OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

That's nice Tim. What you are touting as a great advantage (lack of permissions) is the Achilles heel of 'doze.

-Chuck Harris

In an attempt to compose a bug report to Camtech I investigated further. I thought I saw the behavior you reported where CopyThisPath becomes the default action for previously known extensions. I was trying to isolate where in the tree structure this occurred when Win98 hanged.

After a reboot, I couldn't find an instance where CopyThisPath took over a previously defined default action. I set up a series of test folders and files. This is what I've discovered thus far:

For files with previously defined default actions CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere appear at the top of the context menu. The default action though moved down in the menu, remains the same.

For folders CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere appear on the context menu somewhere below the default action.

For shortcuts to files with previously defined default actions CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere appear twice each on the context menu, above the default action. On my system the two copies of CopyThisPath & NewFolderHere are separated by the "Quick view..." action. The default action though moved down is still emboldened and remains the same as previously defined.

For shortcuts to folders CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere do not appear on the context menu.

For files and shortcuts to files for which no default action has been defined CopyThisPath becomes the default action, apparently replacing "Open with...". For the shortcuts the CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere actions are duplicated and it is the second instance of CopyThisPath that is emboldened.

Jim, I was unable to duplicate any instance of CopyThisPath replacing a previously defined default action other than "Open with..." even though I'd swear I saw it before my machine hung.

And now I remember that I have been living with this behavior since I installed CopyThisPath. It could charitably be called a "feature". Most of the time when I double-click a file of undefined type I really don't want to mess with the "Open with..." dialog. I usually have something on my "Send to" menu that I want to use instead anyway. The beep from my ClipMate reminds me to right-click and send the file where I want while its path is harmlessly captured.

I'll forward this to Camtech in case it inspires them to make any changes to their free utility. I still find it useful as is, YMMV. I'll let you know if the behavior you complained about ever re-appears here. I swear I saw it:)

I have .lib, .inc, .cir, .net predefined to open with UltraEdit. Works correctly until CopyThisPath activated, then quits. Returns to normal as soon as CopyThisPath deactivated.

My spell checker wants to change "CopyThisPath" to "Constipate" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Thaas, What you said finally sunk in... any file that has been "opened with" and the box checked "Always use this program to open these files" are what fail when CopyThisPath is activated. Files assigned to a given executable during a program installation, such as .DOC, continue to work.

...Jim Thompson

Thaas, Looks like a lost cause... got another snotty E-mail from Jerry Campbell. He's just certain that there's no flaw in his program.

But I just got my latest-version UltraEdit by FedEx, so I'll just toss CopyThisPath as junk, and list it as "Not Recommended" ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Jim,

I use Multi-Edit. I tried the files you mentioned previously, .lib, .inc, .cir, and .net. Using "Open with..." I established Multi-Edit as the default tool for .inc and it worked fine. Thought I had a copy of Ultra-Edit, but no such luck.

Maybe the problem lies with Ultra-Edit. How does the new version fare?

Tom Haas

I'll load it later today and let you know.

But, at the very least, CopyThisPath must be doing something untoward that confuses UltraEdit.

OK, Just confirmed, it's a conflict with UltraEdit, changing to NotePad works. Now for some further detective work.

...Jim Thompson

Did your old copy have the yellow highlight on the cursor line? That alone is worth the upgrade price, IMO.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

| I'll load it later today and let you know. | | But, at the very least, CopyThisPath must be doing something untoward | that confuses UltraEdit. | | OK, Just confirmed, it's a conflict with UltraEdit, changing to | NotePad works. Now for some further detective work.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, just use one of the 3 freeware path-copying programs I posted earlier.

My apologies, I missed your first post. "ClipPath" works fine. So CopyThisPath is history... the developer is a bit of an ass anyway ;-)

...Jim Thompson

My apologies, I missed your first post. "ClipPath" works fine. So CopyThisPath is history... the developer is a bit of an ass anyway ;-)

...Jim Thompson

I settled on ClipPath...

I also tried CopyThisPath, but found conflicts with other programs I use...

...Jim Thompson

You're braver than I am (or less paranoid). I worry about what might be in programs downloaded from the Internet. Or the conflicts they might cause with the rest of what runs on the PC.

Robert

permissions)

Unless you use it for personal computing... which just so happens to be 90% of the sales which M$ goes to...... but I digress...

Tim

-- "I've got more trophies than Wayne Gretsky and the Pope combined!" - Homer Simpson Website @

Not at all Tim! The permissions structure is there to help protect the important kernel functions from the user programs, and the user programs from each other. It is a complete travisty that a user application can change the system .DLL's. This "feature" is a major reason why if you ask two Windows users what they think of windows, one will say it works perfectly, and the other will say it crashes frequently.

The stability of your windows system all depends on what applications you have loaded, and in what order.

Further windoze's lack of a permissions structure in its filesystem was acceptable back in the days of real "personal computers", but now with internet access, shared files, and multitasking, your computer isn't "personal" anymore. To ward off these "villans", you have applied multiple layers of second party fixes in the form of firewalls, virus checkers, spyware checkers, ... It is now like you are riding on a tire that is made from nothing but patches. The air will get around those patches somewhere. You would be far safer riding on a tire that was designed from the beginning to hold air.

You keep fighting off my attempts to teach you a little bit about how secure systems work, and why windoze isn't secure, or even safe. Put your mind to it, and shuck off your youthful know-it-all nature, and you will gain a better understanding. The concepts we are argueing over were developed on mainframe computers more than 40 years ago. The windoze folks are just now discovering them.

-Chuck Harris (who programmed his first computer in 1970)

be 90%

the

programs from

change the

Windows

the

you have

was acceptable

access,

anymore. To

party fixes

now like you

will get around

was designed

secure

mind to it,

better

mainframe

discovering them.

I'll agree to some extent with that. But I remember when PC/MS-DOS 2.1 got directories, and our mainframe still didn't have a way for a user to do it in timeshare. Batch progs had it, tho - for obvious reasons.

acceptable

fixes

like you

around

designed

them.

I Win! 1966!

;-) Rich

I still don't understand what Jim has against copy/pasting the path from the address bar - no new software at all!

Although, he might have me shitlisted, in which case let him eat cake. ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Directory tree structure is just a nice feature that came from multics and unix. It has only a little to do with security. In unix, you can do a "chroot" command, and make a user, or program, or the whole operating system behave as if the directory tree was rooted at any branch in the disk's directory structure. This is done frequently when you have part of your filesystem that is publically accessable, FTP for example.

Permissions are a different thing entirely, and began with early multitasking systems on mainframe computers. There were some serious kinks in the way things were done back in the '60s, but the concepts were well inplace. The developers of unix came up with a particularily nice way of doing it, and received the very first US patent on a software concept, the suid bit.

-Chuck Harris