"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

| Did you know, that if you grab a window by the title
| bar with your mouse, and "shake it", that's a gesture
| and your DE can respond ?
| I don't think I want to know any more about your
kinky pastimes.

On 8/31/2023 10:29 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote
>
> | Did you know, that if you grab a window by the title
> | bar with your mouse, and "shake it", that's a gesture
> | and your DE can respond ?
> |
> I don't think I want to know any more about your
> kinky pastimes.

Well, you discover that one, when you've grabbed a window,
and you can't figure out what to do next (and you're concentrating
on the task and not the Desktop Environment). Then, your window
disappears on you, and you can't figure out what happened.

Paul

J. P. Gilliver,

> Actually, the second one will restore, rather than maximise

I noticed, but as I un-minimize windows regulary and see the windows/dialogs
restored to their former position and and size I took it that that is what
he ment.

> (At least, that's the case under 7 - oh, I see, we're only posting to the
> '7 'group. Good.)

I did consider to cross-post into XP too, but as that one is rather dead /
ammount of spam messages rivals the number of regular ones ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Paul,

> Well, you discover that one, when you've grabbed a window,
> and you can't figure out what to do next (and you're concentrating
> on the task and not the Desktop Environment). Then, your window
> disappears on you, and you can't figure out what happened.

In that "windows just does something" realm, did you know that if you have a
"{filename}_folders" folder and a "{filename}.htm" file in the same folder
(a result of saving a webpage) and you delete one the other one also gets
deleted ?

I often save webpages and clean them up (renaming resource files and putting
them next to the HTML file), after which I deleted the folder those files
came from.. It took me quite a while to a) figure out why I had resource
files but without any HTML file using them b) finding a webpage mentioning
that behaviour and showing registry edit which disables that behaviour.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On 9/1/2023 4:54 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
> Paul,
>
>> Well, you discover that one, when you've grabbed a window,
>> and you can't figure out what to do next (and you're concentrating
>> on the task and not the Desktop Environment). Then, your window
>> disappears on you, and you can't figure out what happened.
>
> In that "windows just does something" realm, did you know that if you have a
> "{filename}_folders" folder and a "{filename}.htm" file in the same folder
> (a result of saving a webpage) and you delete one the other one also gets
> deleted ?
>
> I often save webpages and clean them up (renaming resource files and putting
> them next to the HTML file), after which I deleted the folder those files
> came from.. It took me quite a while to a) figure out why I had resource
> files but without any HTML file using them b) finding a webpage mentioning
> that behaviour and showing registry edit which disables that behaviour.
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

Yes, that was a fun mystery :-)

Noticed that as well, that saving a "Web Page Complete", the main HTML file
and the folder with the associated files, are "joined" together somehow.
Throwing out one, throws out the other.

Paul

Paul,

> Noticed that as well, that saving a "Web Page Complete", the main HTML
> file
> and the folder with the associated files, are "joined" together somehow.

It seems to be name based only (IOW, a browser doesn't play a role in it).
A folder with a name ending on "_files" (I mistakingly said "_folders"
earlier) and a same-named file with an ".htm" extension are considered to be
part of the same group - even when created manually and (thus) with
different creation times.

> Throwing out one, throws out the other.

On the other hand, it also happens, according to the docs, when copying or
moving files. Which *might* be of some use for someone...

Its the "magical stuff happens" that irks me. :-\

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> > VanguardLH,
> >
> >> Huh? Just which words have me asserting you are afraid, and of what?
> >
> > Oh well.
> >
> > Thank you for making it clear that went back to trolling. To be honest,
> > your previous post made me already wonder, but I wanted to give you the
> > benefit of the doubt.
> >
> > Back into my "lets ignore him." list I'm afraid.
> >
> > And FWI, even if you really have no clue to what I ment (but I doubt that
> > very much) than I have no desire to struggle/fight with you, effectivily
> > trying to teach you basic English conversation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rudy Wieser
>
> Does ANYONE have a clue why Reiser chose to become animous to me? Where
> did I say he was afraid of anything? I give him several possible
> resolutions, he figures perhaps I didn't assualt/insult him, but then he
> accuses me of trolling. Something odd about Reiser himself.

Well, calling him "Reiser" might not be the best way going forward
:-), but...

About the 'afraid' issue: (IMO) "The Case Of The Missing Comma:

<RW>

> Hmm, seems odd that both the "-" and max icons do the same thing.

You're the only one here asserting that I'm afraid, and I've got no idea
where you got it from. Sorry.

</RW>

Which should be (read as):

<RW>

> Hmm, seems odd that both the "-" and max icons do the same thing.

You're the only one here asserting that, I'm afraid, and I've got no idea
^
where you got it from. Sorry.

</RW>

Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.lh> wrote:
>
>> Does ANYONE have a clue why Reiser chose to become animous to me?
>> Where did I say he was afraid of anything? I give him several
>> possible resolutions, he figures perhaps I didn't assualt/insult
>> him, but then he accuses me of trolling. Something odd about Reiser
>> himself.
>
> Well, calling him "Reiser" might not be the best way going forward
> :-), but...

Oops, my bad.

> You're the only one here asserting that I'm afraid, and I've got no
> idea where you got it from. Sorry.

Which should be (read as):

> You're the only one here asserting that, I'm afraid, and I've got no
> idea where you got it from. Sorry.

Ah, perhaps that's it. He's not afraid of something, but interjecting a
doubt regarding my experience of never seeing the behavior he claims for
the "-" titlebar icon. Okay, missing punctuation led to confusion.
Wieser also neglected the comma in his statement:

Back into my "lets ignore him." list I'm afraid.

which he probably meant to be:

Back into my "lets ignore him" list, I'm afraid.
no period ---' '--- missing comma

Getting back to the titlebar icons, have you ever had the "-" titlebar
icon maximize the window as does the square (maximize) titlebar icon?
In my experience, the "-" titlebar icon /minimizes/ the window.

However, again with having to interpret, I had to guess Wieser's
"middle-ish" meant the "-" titlebar icon, and "now maximizes the window"
is newly changed behavior. That is, "-" used to minimize (which is what
I've always seen it do), but recently it changed to maximize. With that
change in windowing behavior, I'd investigate what causes the behavior
change since other oddities may be effected by the same cause. Without
being there to look at his setup, and lacking details, I'd suggest to
first start Windows in its safe mode to eliminate any startup programs
he added, and eliminate non-essential services. In safe mode, test if
"-" still maximizes instead of minimizes. Trying to attain an
alternative to minimizing the window ignores the problem, like masking
the symptom instead of resolving the cause.

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

> Paul,
>
>> Noticed that as well, that saving a "Web Page Complete", the main
>> HTML file and the folder with the associated files, are "joined"
>> together somehow.
>
> It seems to be name based only (IOW, a browser doesn't play a role in
> it). A folder with a name ending on "_files" (I mistakingly said
> "_folders" earlier) and a same-named file with an ".htm" extension
> are considered to be part of the same group - even when created
> manually and (thus) with different creation times.
>
>> Throwing out one, throws out the other.
>
> On the other hand, it also happens, according to the docs, when
> copying or moving files. Which *might* be of some use for someone...
>
> Its the "magical stuff happens" that irks me. :-\

It's a "feature" called Connected Files. To uncouple, rename the
folder, like change from "name_files" to "name" or "othername". Get rid
of the "_files" suffix in the folder name. The coupling is effected on,
at least, the move, copy, cut, delete, paste, and Send To actions, and
apparently hails back to Windows 2000.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/34717448/reason-why-folder-associated-with-saved-webpage-gets-deleted-when-we-delete-save

No mention of the citation source. It mentions "connected files" as a
feature of Windows 2000. A search on that found:

https://www.komodosec.com/post/playing-with-connected-files-a-story-of-mysterious-behavior-in-windows-file-system

Eventually some further searching found:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/shell/manage#connected-files

That article mentions a registry setting, NoFileFolderConnection, you
can change to disable the coupling behavior. Normally it is not defined
which means the default is used (file.htm and file_files are coupled).
You have to define the registry entry, and set it to 1, to disable the
coupling. You would have to test if the registry setting works for you.

Unclear is if the coupling is a "feature" in Windows/File Explorer, or
file management within the OS itself. Using a different file manager
might reveal if the coupling is dependent on Windows file manager.

In message <1pr1razfhu27a.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 1 Sep 2023 11:49:48,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
[]
>However, again with having to interpret, I had to guess Wieser's
>"middle-ish" meant the "-" titlebar icon, and "now maximizes the window"

No, he meant double-clicking on "about the middle" of the title bar.
(The "-" icon is well over to the right.) Double-clicking in the middle
of the title bar does more or less what the icon to the _right_ of the
"-" one does - i. e. maximises when not maximised, returns to that when
maximised. He wondered if there was a way of changing what happens when
you double-click on the unoccupied part of the title bar.

>is newly changed behavior. That is, "-" used to minimize (which is what
>I've always seen it do), but recently it changed to maximize. With that

(Never has for me!)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

it is easy to make up a lie, but it can take much more time and effort to
convincingly refute it. - Patrick Cockburn, i, 2016-9-24

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

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
>
>> However, again with having to interpret, I had to guess Wieser's
>> "middle-ish" meant the "-" titlebar icon, and "now maximizes the
>> window"
>
> No, he meant double-clicking on "about the middle" of the title bar.
> (The "-" icon is well over to the right.) Double-clicking in the middle
> of the title bar does more or less what the icon to the _right_ of the
> "-" one does - i. e. maximises when not maximised, returns to that when
> maximised. He wondered if there was a way of changing what happens when
> you double-click on the unoccupied part of the title bar.

The first discussion was how to minimize the window, and he already
mentioned double-clicking on the titlebar (anywhere on the titlebar)
would maximize the window. That action was already stated. The part
that got confusing/misleading was when the discussion focused on using
the "-" minimize titlebar icon.

Also, he said "clicking the caption bar on its middle-ish". He didn't
say double-clicking, so you can assume he meant double-click, or you can
assume he single clicked on something "middle-ish". Him saying click
meant I didn't have to assume he meant double-click. I went with what
he said, not what he meant to say.

I had forgotten about using the taskbar button method that MR mentioned
to toggle between minimized and restore window. That should work for
the OP. Even if he auto-hides the Taskbar, it should scroll up when he
moves the mouse pointer to the bottom of the screen, but I've seen users
complain the Taskbar didn't appear (scroll up) when they moved the mouse
pointer to the bottom of the screen. Too many apps don't resize when
the auto-hide Taskbar scrolls up, so I stopped using auto-hide a long
time ago.

J. P. Gilliver,

>>However, again with having to interpret, I had to guess Wieser's
>>"middle-ish" meant the "-" titlebar icon, and "now maximizes the window"
....
> No, he meant double-clicking on "about the middle" of the title bar.

Worse, I even SAID it that way :

[quote=me]
:-) clicking the caption bar on its middle-ish
[/quote]

Notice the "caption bar" usage there. No idea how he "interpreted" that to
being the minimize button.

The same (window) caption I've been mentioning in both my initial post as
well as in several replies thruout this thread.

No, someone here is *very* bad at guessing. *Way* to bad for my comfort.

@Vanguard:
If you want to know why I "chose to become animous to" you ? That happens
when I see someone "guess" stupid things (that make no sense *at all*) and
than, from such guesses, tries to put words into my mouth.

Never *EVER* do that. Not to me, not to others either.

If you are unsure what was ment *ASK*.

.... the above in the case you're /not/ just trolling around .

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In message <10x082gapgb4p.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 1 Sep 2023 15:01:50,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
[]
>The first discussion was how to minimize the window, and he already
>mentioned double-clicking on the titlebar (anywhere on the titlebar)
>would maximize the window. That action was already stated. The part

Good, we agree so far.

>that got confusing/misleading was when the discussion focused on using
>the "-" minimize titlebar icon.

(It didn't for me, but I may not have been paying attention. [_Don't_
give me chapter and verse on where it did. I'm not _denying_ it.])
>
>Also, he said "clicking the caption bar on its middle-ish". He didn't
>say double-clicking, so you can assume he meant double-click, or you can
>assume he single clicked on something "middle-ish". Him saying click
>meant I didn't have to assume he meant double-click. I went with what
>he said, not what he meant to say.

Well, _single_-clicking somewhere in the title bar doesn't do a lot. (It
makes the window the current focus if it isn't already, but clicking
_anywhere_ in it does that.)
>
>I had forgotten about using the taskbar button method that MR mentioned
>to toggle between minimized and restore window. That should work for
>the OP. Even if he auto-hides the Taskbar, it should scroll up when he
>moves the mouse pointer to the bottom of the screen, but I've seen users
>complain the Taskbar didn't appear (scroll up) when they moved the mouse
>pointer to the bottom of the screen. Too many apps don't resize when
>the auto-hide Taskbar scrolls up, so I stopped using auto-hide a long
>time ago.

Agreed. I just found it disconcerting. I also use a double-height
taskbar (two rows of buttons), and quite a few app.s don't "play nice"
with that either. (None of which helps the OP in his desire to change
the result of [double] clicking the title bar.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's too much attention paid to how TV can be bad for you, but I think it's
good for us more often than it's bad - Professor Barrie Gunter of Sheffield
University (quoted in RT, 15-21 March 2003).

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

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>
>> Too many apps don't resize when the auto-hide Taskbar scrolls up, so
>> I stopped using auto-hide a long time ago.
>
> Agreed. I just found it disconcerting. I also use a double-height
> taskbar (two rows of buttons), and quite a few app.s don't "play nice"
> with that either.

I also use a double-row taskbar. Bottom taskbar row is for toolbars of
shortcuts. The toolbars group the shortcuts. I can squash a toolbar to
show the most-used shortcuts, and click the chevron to view the rest as
a popup list. Top row is for icons of open apps. Pinned apps would
also show their icons in the top row, but I've never found pinning a
desirable feature. The double-row taskbar also makes the system tray
big enough to show more info: time (with seconds), day of week, and
date. 2 rows for non-hidden systray icons, too. Not sure this layout
would translate well if the taskbar were pinned to the top or sides of
the screen.

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

> J. P. Gilliver,
>
>>>However, again with having to interpret, I had to guess Wieser's
>>>"middle-ish" meant the "-" titlebar icon, and "now maximizes the window"
> ...
>> No, he meant double-clicking on "about the middle" of the title bar.
>
> Worse, I even SAID it that way :
>
> [quote=me]
> :-) clicking the caption bar on its middle-ish
> [/quote]
>
> Notice the "caption bar" usage there. No idea how he "interpreted" that to
> being the minimize button.
>
> The same (window) caption I've been mentioning in both my initial post as
> well as in several replies thruout this thread.
>
> No, someone here is *very* bad at guessing. *Way* to bad for my comfort.
>
> @Vanguard:
> If you want to know why I "chose to become animous to" you ? That happens
> when I see someone "guess" stupid things (that make no sense *at all*) and
> than, from such guesses, tries to put words into my mouth.
>
> Never *EVER* do that. Not to me, not to others either.
>
> If you are unsure what was ment *ASK*.
>
> ... the above in the case you're /not/ just trolling around .
>
> Regards,
> Rudy Wieser

I interpreted what you actually said instead of what you meant.

In message <12cj9jf5csl9u.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:27:37,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
[]
>I also use a double-row taskbar. Bottom taskbar row is for toolbars of
>shortcuts. The toolbars group the shortcuts. I can squash a toolbar to
>show the most-used shortcuts, and click the chevron to view the rest as
>a popup list. Top row is for icons of open apps. Pinned apps would
>also show their icons in the top row, but I've never found pinning a
>desirable feature. The double-row taskbar also makes the system tray

Since my desktop is usually mostly obscured by assorted open windows, I
_do_ find pinning useful. But each to his own.

>big enough to show more info: time (with seconds), day of week, and

Yes. I also use TClockEx which gives me more control of the layout of
those.

>date. 2 rows for non-hidden systray icons, too. Not sure this layout

Yes - I don't like hidden ones.

>would translate well if the taskbar were pinned to the top or sides of
>the screen.

Presumably top would be similar, other than the app.s which don't work
with that properly. (But I have it at the bottom anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

....Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

In message <8f91msirkdwp.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Fri, 1 Sep 2023 17:28:31,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
[]
>I interpreted what you actually said instead of what you meant.

"Oh how I hate this damn machine -
oh how I wish they'd sell it;
it never does quite what I want,
but only what I tell it."

(I forget where I picked that up - many decades ago, though.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

....Every morning is the dawn of a new error...

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

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> WROTE:
>
>> The double-row taskbar also makes the system tray big enough to show
>> more info: time (with seconds), day of week, and date.
>
> Yes. I also use TClockEx which gives me more control of the layout of
> those.

I remember looking at TClockEx, but decided I didn't need all the fluff:
font, font style, color, size, and background color. I also did NOT
want a longer horizontal blob showing the time/date info, but a 3-line
display to minimize how fat was the clock blob. All I wanted was to add
the seconds to the time, and that was via a registry edit.

Key: HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced
Data: ShowSecondsInSystemClock (REG_WORD)
Value: 1 to show, 0 to hide

The others (day of week and date) were a consequence of increasing the
height of the systray, so I see:

hh:mm:ss AM/PM
day-of-week
mm/dd/yyyy

3 lines of the clock blob are shown within the height of 2 taskbar rows.

In message <wss3tja484in.dlg@v.nguard.lh> at Sat, 2 Sep 2023 00:06:46,
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> writes
[]
>I remember looking at TClockEx, but decided I didn't need all the fluff:
>font, font style, color, size, and background color. I also did NOT
>want a longer horizontal blob showing the time/date info, but a 3-line
>display to minimize how fat was the clock blob. All I wanted was to add
>the seconds to the time, and that was via a registry edit.

I agree, TClockEx (and there's another similarly-named one) offers more
than I want; also, like various other things, its colour settings don't
"play nice" with an Aero theme. I just find it easier to tweak the
layout in it.
>
>Key: HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced
>Data: ShowSecondsInSystemClock (REG_WORD)
>Value: 1 to show, 0 to hide

Noted, thanks.
>
>The others (day of week and date) were a consequence of increasing the
>height of the systray, so I see:
>
>hh:mm:ss AM/PM
>day-of-week
>mm/dd/yyyy
>
>3 lines of the clock blob are shown within the height of 2 taskbar rows.

Yes, having a two-button-row taskbar does indeed give you a three-row
clock, even without any add-on. I have (presumably I must have set a
smaller font) four lines (centred):
day-of-week
yyyy month d
H:m:s
timezone +0x00

Each to his own.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Of course some of it [television] is bad. But some of everything is bad -
books, music, family ... - Melvyn Bragg, RT 2017/7/1-7