Ivan Bútora wrote:
> Hi. Today at work, I tested on both a 98 machine and an XP machine, and
> came up with the following (inline):
> --- In news:Osb5wpWEGHA.2388@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl, Rick Chauvin typed:
>
>>>> Only the "CopyToFolder" works for me too, but just a 'Copy' does not
>>>> work and I don't think it's suppose to either, same as why the 'Cut'
>>>> does not work since the ftp site is not really on your own local
>>>> network, even though that view may make it look like it is, but it's
>>>> actually read only, etc, in that case.
>>>
>>> OK, so same behavior for you. I do think this is bad implementation by
>>> Microsoft. If "Copy" is not supposed to work, it should be greyed out
>>> on the Edit menu. Note that Cut is greyout out, while Paste is
>>> available if you have something on the clipboard.
>>
>>
>> Yep I can't disagree with you on that, but that's the way it is on mine
>> too so it must be universal. I've never paid any attention to it
>> actually since as mentioned I only use an ftp client to do all my ftp
>> work, but I do agree for the quickies it's convenient to use the stock
>> one.
>
> As you mention in your other post, the "Copy" function does work in XP.
> Additionally, XP has a "Cut" which works as well. The limitation for
> both of these is that they only work for cutting/copying and pasting
> between the FTP resource and local folders - i.e. if you copy/cut a file
> or folder on the FTP resource, "Paste" will appear as greyed out when
> browsing the FTP resource, but you can paste whatever is on the
> clipboard into a local folder in Explorer. Probably doing a
> copy/cut/paste within an FTP would have required additional programming
> by Microsoft, so that's why they chose this limited implementation. Note
> that XP (and I assume also 2000?) also has a "Move to folder..." in
> addition to the "Copy to folder..." function.
>
> Now call me picky, but this is in my opinion a case of an inconsistent
> implementation of a feature across platforms. I ask: WHY does the Copy
> work in XP, but not 98? Is there some real reason other than laziness


I'm sure there are a few answers for why it's like that, but at this point
it's not going to get
fixed so there's no sense in hashing it no matter how tempting it may be.
Actually I would of
never noticed the issue you pointed out since I rarely use the ftp stock
feature of any of MS's
OS's anyway, but for W9x now, it's as you said and I think a smaller
problem in the scope of
things.

> and a lack of dilligence from MS programmers? I have a problem if
> Microsoft rolls out a product (IE 6), but then one (albeit rather
> unimportant) "fetaure" of this program is broken on a platform which is
> supposed to be supported. What's worse is that this is NOT DOCUMENTED
> properly anywhere. When you think about the move/delete large number of
> files issue, it's really the same mindset that allows something like
> this to happen, except in the latter case that problem is much more
> critical. I guess that's really my major problem with Microsoft - it


Now you know how I feel about that one, which is I think that the
delete/hang issue on IE6 9x is a
major issue, and anyone who experiences it will agree for sure, and this
problem should be
given/put within a grandfather clause to actually get fixed.
http://www.ptcnh.net/~rdchauvin/W98xIE6xBug.htm

> seems that if there is a critical problem that's out of "mainstream"
> attention, it's just so hard to get MS to ackwoledge it; you have the
> feeling like there are people behind closed doors who are not responsive
> and open about what they do.


There is so much to consider of the 'whys of it' in the grand scope of
things, but the only thing I
or we can do is work towards what's best for us all - with what we have..
and then some.

>>> My problem with "The page cannot be displayed" happens when I am logged
>>> into an FTP site with a user name and password. In such case, the
>>> address has the syntax "ftp://user@site", and this might be giving
>>> Explorer some problems. I believe that an XP system handles this
>>> correctly, and will also verify this later today.
>>
>>
>> I never logged on a site with the stock ftp and it's set as anonymous
>> log in and if a site wouldn't let me in that way then I would just use
>> my cuteftp client to that kind of action anyway, especially when
>> maintaining my website uploading files etc that's the only thing I will
>> use..
>
> So actually on the 98 machine that I tested today this worked properly,
> i.e. I was not getting "The page cannot be displayed" even when logged
> into an FTP site. So it must just be on my machine that it happens
> (although I thought it happened to me before on another machine back
> home in Slovakia). Any ideas on what could be the cause?


Only as mentioned in a previous post that you have something locally
blocking that action is all,
or have particular sites in your Host file, or a a dozen other mentions
that could block that
instance which will give you that 'this page cannot be displayed prompt' -
and until you turn off
what's blocking it then it will function in that way. I know you are very
capable to figure things
out, and have access to other working 9x's and so I know you will isolate
it and resolve it if you
put your mind to it.

>> ..I see from my other replies that I need to install OEQuotefix on my
>> other OS's too. That is such a great program I can't say enough about
>> it for what it does for lining up the quotes in OE & O to look in order.
>
> I agree, it's very good. Unfortunately it's no longer updated, and it
> would definitely need updating - I find that sometimes OE-Quotefix
> freezes, and additionally there are situations where both Outlook


Yes there are a few instances but really are very few comparatively, and
for the most part it is a
Major improvement than what it was like before and I know we all can agree
with that. If I were
MS, I would buy out OEQuotefix for a million dollars (or whatever the going
rate is but I'll lean
high for Dominik's sake) ..and incorporate it right into O & OE ..it's
that good.

> QuoteFix and OE-Quotefix do NOT fix the quoting correctly. (We could do
> a whole thread on when such situations arise, because there are so many
> scenarios depending on message formatting, the e-mail clients involved,
> etc. Unfortunately such a discussion woudl probably be pointless since
> the author has the code but seems to have dropped any development of the
> programs, which, as you say, are otherwise extremely helpful. I have
> contacted the author three times over the course of the past few months,
> and have not gotten any response. I think it would be great to have
> these two apps as an open source project.)

Yes, and he spent so much of his time on developing it and receives
thousands of emails; even I did
a little beta testing and suggestions for it when it first came out; after
a while it was not
really possible for him to reply to every email. He's burnt with it and
receives little or no
monies to cover his time so in many ways I don't blame him, but when a
company steps up to his
plate and fills it so that he can make due - then it will mostlikely
continue in one way or
another..

All the best to you too..

Rick


>
> All the best,
>
> Ivan