Hi everyone,

I am cross-posting my message from December 15 to win98.gen_discussion, since I
have received no replies in the other newsgroups.

My message discusses some apparent problems Explorer's FTP interface, using IE 6
under Windows 98 (but some of them might also apply under XP - still haven't
tested this).

Best wishes for the New Year,


Ivan



"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:upFuAdUAGHA.2908@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...


1. In Internet Options -> Advanced, the "Enable folder view in FTP sites"
setting works in reverse, i.e. if I have this cleared, FTP sites are viewed in
an Explorer-like interface, if I have it checked, they are viewed in a
HTML-based layout. Has anyone else experienced this?

(The next two issues are when browsing with an Explorer-like interface.)

2. When I right click on a file or directory and select copy, it does not do
anything, i.e. it's not possible to paste. (I have not tested whether this works
in Windows XP.) The "Copy to folder" does work, but why is the "Copy" there when
it seems not to do anything?

3. When I double-click a file to open it, IE always tries to open a new window
and gives me "The page cannot be displayed" after a couple of seconds. This
seems to work fine in Windows XP.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Ivan

Ivan Bútora wrote:

> 1. In Internet Options -> Advanced, the "Enable folder view in FTP sites"
> setting works in reverse, i.e. if I have this cleared, FTP sites are
> viewed in an Explorer-like interface, if I have it checked, they are
>
> viewed in a HTML-based layout. Has anyone else experienced this?
>

(securitywise for some reasons it's always been said that this should always be
unchecked, and mine always has been)

Just to be clear though so that I don't mentally switch what you means to be Explorer
vrs HTML view, I clicked some quick screenshots of what mine look like each way.

Internet Options> Advanced> Enable Folder View For FTP Sites
....on 9x going to this random public ftp link:
ftp://ftp.adobe.com/
..When that box is UnChecked that ftp site looks like this (my screenshot)
http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/7...checked0wk.gif
(which I assume is what you mean by HTML based)

...and when the box is CheckMarked - that ftp site looks like this: (my screenshot)
http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/5...checked8as.gif
(which is I assume what you mean by Explorer like)


> (The next two issues are when browsing with an Explorer-like interface.)
>
> 2. When I right click on a file or directory and select copy, it does
> not do anything, i.e. it's not possible to paste. (I have not tested
> whether this works in Windows XP.) The "Copy to folder" does work, but
> why is the "Copy" there when it seems not to do anything?

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.

> 3. When I double-click a file to open it, IE always tries to open a new
> window and gives me "The page cannot be displayed" after a couple of
> seconds. This seems to work fine in Windows XP.

If I double click a 'file' (not txt file though) within a second a 'File Download'
'Prompt' will pop up just the same as if I was to do a "SaveTarget" on a file at a
website (note though 'SaveTarget' is not available in this particular view)

Now if you computer is not letting you download a file like I just did with the File
Download prompt when double clicking it, then you have something blocking that action
is all; maybe you have restricted zone settings set, or IO options for downloading in
that zone blocked, or a particular site in your Host file, or a dozen other mentions
that could block it, then you will get a this page cannot be displayed prompt - until
you turn off what's blocking that site or its download function in that way.

As far as I can tell Ivan the way mine works anyway, everything seems to be working
normal for what a 9x box is suppose to do; although you know it was never meant to be
a fast, efficient, nor secure way to deal with accessing ftp sites. I don't really
ever use the stock ftp functions in 9x/2K/XP though and always use a separate program
(I have and like CuteFTP) ..but naturally everyone has their own favorite that they
like to use.

Rick


>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ivan

Rick,

thanks for your reply! See my responses inline.


> ..When that box is UnChecked that ftp site looks like this (my screenshot)
> http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/7...checked0wk.gif
> (which I assume is what you mean by HTML based)
>
> ...and when the box is CheckMarked - that ftp site looks like this: (my
screenshot)
> http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/5...checked8as.gif
> (which is I assume what you mean by Explorer like)

Hmm, on my machine, it was the other way around. Well, as long as on your 9x
machine it's OK, then there's nothing to worry about - apparently just some
quirk on my system.

I actually found the relevant registry settings and fixed it. Just FYI, the
setting is determined in this Registry key
(HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Ftp) by the "Use Web Based FTP" value.

My problem was that under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet
Explorer\AdvancedOptions\BROWSE\FTPUI, I had the "yes" for "CheckedValue" and
"no" for "UnCheckedvalue", i.e. the reverse configuration.

So, problem fixed!


> 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.

I will check an XP machine tomorrow to see if the same quirk exists.


> If I double click a 'file' (not txt file though) within a second a 'File
Download'
> 'Prompt' will pop up just the same as if I was to do a "SaveTarget" on a file
at a
> website (note though 'SaveTarget' is not available in this particular view)
>
> Now if you computer is not letting you download a file like I just did with
the File
> Download prompt when double clicking it, then you have something blocking that
action
> is all; maybe you have restricted zone settings set, or IO options for
downloading in
> that zone blocked, or a particular site in your Host file, or a dozen other
mentions
> that could block it, then you will get a this page cannot be displayed
prompt - until
> you turn off what's blocking that site or its download function in that way.

Actually, when I browse an FTP site anonymoulsy (such as ftp.adobe.com), I have
the same behavior as you. (It should be noted that Internet Explorer here still
behaves as a web browser despite the "local" Exlporer interface - i.e. IE opens
..htm files or .txt files itself rather than passing them on to the default
application, as Explorer would when browsing local folders. I will verify later
today that the behavior is the same on an XP system.)

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.


> As far as I can tell Ivan the way mine works anyway, everything seems to be
working
> normal for what a 9x box is suppose to do; although you know it was never
meant to be
> a fast, efficient, nor secure way to deal with accessing ftp sites. I don't
really
> ever use the stock ftp functions in 9x/2K/XP though and always use a separate
program
> (I have and like CuteFTP) ..but naturally everyone has their own favorite that
they
> like to use.

I also don't use the Microsoft FTP interface for advanced functions (I currently
use FAR file manager with the FTP plugin), but sometimes it comes in handy. It
appears to me there are some quirks on a 9x system, but in order to make this
claim I have to check an XP system, which I will do, and post back with my
findings later today.

I appreciate your response and feedback!

Ivan

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:uLfCh3REGHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Rick,
>
> thanks for your reply! See my responses inline.

[...]

> 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.
>
> I will check an XP machine tomorrow to see if the same quirk exists.


Curious myself, I just booted to W2Kpro and tried it, and by golly I Can use
the copy & paste function with the html type interface.. and am replying
from it at the moment. ..it's prolly the same them but let me boot to and
check WXP now too...

"Ivan Bútora" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:uLfCh3REGHA.3064@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
[....]

...and same here on WXPro it Can use the copy feature too

Ivan Bútora wrote:
> Rick,
>
> thanks for your reply! See my responses inline.

Back on SE now, and mine are inline too

>
>
>> ..When that box is UnChecked that ftp site looks like this (my
>> screenshot) http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/7...checked0wk.gif
>> (which I assume is what you mean by HTML based)
>>
>> ...and when the box is CheckMarked - that ftp site looks like this:
>> (my screenshot)
>> http://img323.imageshack.us/img323/5...checked8as.gif
>> (which is I assume what you mean by Explorer like)
>
> Hmm, on my machine, it was the other way around. Well, as long as on

Interesting.. I know that some of the IE Cumulatives often changed things around
there and so depending on which IE you have installed on that maybe could be the
reasons I'm guessing?

> your 9x machine it's OK, then there's nothing to worry about -
> apparently just some quirk on my system.
>
> I actually found the relevant registry settings and fixed it. Just FYI,
> the setting is determined in this Registry key
> (HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Ftp) by the "Use Web Based FTP"
> value.
>
> My problem was that under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Internet
> Explorer\AdvancedOptions\BROWSE\FTPUI, I had the "yes" for
> "CheckedValue" and "no" for "UnCheckedvalue", i.e. the reverse
> configuration.
>
> So, problem fixed!


Great then, although you have to wonder why it was switched in the first place,
unless as I said it's which Culm or ver IE you have installed


>> 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.


> I will check an XP machine tomorrow to see if the same quirk exists.
>
>
>> If I double click a 'file' (not txt file though) within a second a
>> 'File Download' 'Prompt' will pop up just the same as if I was to do a
>> "SaveTarget" on a file at a website (note though 'SaveTarget' is not
>> available in this particular view)
>>
>> Now if you computer is not letting you download a file like I just did
>> with the File Download prompt when double clicking it, then you have
>> something blocking that action is all; maybe you have restricted zone
>> settings set, or IO options for downloading in that zone blocked, or a
>> particular site in your Host file, or a dozen other mentions that could
>> block it, then you will get a this page cannot be displayed
> prompt - until
>> you turn off what's blocking that site or its download function in that
>> way.
>
> Actually, when I browse an FTP site anonymoulsy (such as ftp.adobe.com),
> I have the same behavior as you. (It should be noted that Internet
> Explorer here still behaves as a web browser despite the "local"
> Exlporer interface - i.e. IE opens .htm files or .txt files itself
> rather than passing them on to the default application, as Explorer
> would when browsing local folders. I will verify later today that the
> behavior is the same on an XP system.)
>
> 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..


>> As far as I can tell Ivan the way mine works anyway, everything seems
>> to be working normal for what a 9x box is suppose to do; although you
>> know it was never meant to be a fast, efficient, nor secure way to deal
>> with accessing ftp sites. I don't really ever use the stock ftp
>> functions in 9x/2K/XP though and always use a separate program (I have
>> and like CuteFTP) ..but naturally everyone has their own favorite that
>> they like to use.
>
> I also don't use the Microsoft FTP interface for advanced functions (I
> currently use FAR file manager with the FTP plugin), but sometimes it
> comes in handy. It appears to me there are some quirks on a 9x system,
> but in order to make this claim I have to check an XP system, which I
> will do, and post back with my findings later today.
>
> I appreciate your response and feedback!

YW, always glad to help,
Rick
...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.

>
> Ivan

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 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
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.


>> 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?


> ..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 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.)

All the best,

Ivan

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

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
...ps sorry bout that above post being out of aligment, but was in the middle
of updating my OE updates on 2K & XP since I noticed I was lacking them and
some others.. ..anyway, back to OEQuotefix, if it was ever to get too far
behind, there is another alternative I've noted in the past, although I have
never tried it or read up on it much - but only to keep it's link just in
case. http://www.fidolook.org/
..I'm sure there's prolly more programs like that too, but for now I have
no intention on ever leaving OEQuotefix behind


>
> All the best,
>
> Ivan