If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
File attributes:
Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
John Doe wrote:
File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. If a system clock is wrong on a system, the creation date could be wrong later. You're assuming, for some reason, they would correct any out of range dates. But that would be a mistake, as the date, even if tragically wrong, should be preserved for later analysis and correction (as needed). On the file systems, NTFS uses UTC. FAT32 uses DST, and it's more possible to see peculiar situations on FAT32, than on NTFS. (Like, copy files between NTFS and FAT32, and the translation between UTC and DST etc. Lots of permutations and combinations there are possible. And a headache for the people designing backup software.) And changing the FAT32 spec now, is not an option. It has to be left broken, for compatibility with all those hardware boxes also implementing FAT32 that way. Paul |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
Paul nospam needed.com wrote:
John Doe wrote: File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. You're assuming, for some reason, they would correct any out of range dates. But that would be a mistake, as the date, even if tragically wrong, should be preserved for later analysis and correction (as needed). The creation date is obviously the oldest date associated with the file. Why can't they maintain the oldest date as the creation date? It's obviously a major blunder that keeps going and going... I'm surprised this isn't well-known. All you have to do to prove it is copy a file from one folder to another. The creation date changes to the copy date. You might consider the copy date to be the creation date but I certainly don't, and it destroys the real creation date of the copied file. That totally messes up backups if you ever need to use them, since they are copies. Or maybe the real creation date is maintained as one of the other 15 or so different date properties? Please advise. -- On the file systems, NTFS uses UTC. FAT32 uses DST, and it's more possible to see peculiar situations on FAT32, than on NTFS. (Like, copy files between NTFS and FAT32, and the translation between UTC and DST etc. Lots of permutations and combinations there are possible. And a headache for the people designing backup software.) And changing the FAT32 spec now, is not an option. It has to be left broken, for compatibility with all those hardware boxes also implementing FAT32 that way. Paul |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
On 11/24/2013 1:35 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2013-11-24 5:11 AM, John Doe wrote: File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. Your clock is flaky. At one time there was an internal rechargeable battery that keep parts of the computer hot, When this battery died the first symptoms were time discrepancies. Does your computer have a battery, that should be replaced? When, where, how, and if there is a battery is determined by the manufacture, model, and type of the computer. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
On 11/24/2013 4:11 AM, John Doe wrote:
File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere, but there is good reason for CreationDate ModifyDate. When a file is copied, the copy gets the current date as a creation date, but the modification date is copied from the original file. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
Grinder grinder no.spam.maam.com wrote:
John Doe wrote: File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere, but there is good reason for CreationDate ModifyDate. When a file is copied, the copy gets the current date as a creation date, but the modification date is copied from the original file. Yeah, but what happened to the creation date? I guess that programmers think computers are more important than people. When the file is copied, somehow the computer is "creating" a file. And who cares when the human being originally created the file... There are so many file date attributes, you would think that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute. You have to wonder what they're thinking up there in Redmond. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
On 11/24/2013 6:33 PM, John Doe wrote:
Grinder grinder no.spam.maam.com wrote: John Doe wrote: File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere, but there is good reason for CreationDate ModifyDate. When a file is copied, the copy gets the current date as a creation date, but the modification date is copied from the original file. Yeah, but what happened to the creation date? I guess that programmers think computers are more important than people. When the file is copied, somehow the computer is "creating" a file. And who cares when the human being originally created the file... There are so many file date attributes, you would think that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute. You have to wonder what they're thinking up there in Redmond. It's obviously not your preference, but the mechanism, at it works, is defensible. It's not incompetence on Microsoft's part, but rather your disagreement with their definition for the attribute. Personally, I would prefer the creation date to remain intact across a file copy, as it's more conformed to the idea that the dates are about to contents of the file rather than the container. It doesn't really make my underwear bunch up, though, as it is. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
On 11/24/2013 7:33 PM, John Doe wrote:
There are so many file date attributes, you would think that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute. The date attributes are not there to tell *you* when the file's *content* was created or modified; they're there to tell the *operating system* when the *file* was created or modified, primarily for archiving purposes. -- David Trimboli http://www.trimboli.name/ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
David Trimboli david trimboli.name wrote:
John Doe wrote: There are so many file date attributes, you would think that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute. The date attributes are not there to tell *you* when the file's *content* was created or modified; they're there to tell the *operating system* when the *file* was created or modified, primarily for archiving purposes. If that *were* true, then they wouldn't be selectable in *Windows Explorer columns*. But *in fact* they are listed along with *hundreds of other file attributes* that are obviously for the user. Yes, Microsoft is too *lazy* to clean up its *obsolete* and *misnamed* file attributes. But *knowing* when I started a file is more *useful* than *95%* of the other *400+* attributes *Microsoft* has *decided* to *recognize*. *Microsoft* is too *lazy* to *add* such *useful* code to *Windows Explorer*, even *though* *it* *already* *records* *the* *original* *creation* *date*. *Instead*, *we* *have* *a* *misleading* *file* *attribute* "meant for the operating system". snipped spam signature, typically accompanying a bull**** answer -- Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: David Trimboli david trimboli.name Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-8 Subject: Microsoft's perennial incompetence... Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 21:24:57 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 15 Message-ID: l6ucdq$qng$1 dont-email.me References: l6sjct$nro$2 dont-email.me OvOdnX7fV7vICA_PnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d mchsi.com l6u5se$tcl$1 dont-email.me Reply-To: david trimboli.name Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 02:24:59 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="509f64ee5d18779693bd0889dfcf0fda"; logging-data="27376"; mail-complaints-to="abuse eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/4kyjmWHmVtydlKE80FrXibHqoB4u7FWs=" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 In-Reply-To: l6u5se$tcl$1 dont-email.me Cancel-Lock: sha1:TG0Fpw/dqfvWi43yd8QJOU1IhOY= Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:28810 alt.comp.os.windows-8:8217 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft's perennial incompetence...
IT DOESN'T MAKE MY UNDERWEAR BUNCH UP EITHER, IT'S JUST ONE OF
DOZENS OF IDIOTIC IN-YOUR-FACE THINGS WINDOWS DOES THAT SHOWS HOW INCOMPETENT/LAZY/WHATEVER MICROSOFT IS. IT'S JUST ONE OF SO MANY CONSTANT REMINDERS THAT MICROSOFT ISN'T A GENUINE HIGH TECHNOLOGY COMPANY AND THAT THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT THEIR MONOPOLY POWER. -- Grinder grinder no.spam.maam.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!nntp.mchsi.com!news.mchsi.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:24:15 -0600 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 20:23:15 -0600 From: Grinder grinder no.spam.maam.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-8 Subject: Microsoft's perennial incompetence... References: l6sjct$nro$2 dont-email.me OvOdnX7fV7vICA_PnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d mchsi.com l6u5se$tcl$1 dont-email.me In-Reply-To: l6u5se$tcl$1 dont-email.me Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: hcSdna1HbZBSKQ_PnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d mchsi.com Lines: 38 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.81.108.157 X-Trace: sv3-0wDVZJ7JJH6Cg3DKcAqMyKKXIdMtWX1HknGWQQZmQd7Hlt0xBD d/2xE+A1epain3wlV5Sq+ortWQl+/!fxQxdY4fBaSZrnFtahO3hv/r1Fs2T4ofaXHiJTjGOkKjDPWmOmQUC4dp9LPXk6SNzc2h0EwVI NKo!bpWtQDE= X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2824 Xref: news.eternal-september.org alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:28809 alt.comp.os.windows-8:8216 On 11/24/2013 6:33 PM, John Doe wrote: Grinder grinder no.spam.maam.com wrote: John Doe wrote: File attributes: Date Last Saved 13/11/23 Date Created 13/11/24 That's one thing Windows has always done wrong and always will. My apologies if this has already been noted elsewhere, but there is good reason for CreationDate ModifyDate. When a file is copied, the copy gets the current date as a creation date, but the modification date is copied from the original file. Yeah, but what happened to the creation date? I guess that programmers think computers are more important than people. When the file is copied, somehow the computer is "creating" a file. And who cares when the human being originally created the file... There are so many file date attributes, you would think that Microsoft could use one of them for maintaining when the file was created. And it would probably be called "date created". If you want to have a "date copied", fine, but that's a different attribute. You have to wonder what they're thinking up there in Redmond. It's obviously not your preference, but the mechanism, at it works, is defensible. It's not incompetence on Microsoft's part, but rather your disagreement with their definition for the attribute. Personally, I would prefer the creation date to remain intact across a file copy, as it's more conformed to the idea that the dates are about to contents of the file rather than the container. It doesn't really make my underwear bunch up, though, as it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Microsoft Gears Up to Release Xbox 360 with New Chips - IBM, TSMCLand Orders to Manufacture 65nm Chips for Microsoft Xbox 360 | AirRaid Mach 2.5 | Ati Videocards | 1 | May 10th 08 12:41 PM |
WTB: MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA, XP PRO, WIN2K PRO, HOME, 98SE, 98, 95, NT 4.0, OFFICE, SERVER INCLUDES MICROSOFT, DELL, COMPAQ, IBM, HP OR ANY OTHER OEM PACKAGES. | [email protected] | Dell Computers | 0 | August 26th 07 09:59 AM |
FINTAN UK & BURGEON MARKETING - PARTNERS IN UTTER INCOMPETENCE - SPAMMING ON GOOGLE AND SENDING THEIR BUSINESSES DOWN THE DRAIN | LEE TWAT INGRAM | Homebuilt PC's | 5 | June 27th 07 07:33 PM |
Dabs returns incompetence | Philip G | UK Computer Vendors | 7 | April 18th 05 03:26 PM |
"Alpha Serial Numbers" An example of Gateway incompetence and indifference. | IMD | Gateway Computers | 3 | February 24th 05 05:21 AM |