this strange obsessive-compulsive behaviour on the part of my computer. The only thing that did stop it was killing the RAS process (which made it impossible to dial up again without rebooting), or just rebooting and not dialing up unless I was really damn sure I wanted to be connected to the internet.
Sigh. I was so happy to get my cable access back.
'fraid so. johnboy gave exactly that advice in the post just before yours.
Erm, would have to disagree with this one, after using my school comps for a while. You have to be able to write to the registry, or the registry doesn’t know that you can’t write to it. I haven’t found a single Windows setup to which you cannot write .reg files.
If there is one, feel free to correct me.
Are we talking Win9x? 9x has no concept of user permissions; actually no security at all. WinNT works more or less as squeegee says.
Fixed that for you.
The only area where a user has write permission is in HKEY_CURRENT_USER. The other classes (CURRENT_CONFIG, USERS, LOCAL_MACHINE) are writable by SYSTEM and Admin only.
Design decision. Doesn’t mean it’s broken, it just doesn’t work the way you like. I’m sure if the core userbase of Windows was similar to the current *nix userbase, things would be different.
LOL
No, a normal user can only effect changes in HKEY_CURRENT_USER. If you’re running as an admin, then there’s a difference. But that’s as bad as running as root all the time.
the registry uses per-entry permissions.
The conglomeration is the crux of the problem, here. A single error in the registry can render the whole system unusable. A single error in a file in /etc on a unix system will generally not stop the system from running. Some programs or processes may stop running, or produce wrong results, but you’ve got a good chance to get things fixed. Unless your password or shadow password file got hosed. Then you’re in the same boat as the Windows users
The one thing that’s baffled me all these years is how MS has not managed to create a user-friendly GUI - they do have the money, don’t they?
What are they doing with it? Have you seen the Longhorn screenshots?
Just yesterday, I was doing some layout in Corel Draw on Win2000. It ruined my day.
Perhaps the most idiotic thing about Windows is the paranoid secrecy which Microsoft keeps the source code. This would be less of a problem if Microsoft wasn’t also interested in forcing upgrades on people. Using Microsoft products is an exercise in hoping your official support (the only support with access to the OS’s source code) doesn’t dry up with the next version of the OS.
Case in point: NT4.0 too flawed to fix - official.
So MS is saying anyone still using NT4.0 is up shit creek without any hope of a paddle. Why? Why can’t they take it as read that NT4.0 is obsolete and release the damned sources so someone else can maintain all of the business servers running NT4.0?
Yes, yes, I know why. I know Microsoft wants money from people endlessly upgrading, and that pulling the rug out from under real businesses is the cheapest way to do that. But in a PR sense it’s suicide, and it can only help Linux completely supplant Microsoft in all of NT’s old niches. After all, anyone can get the Linux sources.
Mr2001, how is it a more logical design decision to be able to move, delete, or rename a file that’s in use, than to prevent those things from happening?
Because then anyone could take the source and release a Win32-compatible OS. I don’t think Microsoft wants to see that happen.
Plus, while NT 4.0 the release may be obsolete, much of the code is not. Windows XP is NT 5.1, after all.
The most idiotic thing about Windows are the folks who defend it. 
If it wasn’t for Microsoft’s strongarm monopoly tactics, it would have died an ignoble death a decade ago.
(Hey, it’s the Pit, I’m allowed to say stuff like that 
)
AIHunter3 makes good points about the progress of Windows.
You think it’s bad now? Check out what you could have been stuck with!
Especially since the vast majority of people who use PCs are utter dolts that don’t know the difference between memory and hard drive space. You would have a bunch of computer inept people deleting files all over the place, and then bitching about how Windows sucks so hard because it lets them fuck up the files they’re using.
Actually this is incorrect; broadly it ought to be true, but due to the silly way in which XP stores folder view settings, it isn’t. XP is set by default to only remember view settings for up to 400 folders, a not-inconceivably-large number. Once it reaches this limit, it will apparently arbitrarily overwrite the settings for other folders each time it needs to write the settings for a new one. There’s a registry hack to fix this (well, up the value from 400 to 8000 or whatever you want), which can be found here (the patch in question is number 2, I believe). I take no responsibility for the PC of anyone applying said patch; it worked for me, but as others have noted the Windows registry is a strange and mysterious place.
Regarding the reappearing netmeeting GMRyujin mentioned, this is an irritating side-effect of XP’s rather spiffy system protect feature. XP stores copies of “essential” system files, and monitors them and will replace them if they are modified or deleted by anything. This is great inasmuch as it stops you badgering the rundll32 file, but is annoying in that they define netmeeting and MSN Gaming Zone to be “essential” system files. Netmeeting I can sort of understand; Windows Messenger is built on top of it, but Gaming Zone? Fuck off. If anyone knows of a way to modify those files deemed “essential”, I’d be glad to here of it.
True or false as that may be, there’s a logical reason for preventing a file from being moved, renamed, or deleted while in use by another process: namely, that doing any of those things while Process A is using the file creates an inconsistent state in the computer. What’s the point of carefully crafting a document in a word processor, only to find that the inode’s been deleted while I’ve been working on it? Using a file carries with it the presumption that my use will be effective.
Whole sections of computer science are devoted to resolving issues of locking resources and preventing conflicting changes from being committed. Moving, renaming, or deleting files while in use is a special case at best, and not the normal operation.
It would prevent situations like this:
Start Word and open a document in a folder. Decide you don’t really need that document any more, or any other documents in the same folder. So you click File|Close in Word, go back to Explorer, and try to delete the folder. Guess what? You can’t delete it, because it’s “in use”. An inexperienced user doesn’t know that it’s “in use” because it’s still the CWD of Word (thanks to the standard file dialog); he figures that since he closed the file, there shouldn’t be a problem.
The biggest problem is that the definition of “in use” is unintuitive. If the Details sidebar is showing you a preview of a video file, it’s in use - so you can’t delete it unless you turn off the sidebar, or wait for the sidebar to cache the file in memory.
I’m a pretty damn experienced user, and I still run into this problem at least once a week… and it’s usually after I’ve already closed all the programs that I was using to edit the file I’m trying to delete. I shouldn’t have to hunt through Task Manager looking for a program that might conceivably be accessing this file, when there’s no technical reason (or, IMO, user-friendliness reason) to prevent me from deleting it while it’s open.
I don’t follow you. Why would they expect a file to keep working after they delete it?
I’ve run into the sidebar problem, and I agree it’s annoying. I would say that the problem here is not Windows’ behaviour regarding files, but that there the sidebar is poorly thought-out in regard to file manipulation. I’ve just tried your Word example, and the folder was deleted just fine, with Word still running having no files open.
Quite. So why would they leave processes using it?
What exactly do you expect a process that’s operating on a file to do when you delete it out from underneath? Deleting files that are being operated on is a fundamentally dangerous thing to do, and while it’s all very well that you can force UNIX to do it regardless, that doesn’t make it a good idea, nor does it mean that it should be the default behaviour on a mass-market consumer-oriented OS.