Once again, try reading my post before replying.
I stated quite clearly that you COULD open hundreds of files and it would
slow your machine down but that that is NOT what I'm trying to do. To open 20
x 100k files is not something that would tax any machine made in the last
five years or so or even older or are you suggesting it should? If so, why
has it not taxed any machine I've ever had so far, on any operating system so
far? If IE takes up 30 or 40MB just to be open, then why should 20 x 100k
files be a problem for image software? It shouldn't and it never has been
before. I haven't suddenly changed the way I use my computer, I take the same
pictures with the same camera or use the same sound files or whatever and was
always OK with Windows 2000 or XP, but in Vista, I am restricted by a false
ceiling. It's nothing to do with performance and I wish you'd just drop that,
you're just flat wrong, why can't you admit it?
Also, your answer doesn't at all address the problem of opening any more
than just one (1) file at a time with Open With... As soon as I select even
two files, the Open With... option disappears. Even two 1k text files. Are
you really trying to tell me that they disabled that deliberately because of
performance, and that they thought about that scenario and decided that
opening 2 x 1k files at once would be devastating? Get real mate, you're so
far wrong it's embarrassing.
Your post also does not address the problem of selecting more than 15 files
and hitting enter, and then getting a printer output screen, which is totally
the wrong screen and just shouldn't appear regardless of any argument you
make. If I select 16 songs in an album and hit enter, it shouldn't come up
with a print screen should it? No, it should launch my default mp3 player and
play the first track. Same with pictures. If I select one and hit enter, I
get Paintshop (my default image software), if I select two, same thing
happens. But if I select 16, I get this print screen nonsense. I've been a
techie since floppy disks were the size of dinner plates and hard drives were
something that needed two of you to unscrew and lift out, KSR drives on an
IBM Mainframe, remember them? No, thought not... I've seen, configured and
heavily abused every iteration of Windows and DOS for that matter since
Microsoft was a twinkle in Bill Gates's eye. Basically, this is a bug,
there's no two ways about it.
Blimey, it's like pulling hen's teeth...
--
a
"zachd [MSFT]" wrote:
Quote:
>
> "Feldspar" <lordwalsingham@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:22CD8390-CC22-4676-AC96-7409CD7CD828@xxxxxx Quote:
> > This behaviour is
> > completely different to how Windows 3.0, 3.11, 95, NT, 98, ME, 2000 and XP
> > behaved and isn't an improvement
>
> As far as I understand it, there was extensive analysis done that showed
> that the new behavior is an improvement. You may disagree: the team in
> question was solving a performance problem.
> Quote:
> > The same used to be true for multiple file selects of the same extension,
> > regardless of number, and if you opened literally hundreds then your
> > machine
> > would chunker-chunker until they were all open but it would still do it.
>
> That chunker-chunker is perceived to be a bad experience. Your system is a
> lot nicer than others that would struggle further with this scenario.
> Quote:
> > You also used to be able to select multiple files, i.e. more than one, and
> > right-click choose 'Open With' to select what app you wanted, which for
> > someone like me who uses multiple apps to work on multiple files, is very
> > useful and time-saving.
>
> This can be solved by the application in question using a more modern method
> of shell integration.
>
> If your suggestion is that Explorer should use the old "launch N copies of
> this application and let the system become seriously non-responsive and/or
> tank" solution, that's not going to be possible to achieve without someone
> reverting this change. You could certainly take that up with actual Product
> Support, but: there are teams assigned to make sure Windows doesn't
> chunker-chunker, and this was one of the solutions found to be necessary.
>
> --
> Speaking for myself only.
> See http://zachd.com/pss/pss.html for some helpful WMP info.
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
>
>
>