Old 8th March 2009, 08:01   #1
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Vista folder settings question

How do I get files to display the same way every time I open a folder?

If I access a music folder for example, the first time I do, I see large icons. I switch to "details" view, then do what I need to do with those files, and close the window. The next time I open the folder, I get medium icons. WTF? Where can I set it to remember the last view I had?

Same goes for the "My Computer" folder - every time I open it, there's a different view with either different icons or different grouping options. It really slows me down when doing file management.

I looked under control panel - folder options - view tab, and "remember each folder's view settings" is checked, yet the problem still exists.

Is there a fix for this?

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 13:06   #2
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
wasnt this something like desktop.ini or some file setting this?
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 18:03   #3
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Hmmm.... weird... on the Vista install I have here it just remembers what the last "View" was and shows that....

A guess? Maybe is the folder read-only, so it doesn't save the setting? That wouldn't account for "My computer" though.

?
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 18:23   #4
cooky560
Major Dude
 
cooky560's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Around
Posts: 1,181
Send a message via MSN to cooky560 Send a message via Yahoo to cooky560 Send a message via Skype™ to cooky560
In every version of Windows I use (XP, 7, and used to use Vista, and even as far back as 2000) have remembered the last view settings for the last 2,000 odd folders by default

Cooky560 - Making Pointless Posts since 8/12/ 2002

WWW.
Victory Requires no explanation, defeat allows none.
All that Evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing
cooky560 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 19:39   #5
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
I don't know what's causing it. It's frustrating and annoying.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 20:00   #6
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
A little web search revealed:

http://www.webtlk.com/2008/10/17/win...view-settings/
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 22:48   #7
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Thanks, I'm going to try that right now.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 23:03   #8
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Well, I did it, and it looks like it's working so far.



Thanks.

I set the value to 99999, hoping that there aren't 100000 folders on this box. I was worried that the "32 bit" thing might be bad since I have a 64 bit system, but time will tell I guess.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th March 2009, 23:07   #9
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
Originally posted by swingdjted
Well, I did it, and it looks like it's working so far.



Thanks.

I set the value to 99999, hoping that there aren't 100000 folders on this box. I was worried that the "32 bit" thing might be bad since I have a 64 bit system, but time will tell I guess.
[edit] shit, I just opened my computer again and it was different. Grouped by type medium icons before, not grouped at all, large icons now. Fuck. I'll try again with 64 bit [/edit]

[edit2] it seems that the 64 bit option is more successful, therefore the new label is

I hope that fixed it permanently, but if not, I'll post back. [/edit2]

Don't forget to live before you die.

Last edited by swingdjted; 8th March 2009 at 23:24.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2009, 07:37   #10
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
You might want to limit that to 65535, which should be more than enough and the largest integer in an int data type. It might not matter the machine is 32 or 64 bit, it's the program. I would have used an int expecting that there would never be 65000 folders on a machine.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th March 2009, 20:37   #11
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
The boot drive has 29,525 folders. The backup external drive has exactly as many.

The media drive and it's backup have 14,794 folders each.

This creates a total of 88,638 folders plus anything else that gets plugged in.

As long as it remembers the 65,000 most recently used folders, I'll be more than fine, but if it chooses at random which to remember and which to ignore, then I might have trouble.

I went ahead and made the switch.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2009, 12:07   #12
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
i kinda dislike how a preinstalled oem vista has 25k folders only in the /WINDOWS/ directory....
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2009, 20:00   #13
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
for fuck's sake...

AGAIN, in My Computer, I get large icons and no grouping, even though last time I closed it I had medium icons and grouped by type.

Now, I right click and try to "group by", and "type" isn't even available anymore. WHAT THE FUCK, VISTA? I'm sick of this shit. Issue after issue after issue. Lots of glamor and drastically reduced file management ability.

Someone please tell me that I'm doing something wrong and how to fix it. Otherwise I have more reason to tell over 300 class students and their families that Vista is worth skipping and should be avoided like the plague. About the only thing that I like about Vista's file management is the faster searches with indexing, but there are windows updates that you can do to address that in XP. Sorry, after a long day, little things like this really piss me off.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th March 2009, 21:24   #14
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
This has been an issue in Windows since forever.

You can try resetting it:

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70...der%20Settings
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 02:20   #15
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
^lots of homework bundled in that link. I did it all, and so far so good, but I'm not counting on it yet. I hope that it all works.

Thanks for the link. If it works I'll be a much less angry person.

Now if only the drop down menus in browsing windows actually did something useful like they used to, I'd be happier.

And, if I could get the old "up a level" button back that would be even better, but at least I'm hoping that the view memory issue is resolved.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 05:03   #16
PulseDriver
w3 addict
(Major Dude)
 
PulseDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,806
Vista is a piece of shit anyway. Why would you use Vista because it has no advantages, unless you might play games that requires DX10

09 F9 11 01 9D 74 E8 5B D8 41 56 C3 63 56 81 C0
PulseDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 06:27   #17
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Umm... because XP is obsolete, soon to be unsupported and doesn't work as well...

Compared to XP, which had some disastrous bugs in early versions, Vista is a peach.

Really, in so many ways, Vista is just flat superior. To make it that way, it needed to be different and that gives us some issues.

Two biggies. Vista almost never crashes. Programs crash, but they don't wipe out the whole box. Vista is MUCH smoother about the way it handles multitasking.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 11th March 2009 at 06:50.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 06:49   #18
Paul_Bags
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 722
CHANGE YOUR OS LIKE YOU CHANGE YOUR UNDERWEAR! SPEND MORE MONEY NOW!!!.

Seriously, whats the point? 98 had to die (and die and die and die...), 2000 always seemed a bit restrictive to me, but whats wrong with XP?
Paul_Bags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 06:56   #19
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Nothing is wrong with XP for being 5 years out of date.
Vista is really what XP should have been.

The point is that Vista is a cure for most of the shortcomings of XP. Instead of stammering multitasking and multi core support that is more or less a hack, Vista is the next step in Microsofts OS evolution.

I was as critical as you guys, but this is a better OS. It's probably worth the pain and little bug here or there. I have two almost identical X2 machines. 1 with XP. 1 with Vista. It isn't even close. Vista works way better.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 11th March 2009 at 07:15.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 07:12   #20
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Personally I loved 98SE. I was very happy to skip everything between that and XP SP1, and many others have similar opinions.

At work, we run an extremely smooth network of hundreds of computers and several servers all on XP or Server '03. It will likely stay that way and skip Vista before moving to a new OS.

Many, if not most business that I see are all still using XP, hence why business laptops are generally still sold with XP available. To say XP is obsolete to many users would be like saying an 8 year old car is obsolete. To some, yes, to some no.

Perhaps Vista is more stable, but for some people, nothing they do results in a crash of either OS. In the same fashion, using 6 sign posts to hold up one road sign may be more stable than one, but often one is more than enough on it's own.

I was really happy to get the latest and greatest when I got Vista, but it's more or less been frustration after frustration. I've since added a drive that can boot XP x64, and I find that I can work much more efficiently with it. When I work with it, I just don't miss almost anything about Vista. I still use Vista for some media (Windows Media Center) and gaming, but otherwise, I'll stick to tried and true until either fixes to the file management issues arise or a better OS is released.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 07:21   #21
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
For a while, using Vista was sort of like someone took my desk and scattered it. Nothing was in the same place... annoyed me for a while until I got used to it....

Burning 2 DVD's at once was cool. Being able to have the machine running at 100% CPU and not having it stutter was cool. Playing video in full screen on either monitor was cool (DX10)...
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 07:22   #22
Paul_Bags
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 722
Oh 98 was good, but it broke too easily. I remember getting bored and writing a quick autohotkey script that simply called itself, resulting in it being exponentially loaded into memory until 98 crashed . XP simply doesn't let it.
Paul_Bags is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 07:27   #23
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I remember 98 well. It was the first really good Windows. I still have a 2000 server license around here, but when I installed it on a machine recently it was virused in 5 minutes. 5 minutes of nostalgia
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 11:21   #24
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie

Vista is really what XP should have been.
and Seven is what Vista should have been?!

i prefer XP over Vista tbh.

everything needs 3 more clicks to do and is hidden behind 4 other things.

AND I WANT BACK MY XP STYLE GROUPING!
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th March 2009, 15:08   #25
PulseDriver
w3 addict
(Major Dude)
 
PulseDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,806
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
Umm... because XP is obsolete, soon to be unsupported and doesn't work as well...

Compared to XP, which had some disastrous bugs in early versions, Vista is a peach.

Really, in so many ways, Vista is just flat superior. To make it that way, it needed to be different and that gives us some issues.

Two biggies. Vista almost never crashes. Programs crash, but they don't wipe out the whole box. Vista is MUCH smoother about the way it handles multitasking.
Why spend lots of CPU on a heap of mumbo jumbo that you really don't need when XP works fine? At some point it will die, but there is not a doubt that Vista is loaded with shit that just takes CPU for nothing compared to XP. I ran Vista on my mother's laptop. I couldn't do jack shit, and for what? Nice looks? And now after SP2 was released, I haven't had one single crash or device driver failure. I can't possibly see the advantage. All the games I get runs just as well on my XP.

There are a few things other than DX10 such as extended memory possibilities etc, but as long as you are below that, why even bother. Why buy a much better computer to get the same performance you always had?

If you had XP and wanted Vista, you got something wrong.

09 F9 11 01 9D 74 E8 5B D8 41 56 C3 63 56 81 C0
PulseDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2009, 11:59   #26
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by PulseDriver
Why spend lots of CPU on a heap of mumbo jumbo that you really don't need when XP works fine? At some point it will die, but there is not a doubt that Vista is loaded with shit that just takes CPU for nothing compared to XP. I ran Vista on my mother's laptop. I couldn't do jack shit, and for what? Nice looks? And now after SP2 was released, I haven't had one single crash or device driver failure. I can't possibly see the advantage. All the games I get runs just as well on my XP.

There are a few things other than DX10 such as extended memory possibilities etc, but as long as you are below that, why even bother. Why buy a much better computer to get the same performance you always had?

If you had XP and wanted Vista, you got something wrong.
yea, thats why im still on XP even tho i have enough power to run vista.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th March 2009, 20:11   #27
swingdjted
DRINK BEER NOW
(Forum King)
 
swingdjted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern West Virginia
Posts: 9,990
Send a message via AIM to swingdjted Send a message via Yahoo to swingdjted
Quote:
Originally posted by PulseDriver
There are a few things other than DX10 such as extended memory possibilities etc,
XP x64 makes full use of all 16GB of my RAM when necessary, although it doesn't have "readyboost" that makes things like USB sticks and SD cards into RAM, although I wouldn't want to use that anyway.

I guess when it comes down to it, I ask myself, what configuration gets more work done well in a given limited-time work shift? For now at least, a good rig with XP x64 seems to be the best answer for me. It also seems best for most general computer use other than gaming or video watching.

On the other hand, when I switch gears and use a computer for watching videos and playing games, Vista Home Premium x64 is the best answer for me.

Don't forget to live before you die.
swingdjted is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump