Copy as text

[Gene Wirchenko]

I have done that. And recently in this newsgroup.

Yeah, but...

If one was called Browser and the other File Fetcher, would you have
made that error?

Of course not. It would have been a different mistake. "Bowser,
fetch the file!"

Disclaimer: even in that case, I might have made that slip

I would not make a stupid mistake like that. I would make a
different, stupid mistake.

Personally, I am rather smart. I expect that a lot of you are,
too. It is not so much that we smart folk do not make mistakes but
that we are quicker to notice them and recover from them.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

Thanks to you and Seth for unraveling the mystery. But shame on
Microsoft for not having the names of the two choices do a much better
job of explaining what the differences were. As an example of better
choices:

Copy address

Copy contents of folder

I think that those would not work well. Context is missing.
Putting my neck on the block, I suggest:
Copy URL
Copy contents of file folder
And these still are not terribly clear. When does the copy occur?
(Think of the copying of files.) Sometimes, you just have to learn
what the weird label means and then run with it. That is why I like
documentation.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Bob Hatch]

Oops! Sorry, I (obviously) read it wrong.

Easy mistake to make. In my case there are 1,000's of newsgroups I've
never posted a mistake to.

 

[Iceman]

Gene Wirchenko wrote June 8, 2012 in

Personally, I am rather smart. I expect that a lot of you are,
too. It is not so much that we smart folk do not make mistakes but
that we are quicker to notice them and recover from them.

Someone said: "A wise person learns from other people's mistakes. A fool
only from his own."

 

[DanS]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:57:05 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:59:32 -0400, "...winston"



Thought you might be confused about MSFT's
nomenclature ? Windows vs. Internet Explorer []
I wish I could say it was tongue-in-cheek, but alas, I
simply read it wrong.

It wasn't Microsoft's nomenclature, it was just me
making a simple mistake. Sorry.

Yeah, but...

If one was called Browser and the other File Fetcher,
would you have made that error?

Or even File Manager!
[]
(Just because in the past they had something with such a
name is no reason not to re-use it.)

My view is even stronger than that. Just because in the
past they had something with such a name is exactly the
reason they *should* re-use it. Changing names confuses
people and should be avoided.

Geez.....trying to think back to Win3.x......

Wasn't "File Manager' exactly that ? *Just* a file manager,
period?

"Windows Explorer", however, allows you to "explore" or access
nearly every part of your system and network, including the
Control Panel and Printers and such. In the past, before I
gave up on helping out mostly-illerate users I used to push
the importance of learning how to use Windows Explorer because
you truly can manage and visualize your PC better than simple
folders opening up.

If you think about it some more, it makes sense to try to
differentiate between the two, since "Windows Explorer" has
far more functionality than "File Manager", and was 32-bit vs.
16 bit, etc.

I can visualize the ad copy....the new "Windows Explorer",
with far more capabilities than the old File Manager, to go
along with the sleek new desktop and start menu.

It's been "Windows Explorer" for what...17+ years, ever since
leaving 16-bit behind....it's not like the name is changing
every other release.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

My view is even stronger than that. Just because in the past they had
something with such a name is exactly the reason they *should* re-use
it. Changing names confuses people and should be avoided.

Microsoft Access was originally terminal connection software. The
name was reused for the DBMS.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Gene
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 11:57:05 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 13:59:32 -0400, "...winston"



Thought you might be confused about MSFT's
nomenclature ? Windows vs. Internet Explorer
[]
I wish I could say it was tongue-in-cheek, but alas, I
simply read it wrong.

It wasn't Microsoft's nomenclature, it was just me
making a simple mistake. Sorry.

Yeah, but...

If one was called Browser and the other File Fetcher,
would you have made that error?

Or even File Manager!
[]
(Just because in the past they had something with such a
name is no reason not to re-use it.)

My view is even stronger than that. Just because in the
past they had something with such a name is exactly the
reason they *should* re-use it. Changing names confuses
people and should be avoided.

Geez.....trying to think back to Win3.x......

Wasn't "File Manager' exactly that ? *Just* a file manager,
period?

"Windows Explorer", however, allows you to "explore" or access
nearly every part of your system and network, including the
Control Panel and Printers and such. In the past, before I

Yes, but the vast majority of my use for it is, indeed, for managing
files. If I want Control Panel or Printers, I go via Start, Settings; it
never occurs to me to use Win-E to get to those. (Actually, on the
machines where I've got round to installing the "Start | Control Panel"
pseudofolder, I don't even have to go via Settings.)

YMMV, of course (and it sounds as if it does): one of the touted
advantages of Windows is that there are usually at least 3 ways to do
most things. (Conversely, I've found people who are confused by that
fact, too.)

gave up on helping out mostly-illerate users I used to push
the importance of learning how to use Windows Explorer because
you truly can manage and visualize your PC better than simple
folders opening up.

I often find I end up giving up teaching how to use files and folders at
all, as they don't grasp it: some do grasp the basic idea, but never
actually make a new folder.

If you think about it some more, it makes sense to try to
differentiate between the two, since "Windows Explorer" has
far more functionality than "File Manager", and was 32-bit vs.
16 bit, etc.

See above - and I very much don't think the 16 vs. 32 bit aspects matter
to many (-:! (OK, File Manager didn't know about long file names, but
that's not _automatically_ related to 16/32 bitness.)

I can visualize the ad copy....the new "Windows Explorer",
with far more capabilities than the old File Manager, to go
along with the sleek new desktop and start menu.

No good. They could just as easily have said "the new file manager, with
far more capabilities than the old file manager". Or they could have
called it system manager or computer manager - i. e. keep the "manager".
(What does "Windows Explorer" mean - something to explore Windows? How
do you explore a window?)

It's been "Windows Explorer" for what...17+ years, ever since
leaving 16-bit behind....it's not like the name is changing
every other release.

Indeed. Pity it isn't a particularly _good_ name though!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Or even File Manager!

But I prefer the name I coined

As I'm sure you know, Apple calls it the Finder, and it serves a few
functions: start menu as well as File Fetcher, and others... It's
actually pretty nice, IMO.

 

[Steve Hayes]

Answer:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/ff678296.aspx

"The right-click shortcut menu includes additional options that allow
you to copy the current address to the Clipboard. Click Copy Address to
save the location in a format that is optimized for copying and pasting
folders in Windows Explorer or use Copy Address As Text if you plan to
paste the folder path into a document."

I thought Windows Explorer was different from Internet Explorer. What
"addresses" are there to copy in Windows Explorer? Or is it referring to the
Windows address book (which I can never find when I need it).

 

[Steve Hayes]

My view is even stronger than that. Just because in the past they had
something with such a name is exactly the reason they *should* re-use
it. Changing names confuses people and should be avoided.

What would be the fun of upgrading if you could find stuff easily?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I thought Windows Explorer was different from Internet Explorer. What
"addresses" are there to copy in Windows Explorer? Or is it referring to the
Windows address book (which I can never find when I need it).

They're using "address" to mean "path" here, and in a few other places.
Hence their reference to the box that shows the current path, in things
that have such a box, as the "address box".

(I thought received wisdom was that it is wise to use an email client
that _doesn't_ use the Windows Address Book, i. e. not use the WAB at
all, since it, being the default, is a common hacking target.)

 

[Ken Blake]

Easy mistake to make. In my case there are 1,000's of newsgroups I've
never posted a mistake to.

LOL! Me too, I guess.

 

[Ken Blake]

But I prefer the name I coined

As I'm sure you know, Apple calls it the Finder,

Nope, I know next to nothing about Apple. If you gave me a Macintosh
to play with, I wouldn't know how to do anything with it.

 

[Ken Blake]

I think that those would not work well. Context is missing.
Putting my neck on the block, I suggest:
Copy URL
Copy contents of file folder

But in this case, what they are calling an "address" is not a URL.
It's a path.

More important, though, is that I didn't really mean to suggest that
what I posted were the best possible names. I hardly spent any time
thinking about it, but quickly came up with examples that I thought
were better choices than Microsoft's. My point was that Microsoft's
choices were very poor and it was easy to quickly come up with
something better.

If I worked for Microsoft and had the job of picking names there, I'd
think about it a whole lot longer and ask lots of other people for
suggestions.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Nope, I know next to nothing about Apple. If you gave me a Macintosh
to play with, I wouldn't know how to do anything with it.

Now come on, Macintosh computers are completely intuitive.

A claim they always make, and one that doesn't match my experience all
that well...and I'm not unique.

That said, the Finder works pretty well and is reasonably intuitive -
especially if you have an Apple-knowledgeable friend to help you over
the rough spots.

Do I need to add the smiley to my first sentence above?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

But in this case, what they are calling an "address" is not a URL.
It's a path.

More important, though, is that I didn't really mean to suggest that
what I posted were the best possible names. I hardly spent any time
thinking about it, but quickly came up with examples that I thought
were better choices than Microsoft's. My point was that Microsoft's
choices were very poor and it was easy to quickly come up with
something better.

If I worked for Microsoft and had the job of picking names there, I'd
think about it a whole lot longer and ask lots of other people for
suggestions.

It would be nice if you could do that...

Of course, like most here, I'm used to the confusing names, and usually
can handle them OK, but less confusion would've been nice - and would
still be welcomed.

 

[Steve Hayes]

They're using "address" to mean "path" here, and in a few other places.
Hence their reference to the box that shows the current path, in things
that have such a box, as the "address box".

So yet another example of Microsoft using confusing terminology.

To me an "address" is a URL or a memory location, and NOT a path.

(I thought received wisdom was that it is wise to use an email client
that _doesn't_ use the Windows Address Book, i. e. not use the WAB at
all, since it, being the default, is a common hacking target.)

I don't know of any e-mail client that DOES use the Windows address book, or
at least I've never found how to make one use it.

The main use for it seems to be to save those VCF cards or whatever they are
that sometimes come attached to e-mail messages, or get imported from
cellphones via Bluetooth.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:43:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"


I don't know of any e-mail client that DOES use the Windows address book, or
at least I've never found how to make one use it.

Well, apart from of course Microsoft's own email clients, some others
_can_ use it (and maybe some _do_). I know Turnpike _can_, and at least
one other, though I forget which - possibly Pegasus or Eudora. (Come to
think of it, can Thunderbird?) [I use Turnpike's own address book.]

 

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:43:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"


I don't know of any e-mail client that DOES use the Windows address book, or
at least I've never found how to make one use it.

Well, apart from of course Microsoft's own email clients, some others
_can_ use it (and maybe some _do_). I know Turnpike _can_, and at least
one other, though I forget which - possibly Pegasus or Eudora. (Come to
think of it, can Thunderbird?) [I use Turnpike's own address book.]

I use Pegasus, and it has its own address book. I've never used one of
Microsoft's e-mail readers because they all seem to have defects, like being
unable to do proper reply quoting.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 09:43:37 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
(I thought received wisdom was that it is wise to use an email client
that _doesn't_ use the Windows Address Book, i. e. not use the WAB at
all, since it, being the default, is a common hacking target.)

I don't know of any e-mail client that DOES use the Windows address book, or
at least I've never found how to make one use it.

Well, apart from of course Microsoft's own email clients, some others
_can_ use it (and maybe some _do_). I know Turnpike _can_, and at least
one other, though I forget which - possibly Pegasus or Eudora. (Come to
think of it, can Thunderbird?) [I use Turnpike's own address book.]

I use Pegasus, and it has its own address book. I've never used one of
Microsoft's e-mail readers because they all seem to have defects, like being
unable to do proper reply quoting.

I'm not aware of any non-Microsoft email client that can _only_ use the
WAB, though such may exist; however, Turnpike and at least one other
_can_ use it, presumably to ease the transition for people switching to
it/them, or for other reasons. (Maybe Word uses it for mailmerge or
something?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise
has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of
"How's DX?" column in "QST")