Poprivet
Sun Sep 30 11:50:41 CDT 2007
Jerry wrote:
> "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:eInkutvAIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Jerry wrote:
>>> "Poprivet" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:OXh5aXrAIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Jerry wrote:
>>>>> An XP install results in the following (partial) directory tree:
>>>>>
>>>>> \Windows
>>>>> \help
>>>>> \inf
>>>>> \system
>>>>> \system32
>>>>> etc
>>>>>
>>>>> I have noticed that once everything\anything is installed there
>>>>> are instances where files do not end up where expected; for
>>>>> instance: *.chm, *.cnt, and *.hlp files not ending up in the
>>>>> \windows\help folder. Plus *.inf files not ending up in
>>>>> \windows\inf, *.dll not in \windows\system, and *32.dll not in
>>>>> windows\system32. Is there some kind of unknown requirement/procedure
>>>>> that is not
>>>>> being enforced/followed that causes this foolish discrepancy?
>>>>>
>>>>> It sure seems to be that it would be logical and make more sense
>>>>> for the files, as indicated above, to end up in the folders they
>>>>> seem to belong to by name and/or function.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jerry
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what they are. You'll have DLLs et al all over the
>>>> place after you get everything going. If you're not getting
>>>> errors, don't worry about it.
>>>>
>>>> IMO,
>>>>
>>>> Pop`
>>>
>>> I am well aware of where stuff ends up - that's not an answer to the
>>> question: Why are files not installed where they should when
>>> function is taken into account.? That is the question.
>>
>> OK: Because they are being saved where the software authors chose to
>> install them to. You're asking the kind of silly question I was
>> sure you didn't mean to ask, in this case. That's like asking why
>> you can't see air.
>>
>> Pop`
>
> The author is Microsoft. They designed the operating system and the
> parameters for installing files.
>
> The least they could have done was to, by default, install files to
> the folders as I indicated above.
>
> Further, the software development kit for all other authors should
> have required them to abide by the same rules.
>
> It is your opinion the question is/was silly. I learned after 27+
> years in the military that there is no such thing as a silly
> question; obviously you lack an education or training
Afraid I'm entitled to my own opinions there. I said it's stilly because
you're asking the wrong people. If you want to question the design
philosophy of say Microsoft, the I would suggest you contact (wait for it
... ) MICROSOFT! This is nothing but a self help group for MS products
comprised mostly of people like myself and the others who post/respond here.
>
> The question was meant to question the programming parameters of the
> most used operating system on the planet and why they seemed to not
> follow there own directions and layout procedures.
You don't KNOW what their directions and layout procedures were and even if
you could find out I doubt you'd find any consistancy to them for such an
evolved system. So again, I say this is a silly thing to be asking about.
BTW also military here, with more time than you put in, but I'm not
trying to make that any kind of support for my opinions. All it means in my
case is I managed to kill and maim a bunch of people and trained to do much
more than that. But it's of NO use for supporting any kind of MS opinions.
YOu need to do more recon and actually find MS, not a news group.
Sensing trollish attitudes here, I've no more to say to you.
Pop`
>
> Jerry