In Vista Biz, using any Explorer window:

1) If I save a new file from another program (say, Word) in a folder that is
currently open in another Explorer window, the Explorer window often (but
not always) will not update its display to reflect the addition of that new
file to the folder. The new file is displayed only after refreshing the
view.

2) While viewing a subfolder, if I collapse it's branch in the tree in the
left-hand pane by clicking the arrow next to a parent folder, the view on
the right is still of the subfolder that is now not seen on the left. In
other words, what might be selected on the folders list on the left is not
always displayed on the right.

I 'll learn to live with #2, and might even come to like it (even though it
completely changes a fundamental way that Windows has worked for many years
and that millions of people have come to rely upon). But #1 has got to be a
bug. But I can't seem to find a fix for it in the KB.

--
David Dickinson
eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:37:07 -0600, "David Dickinson"
<eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>In Vista Biz, using any Explorer window:
>
>1) If I save a new file from another program (say, Word) in a folder that is
>currently open in another Explorer window, the Explorer window often (but
>not always) will not update its display to reflect the addition of that new
>file to the folder. The new file is displayed only after refreshing the
>view.[/color]

If you have TWO windows open at the same time only one can have the
focus (be active) the other window not having the focus may not update
till you refresh even though it is the just another instance of the
same application assuming you have two Explorer windows open.[color=blue]
>
>2) While viewing a subfolder, if I collapse it's branch in the tree in the
>left-hand pane by clicking the arrow next to a parent folder, the view on
>the right is still of the subfolder that is now not seen on the left. In
>other words, what might be selected on the folders list on the left is not
>always displayed on the right.
>
>I 'll learn to live with #2, and might even come to like it (even though it
>completely changes a fundamental way that Windows has worked for many years
>and that millions of people have come to rely upon). But #1 has got to be a
>bug. But I can't seem to find a fix for it in the KB.[/color]

Maybe because this isn't a bug, at least not in the traditional sense.
It was designed to perform this way. Item #2 really isn't a bug
either. You seem to be nitpicking.

I disagree about the nitpicking part Adam. I've long gotten used to
having to hit F5 to refresh a list because often when something else
changes it, it doesn't show right away in other windows. But the thing
about having one folder highlighted in the left pane while files from
another folder are listed in the right pane is counter-intuitive and
dangerous. Here you have folder A highlighted and a list of files on
the right and you would conclude those files are in folder A, but
they're not. This could easily lead to deleting the wrong set of files
or some such. As David pointed out this is a fundamental change. This
isn't the only circumstance either. If you have folder A highlighted
in the left pane and use the down arrow to move to lower folders you
continue to see the files in folder A. This is a typical browsing
method for me, to just step through the folders and see what's in
them. I'm willing to change (reluctantly) for a reason but I can't
imagine a rational for this.

Tom


On Jun 9, 2:18 pm, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:[color=blue]
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 14:37:07 -0600, "David Dickinson"
> Maybe because this isn't a bug, at least not in the traditional sense.
> It was designed to perform this way. Item #2 really isn't a bug
> either. You seem to be nitpicking.[/color]

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote:[color=blue]
>
> If you have TWO windows open at the same time only one can have the
> focus (be active) the other window not having the focus may not update
> till you refresh even though it is the just another instance of the
> same application assuming you have two Explorer windows open.[/color]

Try my #1 in any previous version of Windows from '95 to Server 2003 and all
open Explorer will windows display accurate information about the contents
of a folder (Just to be sure I remembered correctly, I tried it on 95b, 98
2nd, ME, 2000 Server SP4, XP Pro SP2, and 2003 SP2). Only Vista Explorer
windows may (but not always) display inaccurate information until they are
refreshed. (I've got a Windows 3.1 machine in the back that I'll fire up to
test, but I'm pretty sure it always showed accurate directory lists, too.)
[color=blue]
> Maybe because this isn't a bug, at least not in the traditional sense.
> It was designed to perform this way. Item #2 really isn't a bug
> either. You seem to be nitpicking.[/color]

I can be convinced that my item #2 reflects a decision to fundamentally
change the relationship between the folders list and the folder contents
pane (it appears that many bad decisions were made during design that will
force hundreds of millions of people to unlearn and relearn a visual
language), but how can the display of often inaccurate information (a
directory list that is not complete) NOT be considered a bug?

--
David Dickinson
eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org

On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 17:12:58 -0600, "David Dickinson"
<eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> If you have TWO windows open at the same time only one can have the
>> focus (be active) the other window not having the focus may not update
>> till you refresh even though it is the just another instance of the
>> same application assuming you have two Explorer windows open.[/color]
>
>Try my #1 in any previous version of Windows from '95 to Server 2003 and all
>open Explorer will windows display accurate information about the contents
>of a folder (Just to be sure I remembered correctly, I tried it on 95b, 98
>2nd, ME, 2000 Server SP4, XP Pro SP2, and 2003 SP2). Only Vista Explorer
>windows may (but not always) display inaccurate information until they are
>refreshed. (I've got a Windows 3.1 machine in the back that I'll fire up to
>test, but I'm pretty sure it always showed accurate directory lists, too.)
>[color=green]
>> Maybe because this isn't a bug, at least not in the traditional sense.
>> It was designed to perform this way. Item #2 really isn't a bug
>> either. You seem to be nitpicking.[/color]
>
>I can be convinced that my item #2 reflects a decision to fundamentally
>change the relationship between the folders list and the folder contents
>pane (it appears that many bad decisions were made during design that will
>force hundreds of millions of people to unlearn and relearn a visual
>language), but how can the display of often inaccurate information (a
>directory list that is not complete) NOT be considered a bug?[/color]

You make it complete by refreshing it. Windows Explorer is roughly
designed like a filing cabinet. The left pane shows your drives and if
you expand it sub folders. If you give your sub folders descriptive
names to reflect their contents you shouldn't have any problems
finding your data.

When you first open a file cabinet drawer, you see the folders,
(Windows left pane) once the drawer is open you see the individual
folders inside. Windows takes it a step further and shows what's
inside each folder in the right pane as you select a folder in the
left pane at various levels of detail depending on how you set it up.

Yes things used to be a little different. Each version of Windows
changes. Some will like the changes, others won't. You seem to be
obsession over a MINOR point. I just wish Microsoft would get around
to fixing all the serious things wrong with Explorer that have been
broken for years. Now in Vista they managed to make it worse with file
copying/moving far slower for hundreds of millions of people.

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You make it complete by refreshing it. Windows Explorer is roughly
> designed like a filing cabinet. The left pane shows your drives and if
> you expand it sub folders. If you give your sub folders descriptive
> names to reflect their contents you shouldn't have any problems
> finding your data.[/color]

Puleeeze... <sigh>. Obviously, you didn't read my post. Or are you
deliberately talking down to me in order to insult me? BTW, I started using
Windows in 1991, although my experience with windowed user interfaces goes
back to 1982 and one that I wrote for the Apple IIe (although I stole part
of the design from Claris).

These are two flaws: Both involve the display of inaccurate information,
which is something that a computer program never should do. One is caused
by a fundamental change in the relationship between two Explorer two panes
that can cause people to do misunderstand where they are in their navigation
of folders, and the other is a false display of a folder's contents caused
simply because a computer program requires manual input for something that
always has been -- and can and should be -- done automatically.
[color=blue]
> Yes things used to be a little different. Each version of Windows
> changes. Some will like the changes, others won't. You seem to be
> obsession over a MINOR point. I just wish Microsoft would get around
> to fixing all the serious things wrong with Explorer that have been
> broken for years. Now in Vista they managed to make it worse with file
> copying/moving far slower for hundreds of millions of people.[/color]

I dispute that this is a "minor" problem, /especially/ when compared to the
file copy/move issue. With that one, you simply have to wait a
(frustratingly) long time. But the problems that I've described will cause
people inadvertently to do disasterous things. (Most people laugh at
Murphy's Law, except for those who know it isn't funny). And the blame will
rest with Vista.

--
David Dickinson
eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org
Please reply only to the newsgroup, not by email.

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:34:24 -0600, "David Dickinson"
<eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> You make it complete by refreshing it. Windows Explorer is roughly
>> designed like a filing cabinet. The left pane shows your drives and if
>> you expand it sub folders. If you give your sub folders descriptive
>> names to reflect their contents you shouldn't have any problems
>> finding your data.[/color]
>
>Puleeeze... <sigh>. Obviously, you didn't read my post.[/color]

Obviously you're just another blowhard that fancies himself another
Windows "expert". I guess one more won't hurt, even though this
newsgroup is already infested with plenty already.
[color=blue]
>Or are you deliberately talking down to me in order to insult me?[/color]

Oh please... you are the one claiming ignorance not being able to
understand what Windows Explorer is displaying in it's left and right
panes. Heck, I know 8 year old kids that don't have any problems, what
does that say about you if you claim you're confused?
[color=blue]
>BTW, I started using
>Windows in 1991, although my experience with windowed user interfaces goes
>back to 1982 and one that I wrote for the Apple IIe (although I stole part
>of the design from Claris).[/color]

Self praise and phony attempts to pretend you have superior knowledge
than others is always entertaining. Maybe you are just another guy
that's doing a audition to replace Justin, our previous newsgroup
clown that seems to be MIA lately.[color=blue]
>
>These are two flaws: Both involve the display of inaccurate information,
>which is something that a computer program never should do.[/color]

Before we go further, lets get a confirmation.

a. You claim to be smarter than Microsoft's software engineers.
b. You're just a garden variety blowhard.
c. You just like to hear yourself talk.
d. All of the above.

Factually, you don't have a clue what you're babbling about. There is
nothing inaccurate displayed. It may not always be presented in a
manner you or other nitpickers like, but it isn't inaccurate. Some
changes simply got your shorts all bunched up and now you have some
need to shout and pound you fist on the table. Well heck, go for it.
You for sure won't be the first to make a horse's ass of himself in a
public newsgroups. I find such displays rather amusing in a sick sort
of way.
[color=blue]
>One is caused by a fundamental change in the relationship between two Explorer two panes
>that can cause people to do misunderstand where they are in their navigation
>of folders, and the other is a false display of a folder's contents caused
>simply because a computer program requires manual input for something that
>always has been -- and can and should be -- done automatically.[/color]

You're probably too dumb to realize it but you just admitted you can't
figure out what Explorer is showing you. Oops, but wait... you're a
computer expert, remember?[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Yes things used to be a little different. Each version of Windows
>> changes. Some will like the changes, others won't. You seem to be
>> obsession over a MINOR point. I just wish Microsoft would get around
>> to fixing all the serious things wrong with Explorer that have been
>> broken for years. Now in Vista they managed to make it worse with file
>> copying/moving far slower for hundreds of millions of people.[/color]
>
>I dispute that this is a "minor" problem, /especially/ when compared to the
>file copy/move issue.[/color]
[color=blue]
>With that one, you simply have to wait a
>(frustratingly) long time.[/color]

Only?

LOL! What a dope. So you claim copying and moving files at a fraction
of the speeds possible under XP is just a "minor" annoyance but oh God
quick... hang Bill Gates from the nearest tree, because you don't like
the Explorer view.

ROTFLMAO!
[color=blue]
>But the problems that I've described will cause
>people inadvertently to do disasterous things.[/color]

Maybe dopes like you.

There is no problem. Gee man, if you can't figure out what Explorer is
showing you when you expand folders and see details in the right pane
you need a remedial course in Windows basics.

Adam, you have missed the point completely: You and I are not the only
users of Vista. Your personal insults to me are irrelevant. A lot of folks
are going to have problems with these issues because the displays that I
described are counter-intuitive and, in fact, inaccurate.

--
David Dickinson
eveningstar at die-spammer-die dash mvps dot org
Please reply only to the newsgroup, not by email.

Adam, I'm afraid that I'll have to block further messages from you from
appearing in my newsreader. Your flames just aren't useful to the
community, and I won't waste anymore time on you.

David

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:12:17 -0600, "David Dickinson"
<eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Adam, you have missed the point completely: You and I are not the only
>users of Vista. Your personal insults to me are irrelevant. A lot of folks
>are going to have problems with these issues because the displays that I
>described are counter-intuitive and, in fact, inaccurate.[/color]

I wish I had a nickel for every dope that said I missed their poorly
presented "point".

On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:15:50 -0600, "David Dickinson"
<eveningstar@die-spammer-die.mvps.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Adam, I'm afraid that I'll have to block further messages from you from
>appearing in my newsreader. Your flames just aren't useful to the
>community, and I won't waste anymore time on you.[/color]
[color=blue]
>David[/color]

That didn't take long... the old I'm plonking you because I can't
debate what your saying defense, so I need to bail out now for I end
up looking even more stupid.

Hey, if it floats your boat, go for it.

So many clueless kiddies, so little time.