In message <jaxgqvns1e6j.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:22:01,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
>Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program? In the
>.bat file, run the program. After it exits, use a 'ren' command to
>change the extension from .rtf to .txt.
>
><program>
>ren <name>.rtf <name>.txt
>
>Then when you double-click on the .txt file in Explorer, Notepad will
>open. The test I did showed Notepad will work how you want.
[]
You're assuming his secret program runs, writes the .rtf file, then
exits. Reading between the lines - which is all we can do, as he won't
tell us what the prog. is! - I gather the mystery program writes the
..rtf (closing it when it has done), then subsequently writes it - with
the same name - _again_. Your "after it exits" assumes it _does_ exit.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Time is an illusion - lunchtime doubly so. (First series, fit the first.)

In message <uu14vm$2rm87$2@dont-email.me> at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 13:54:31,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
[]
>> Well, that's related to my asking below what was your _reason_
>> for wanting to monitor the changes.
>
>Again, I do *NOT* want to /monitor/ any changes.

You do, sort of.
>
>I just want to see the contents of the document I just double-clicked.
>Thats all. I asked for it, it needs to happen.

WordPad won't re-open a file it already has open. This is arguably a
bug, but that's the way it is. I won't say "get over it", because I get
very cross when people say that sort of thing to _me_; instead, I am
trying to understand _why_ you want to do this. Railing "because it
should" will only frustrate you; there are lots of things in the world I
wish would work differently (or even "properly" in many cases), but they
don't, and I eventually accept them - however much I hate the fact(s).
We're not going to get WordPad changed ("fixed" if you like) -
especially the version that (from where you're posting) came with XP or
7.

You "just" want to see the contents of the document you just
double-clicked. But, in practice, you want to see the _changes_.
Otherwise you wouldn't have raised this question!

Unless your original reason for wanting to see the (changed) document
has long gone, and you're just pursuing this for its own sake. In which
case feel free - I have done the same all too often in the past!
>
>> These questions were trying to find what your _specific_ problem is.
>
>In a few words :? Explicitily asking for something to happen and
>(silently!) being ignored (which has caused me problems in the past).

And being misunderstood by some.
>
>> from the lack of responses that actually give the switch, the answer
>> would appear to be "no, it has no such switch"
>
>I would already be glad with "I'm not aware of the existance of such a
>switch" kind of replies - and than possibly /followed/ with suggestions of
>other approaches.

"I'm not aware of the existence [!] of such a switch".
>
>> I had the feeling you wanted something like a "status window",
>...
>> If it isn't, what _do_ you want
>
>Simple: double-click a file, the file gets loaded and displayed. Rinse and
>repeat.

Not gonna happen - with NotePad at least. It should, _perhaps_; it's not
gonna. But you've homed in on that being what you want.
>
>> for/with the output of this specific prog.
>
>I see I made a mistake in mentioning the program which is the source of the
>document. It allowed you to side-track yourself.

It allowed me to ask "why do you want to do this" - as in "what is the
_reason_ you want to see these changes", rather than just "WordPad
doesn't behave the way I want [and arguably how it should] - anyone know
a way to fix it".

I don't really believe you decided, out of the blue, to see if WordPad
behaved in a certain way: you were actually wanting to do something, and
tried using WordPad, and it didn't. You _then_ asked why (or, more
specifically, does anyone know a switch to make it).
>
>> not as a general WordPad question (for which it doesn't seem an
>> answer is forthcoming)?
>
>As far as I'm concerned the answer must still be sought in direct connection
>to wordpad - as it is causing the problem, nothing else.

It's causing the problem - in that it's not behaving the way you want
(and that arguably it should). But rather than the problem with WordPad,
which you have identified, I and some others were trying to help you do
what you were originally trying to do (and other others misunderstood
what you were trying to do).

If what you were originally trying to do - even if you now won't admit
it!, which was see a changed document - is no longer of interest, but
you want instead to pursue the WordPad bug ad infinitum (ad nauseam),
fair enough, but tell us.

(You wanted to do something, and you used a tool you thought should; the
tool didn't work as you expected. You asked if it was possible to make
the tool work as you expected, which was a good move, because if someone
knew the answer, it's more generally useful, and lets all of us learn
how to use that tool in that way, it's more generally useful. However,
especially if nobody knows how to do that - it may even not be possible
- then helping you do what you were originally trying to do is better
than nothing.)
>
>Pehaps I will use "taskkill" (or similar mechanisms) for a while and see how
>I like it. Might even put something like it in a launcher program.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
Yes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Time is an illusion - lunchtime doubly so. (First series, fit the first.)

Vanguard,

> Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?
[snip]

Yes, I could.

But all of those try to circumvent the problem itself (which will still rear
its ugly head in other circumstances where the origional files contents
change) as well as having their own side effects.

I think that taskkill (which I mentioned in my initial post) is one of the
few "solutions" (hacks) which seems to have no side effects - even though
its usage seems to be limited to where a script launches the changed
document.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> Write a script to automate the looping behavior you desire.

There is no looping behaviour to be automated.

I'm the one who runs the ... something which creates the new document, and
again I who double-clicks the document afterwards. Its all manual labour.
And hard work :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

J. P. ,

> You're assuming his secret program runs, writes the .rtf file, then exits.
[snip]

Good one. Yes, the program generates the document and than exits.

> then subsequently writes it - with the same name - _again_.

Let me correct that :

Then, *when its run again* (by me), it subsequently writes it - with the
same name - _again_.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <jaxgqvns1e6j.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:22:01,
> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
>>Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program? In the
>>.bat file, run the program. After it exits, use a 'ren' command to
>>change the extension from .rtf to .txt.
>>
>><program>
>>ren <name>.rtf <name>.txt
>>
>>Then when you double-click on the .txt file in Explorer, Notepad will
>>open. The test I did showed Notepad will work how you want.
> []
> You're assuming his secret program runs, writes the .rtf file, then
> exits. Reading between the lines - which is all we can do, as he won't
> tell us what the prog. is! - I gather the mystery program writes the
> .rtf (closing it when it has done), then subsequently writes it - with
> the same name - _again_. Your "after it exits" assumes it _does_ exit.

Or that the program halts the batch script until it exits to then run
the next command.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> Vanguard,
>
>> Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?
>
> Yes, I could.
>
> But all of those try to circumvent the problem itself (which will still rear
> its ugly head in other circumstances where the origional files contents
> change) as well as having their own side effects.
>
> I think that taskkill (which I mentioned in my initial post) is one of the
> few "solutions" (hacks) which seems to have no side effects - even though
> its usage seems to be limited to where a script launches the changed
> document.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't do what
you want, and keep expecting someone to come up with a solution where
Wordpad has command-line arguments other than filespec and /p (for
printing). There are no other command-line args to Wordpad, including
no arg for forcing a flush of its buffer nor an arg to force a close of
the current doc to get a new copy loaded in its buffer.

Either you're stuck with how Wordpad functions, or you use a different
editor that does do what you want. For some unknown reason, you are are
averse to using anything other than Wordpad. There are far better
editors that can read RTF files. You refuse the obvious in renaming the
output file. Wordpad got bundled into Windows over 28 years ago.

The only advantage Wordpad has over Notepad is Wordpad supports RTF
(bold, italics, fonts, etc). Although touched on before, you've yet to
disclose if the program's output is RTF at all, or just plain text
dumped into a .rtf file.

If you insist on using Wordpad, there is no good solution for you.
Using taskkill is no more a better a solution than others offered. In
fact, some suggestions require less effort than you using taskkill.
Well, if that's your preference then go with it. You asked how to solve
the problem besides using taskkill, but you're adamant on using Wordpad
and taskkill. You started with that solution, and are determined to
continue using it. If it's how you want, go for it.

I don't see how taskkill is a solution. You open Wordpad with a file,
you want to open another instance of Wordpad to the same but
since-changed file, but you involve taskkill to eliminate the earlier
instance of Wordpad. Why can't you just exit the earlier instance
before you load the next one? No having to find the PID of the prior
instance of Wordpad. No having to open a command shell to run "taskkill
/i wordpad.exe /f" (which would take out both the old and new instances
of Wordpad unless you wait until after taskkill to open the new
instance). No having to dig into Task Manager to kill the old instance.
Just click on the "X" titlebar icon in the old instance before you load
the new instance of Wordpad.

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

> IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same
> name it already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.

There is no "dirty bit" to identify a file has been changed after it has
been loaded in any process with a file handle on it. When inside an
editor when you make a change, yes, there is a dirty bit to let the
editor there was a change to prompt you on exit to save changes. That's
inside the editor, not back in the file system to notify every process
that has a file handle on the same file that there was a change.

An editor won't know if some other process has changed the file. There
is no interprocess communication between your program and Wordpad to let
Wordpad know your program changed the file. You want cooperating that
doesn't exist.

Wordpad has the ancient and nasty trait of reusing its buffer if the
filespec is the same as before. 28 years ago, Wordpad was not conceived
as an MDI (multiple document interface) editor. Since the target didn't
change, it shows you what it already loaded. Consider how long it would
take a new instance of Wordpad to load a changed file that was as large
as the maximum file size in NTFS. Unlike modern editors that load a
portion of a huge file into a buffer, let's you view and edit that, and
then has to load more of the file into the buffer, Wordpad loads all of
the doc into a buffer. Just because "Word" is in the "Wordpad" product
name does not mean Wordpad is as robust as MS Word. Microsoft has been
conflating product titles for a very long time. At around 16 MB,
Wordpad will get very slow to load a file that size. Even MS Word 2010
had an upper limit of 512 MB on RTF files. Wordpad doesn't have robust
error correction: when you open a huge file, corruption or tail-end
truncation may happen. Just because Wordpad eventually gets around to
loading a huge document doesn't mean it should. You can do a lot of
work in Wordpad, and lose a lot on a save/exit. It's a crappy RTF
editor.

If you don't want something huge like MS Word to edit RTF files, and
since Wordpad is disappointing, look to something better to handle RTF
files. I use MS Word, have used LibreOffice (LO), but back to MS Word
(too many functions missing or workaround in LO). LO is free. Some
folks like FreeOffice (Softmaker the parent) or WPS Office (the latter
had a reputation problem in the past for spying, but they changed).
AbiWord, TextMaker, and lots of other free choices.

You want to do more than Wordpad can do. That means using something
other than Wordpad, or use workarounds. Several have been mentioned,
but you mentioned taskkill at the start, and decided to stick with that.

> Its not about /automatically/ updating the contents of wordpad when the file
> changes, its about showing the contents of the file when the user
> double-clicks it (a manual action).

And that's what I did with Notepad. I didn't say I saw the current
instance of Notepad showing changes in the file. I said opening a new
instance of Notepad after changes were made to the file.

> As so often, my question is not only aimed at my current situation,
> but also at other, similar ones (trying to solve the problem at its
> root).

The root of the problem is Wordpad is 28 years old introduced back in
Windows 9x, has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p), and
won't do what you want. Getting it to do what you want requires some
wrangling outside of Wordpad.

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote

| The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't do what
| you want, and keep expecting someone to come up with a solution

That's always the way with Rudy. If he wanted a solution
he would have detailed the issue, explaining what he needs
to achieve. But what he really wants is to snipp about how
people are too dumb for him to tolerate. Then again, you keep
playing along, so.... :)

On 3/27/2024 9:21 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Vanguard,
>>
>>> Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?
>>
>> Yes, I could.
>>
>> But all of those try to circumvent the problem itself (which will still rear
>> its ugly head in other circumstances where the origional files contents
>> change) as well as having their own side effects.
>>
>> I think that taskkill (which I mentioned in my initial post) is one of the
>> few "solutions" (hacks) which seems to have no side effects - even though
>> its usage seems to be limited to where a script launches the changed
>> document.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Rudy Wieser
>
> The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't do what
> you want, and keep expecting someone to come up with a solution where
> Wordpad has command-line arguments other than filespec and /p (for
> printing). There are no other command-line args to Wordpad, including
> no arg for forcing a flush of its buffer nor an arg to force a close of
> the current doc to get a new copy loaded in its buffer.

And CoPilot told me that WordPad has no API for interaction.
Wordpad is not a full-featured widget.

Maybe there is some way that a program could MMAP a file,
and then use some interface that tells it the file has
been changed on disk. The other option is the NTFS change
journal (FAT has no equivalent of that). The SearchIndexer
uses the change journal, and Everything.exe also uses
the change journal, to be informed of file system changes.
(You then apply a filter to the list, to only get
the changes you care about, such as a single file
you happen to have open at the moment.)

I've had editors warn me before, about changes
had been made since the file was opened, so I've
at least seen this feature in action.

While you could try LibreOffice Writer as an RTF proofer,
or OpenOffice Writer, We don't really know if they work
exactly like the Microsoft parser or not. I've always
found RTF to be a waste of time as an interchange mechanism.
Even if you take RTF from one Microsoft tool and feed
it to another Microsoft tool, there are no guarantees
on the outcome or the appearance.

Paul

Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> And CoPilot told me that WordPad has no API for interaction.
> Wordpad is not a full-featured widget.
>
> Maybe there is some way that a program could MMAP a file,
> and then use some interface that tells it the file has
> been changed on disk. The other option is the NTFS change
> journal (FAT has no equivalent of that). The SearchIndexer
> uses the change journal, and Everything.exe also uses
> the change journal, to be informed of file system changes.
> (You then apply a filter to the list, to only get
> the changes you care about, such as a single file
> you happen to have open at the moment.)
>
> I've had editors warn me before, about changes
> had been made since the file was opened, so I've
> at least seen this feature in action.
>
> While you could try LibreOffice Writer as an RTF proofer,
> or OpenOffice Writer, We don't really know if they work
> exactly like the Microsoft parser or not. I've always
> found RTF to be a waste of time as an interchange mechanism.
> Even if you take RTF from one Microsoft tool and feed
> it to another Microsoft tool, there are no guarantees
> on the outcome or the appearance.

RTF is pretty old (c.1987), but ASCII is much older. Microsoft dropped
RTF back in 2008. Within those 20 years came up with several versions
listed at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Text_Format

Which version a program supports depends on just how portable a doc is
between different programs. This is akin to the numerous versions of
Adobe's PDF that came out over many years.

Wordpad sucks as an RTF editor. As mentioned, if a file gets too big
(how big is unknown), you can lose content (gets corrupted, tail end of
doc gets truncated). You spend a lot of time editing a doc only to find
out later not only are your edits are gone, but so is some other
content. Wordpad is a great trashing tool.

I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many
of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size,
so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened
in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB. When
"printed" to a PDF, the .pdf file is 1.4 MB.

However, tis likely that Rudy's "program" does have any configuration
settings to let him choose a different document format nor the extension
for its output file. That's why solutions regarding Wordpad are
reactive workarounds. Rudy is stuck with the behavior of the "program".
He isn't stuck with the behavior of Wordpad.

VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:

> However, tis likely that Rudy's "program" does have any configuration
^___ not
> settings to let him choose a different document format nor the extension
> for its output file. That's why solutions regarding Wordpad are
> reactive workarounds. Rudy is stuck with the behavior of the "program".
> He isn't stuck with the behavior of Wordpad.

J. P. ,

>>Again, I do *NOT* want to /monitor/ any changes.
>
> You do, sort of.

:-) You're stretching it.

> WordPad won't re-open a file it already has open. This is arguably a bug,
> but that's the way it is.

Ah, thats something different altogether, and something I didn't want to go
into.

No, I do not consider that to be a bug. Making it impossible to have the
same file open multiple times fixes the (in)famous "which window was I
editing in ?" problem.

Its quite likely they didn't think of idiots like me who would have the
audacity to change a files contents while it was already loaded into the
editor. :-)

In that regard you could consider wordpadd not write-locking the underlaying
file as a bug. Though doing so would quite likely riled someone elses
feathers. :-)

Though I do consider wordpad *silently ignoring* the new data to be one.

But, although I would have liked to have seen it differently, it is, as you
say, as it is, and I'll have to work with it.

> I won't say "get over it", because I get very cross when people say that
> sort of thing to _me_;

:-| I would consider people saying that kind of stuff as having zero
interest into looking into the matter, and regard their (future) post as
static noise.

> instead, I am trying to understand _why_ you want to do this. Railing
> "because it should" will only frustrate you;
....
> If what you were originally trying to do - even if you now won't admit
> it!, which was see a changed document - is no longer of interest, but you
> want instead to pursue the WordPad bug ad infinitum (ad nauseam), fair
> enough, but tell us.

:-) I was not posting because I tried to demand that reality bends to my
will, I was just trying to find out if I perhaps had missed something.

What you consider my "I /have/ to do it that way" stance is likely nothing
more than you noticing that I didn't just drop my question, and expect(ed)
it to be replied to first (and I'm purposely not saying "answered", 'cause
there might well not be one).

What /does/ frustrate (of sorts) me is that most people (here and elsewhere)
do not respond in any way to the question, but jump directly into suggesting
work-arounds.

My question is now two days old and has garnered multiple responses, none of
which give any indication that wordpad can do what I would like it to see
doing.

So, I'm going to assume that it can't, and *now* seriously start considering
other options. And FYI, nothing of what has been suggested in this thread
was new to me.

* using something else than wordpad
* [ap|pre]pending the current date/time to the filename

.... well, that was it I think. I already mentioned taskkill myself (in an
attempt to indicate that I already considered possible work-arounds before
posting my question).

Yes, I know I'm rather weird in doing my own homework first, only than to
try to get some specifics about one of the (im)possible options. So sue me.
:-)

Although taskkill didn't want to work for me (I'm not at all sure where
exactly its wm_close message gets send to), a basic FindWindowEx (using the
target windows class and caption) followed by sending it a wm_close to it
does seem to do the trick.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Vanguard,

> The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't
> do what you want,

Do tell me where you have posted that you think that that wordpad can't do
it.

*Thats* the problem.

For all I know none of you have got a clue, therefore ignore it and continue
with suggesting, possibly quite unneeded, work-arounds. And yes, that has
happend to me before.

> If you insist on using Wordpad, there is no good solution for you.

I think that the others here will thank you for that assessment. :-)

Ofcourse, with the definition to your "good solution" being up for grabs it
doesn't mean too much.

> Using taskkill is no more a better a solution than others offered.

I beg to differ. But as you have not brought forward any "and this is why"
to it there is nothing we could discuss in that direction ...

> You open Wordpad with a file, you want to open another instance of
> Wordpad to the same but since-changed file, but you involve taskkill
> to eliminate the earlier instance of Wordpad. Why can't you just
> exit the earlier instance before you load the next one?

I can, and currently have to.

But I thought I made it rather clear why I wanted to eliminate that manual
middle step (and why!). If not I suggest you re-read the thread, I've
mentioned it multiple times.

> No having to find the PID of the prior instance of Wordpad.

:-) And with that you show that you have no clue how that taskkill works.

Suggestion : Open a command prompt, type "taskkill /?" and read. You might
learn something.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Vanguard,

>> IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same
>> name it already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.
>
> There is no "dirty bit" to identify a file has been changed after it has
> been loaded

Why should a "dirty bit" be involved ? Just throw whatever is in there out
and reload the provided file. Not really rocket science.

> in any process with a file handle on it.

Mistake. As reading this thread about how wordpad (doesn't) deals with its
underlying document should have shown you (there is no "handle" it keeps).

> yes, there is a dirty bit to let the editor there was a change to
> prompt you on exit to save changes.

Second mistake : trying to conflate the files "dirty" bit with the one which
signals that the editors contents where changed. Nasty move.

> An editor won't know if some other process has changed the file.

Third mistake.

That has been brought up multiple times by others and answered. As I've
also told them, thats not what I posted I wanted to see happen.

And by the away, yes, its very possible for a program to track if a file
gets changed. Some editors use it and will offer the user the option to
(re)load the changed file - something that I think has also been mentioned
in this thread ...

> You want cooperating that doesn't exist.

Fourth mistake.

And that was told to me (by you or anyone else) ... where ?

IOW, you *only now* claim it doesn't exist, packed in an accusation for me
not knowing it. Quite a dick move.

> Wordpad has the ancient and nasty trait of reusing its buffer
> if the filespec is the same as before.

Thanks captain obvious. Thats what my whole question was/is about.

> Since the target didn't change, it shows you what it already loaded.

"Since the targets *NAME* didn't change,"

There, fixed that for you.

Don't you think its funnily stupid to see that wordpad remembers the
filename, but "forgets" something easy-and-short-to-remember like the files
last-modified date/time ?

> The root of the problem is Wordpad is

(that it)

> has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p),

Nice to see you contradict yourself in a single line. :-)

> and won't do what you want.

And thats the only thing I wanted to have input on.

At times you respond as if you have a head on your shoulders, and at other
times ... meh.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Newyana2,

> If he wanted a solution he would have detailed the issue,
> explaining what he needs to achieve.

Like this perhaps ?

[quote=me, initial message]
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
and double-click it I still see the old contents.
.....
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
[/quote]

So, two mistakes :

1) I didn't ask for a solution, I asked a basic "does this exist?" question.

2) You got exactly what you claim you didn't get.

> But what he really wants is to snipp about how people are
> too dumb for him to tolerate

You know what *I* think is dumb ? People who cannot bring themselves to
answer a simple question, and than bitch about it as if its the other
persons fault. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser.

Although the responses to my actual question are minimal, they seem to
indicate that no such override is available.

Alas.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote

| I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many
| of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size,
| so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened
| in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB.

Maybe images? I checked my system. I have 105 RTFs. If you
have over 10K then it sounds like it's time for some housecleaning.

I've used a RichEdit window for many years in my own code editor.
It's wonderfully powerful and the format is published. Though I'd
agree that Wordpad/Write is not very useful. It's the power of RTF
squeezed through a narrow funnel. If I want attractive formatting
I use HTML. These days, an HTML file can even have the images
embedded inline as base64. I keep VBScripts on my desktop to do
just that.

In message <uu3hg8$3h8l5$3@dont-email.me> at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:14:13,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
>Vanguard,
[]
>At times you respond as if you have a head on your shoulders, and at other
>times ... meh.
[]
We're all guilty of that - including you, as well as me and Vanguard.
The only (regular) one who mostly doesn't is patient Paul.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Does Barbie come with Ken?"
"Barbie comes with G.I. Joe. She fakes it with Ken." - anonymous

In message <uu3nk7$3ipmo$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 08:25:32,
Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
>"VanguardLH" <V@nguard.LH> wrote
>
>| I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many
>| of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size,
>| so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened
>| in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB.
>
> Maybe images? I checked my system. I have 105 RTFs. If you
>have over 10K then it sounds like it's time for some housecleaning.

262 here (all but 15 on C:, so not created by me), all but 7 under your
300K threshold.

I'm guessing VLH has something that makes them, possibly as a
transitional stage that it's not cleaning up properly. Everything.exe is
great for looking there - you can sort by date modified, size, or path
(and it remembers your choice, so I don't know what's the default -
probably name).
>
> I've used a RichEdit window for many years in my own code editor.
>It's wonderfully powerful and the format is published. Though I'd
>agree that Wordpad/Write is not very useful. It's the power of RTF
>squeezed through a narrow funnel. If I want attractive formatting
>I use HTML. These days, an HTML file can even have the images
>embedded inline as base64. I keep VBScripts on my desktop to do
>just that.
>
Is that what the "save as single file" option some browsers offer does?
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

J. P. ,

> We're all guilty of that - including you, as well as me and Vanguard.

Yep, it happens to the best of us. And than I hope I get called out for it
too, as its not my intention.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 3/28/2024 6:29 AM, R.Wieser wrote:

> Like this perhaps ?
>
> [quote=me, initial message]
> The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document
> and double-click it I still see the old contents.
> ....
> Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
> [/quote]

< >

"Here is a ham bone."

"Uh, that ham bone has no meat on it."

"But I expect you to chew on it, and make
noises like you're enjoying it."

You already knew what the answer to the
question was, before you asked it.

*******

The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.

https://www.reddit.com/r/windows/comments/j06a3z/so_i_got_my_hands_on_the_original_windows_xp/

https://linuxreviews.org/42.9_GB_Of_Microsoft_Source_Code_Leaked:_Historicans_Can_Now_Study_The_Source_Code_For_MS-Dos_3.3_To_Windows_XP

Paul

Paul,

> You already knew what the answer to the
> question was, before you asked it.

Yes, and ? What do you mean by saying it ?

And no, I did not know for certain. That is why I asked. To make sure.

Are you telling me that that is a bad approach ? 'Cause if you would I
would strongly disagree with you.

> The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
> That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.

Thanks.

But as reddit is dependant on JS being available its largely a no-go area
for me. I would have liked to be able to have the sourcefiles of a few
programs available though.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <uu4aog$3nl5h$1@dont-email.me> at Thu, 28 Mar 2024 18:51:57,
R.Wieser <address@is.invalid> writes
[attrib. missing]
>> The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
>> That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.
>
>Thanks.
>
>But as reddit is dependant on JS being available its largely a no-go area
>for me. I would have liked to be able to have the sourcefiles of a few
>programs available though.

Apparently it's at
<http://51.255.68.3:8011/Microsoft%20leaked%20source%20code%20archive_202
0-09-24/nt5src.7z>, or was three years ago (I haven't tried fetching
it); it's either 2.93 GB or about 50 GB (I think the smaller [one post
says "The code for XP is 3GB ish but there's also a larger 50GB torrent
that also includes Windows Server 2003, MS-DOS 6, and a whole lotta Bill
Gates conspiracy videos."]); and the password is internaldev.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>
>
John G.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There should be a place on the ballot paper for 'None of the above', and if
enough people filled that in, the system might start to change. - Jeremy
Paxman in RT, 2014/1/25-31

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
| That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.
|

In VBClassic and probably in .Net there are simple wrapper
controls for the MS RichEdit library. It's actually not a big deal
to create a Wordpad type of program. But does anyone use
it anymore? I used to use it for help files and such where I
wanted formatting, but HTML is more flexible and looks nicer.
There's something about the display of bold text in RTF that
always looked clunky to me.