Hello all,
I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by >double-clicking it.
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document >and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I >have to close the old, still-open document first.
Question:
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? >Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
Does it have to be WordPad? Notepad++, by default, [snip]
Hello all,
I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by double-clicking it.
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I have to close the old, still-open document first.
Question:
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
It might be possible to fix the situation with some source editing.
outputfilename-Mar25-2024-1058AM.doc
\------------/ \---------------/
I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than
open by double-clicking it.
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the
document and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see
the new contents I have to close the old, still-open document first.
Question: Is there a way to override this behaviour using a
command-line argument ? Even just having two document windows open
would be an improvement.
Paul,
It might be possible to fix the situation with some source editing.
outputfilename-Mar25-2024-1058AM.doc
\------------/ \---------------/
I was also considering something in that direction, but that would leave me with ever more files I would need to clean up.
The thing is that I've already gone over a few options, but wanted to check if there perhaps is an easy, clean and build-in option already available.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
When sorted in order in File Explorer, the loser ones should
be easy to delete.
It's more practical with these issues if you explain what
you're trying to accomplish.
Then people can brainstorm the whole process.
It also helps to weed out preconceptions,
like the man who's trying to figure out how to avoid getting
his newspaper wet, wtihout explaining that the problem is
a spraying kitchen faucet and not rain.
"R.Wieser" <[email protected]d> wrote
| I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open
by
| double-clicking it.
|
| The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the >document
| and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents >I
| have to close the old, still-open document first.
|
| Question:
| Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ?
| Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
|
| remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
|
It's more practical with these issues if you explain what
you're trying to accomplish. Then people can brainstorm
the whole process. It also helps to weed out preconceptions,
like the man who's trying to figure out how to avoid getting
his newspaper wet, wtihout explaining that the problem is
a spraying kitchen faucet and not rain.
It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing my
question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know - and than waste >their and my time with solving problems I never had (and get all pissed-off >when I mention it).
To re-phrase my initial post :[]
I've noticed that WorPad refuses to open a document (with new content) when >it already has that document open (but is showing the old, now gone(!) >content).
Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open the >document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:46:16 -0400, "Newyana2"
<[email protected]> wrote:
"R.Wieser" <[email protected]d> wrote
| I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open >by
| double-clicking it.
|
| The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the >document
| and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents >I
| have to close the old, still-open document first.
|
| Question:
| Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? >| Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
|
| remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
|
It's more practical with these issues if you explain what
you're trying to accomplish. Then people can brainstorm
the whole process. It also helps to weed out preconceptions,
like the man who's trying to figure out how to avoid getting
his newspaper wet, wtihout explaining that the problem is
a spraying kitchen faucet and not rain.
LOL.
"I've got a program". It won't output a file if the file
already exists and is locked by another application. It also does not
give any error messages.
What do you suggest I do with "the program I got"?
No nasty suggestions please.
[]'s
In message <utumha$1s51g$[email protected]> at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:35:47, >R.Wieser <[email protected]d> writes
[]
It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing my >>question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know - and than waste >>their and my time with solving problems I never had (and get all pissed-off >>when I mention it).Yes, I've noticed that! (The ones who suggested you get the generating
prog. to create time-stamped versions haven't grasped what you want to >do/happen.)
[]
To re-phrase my initial post :[]
I've noticed that WorPad refuses to open a document (with new content) when >>it already has that document open (but is showing the old, now gone(!) >>content).
Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open the >>document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer
(i. e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the >problems. (The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version >while WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
load it automatically.
Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open
it manually, when you know the other software has created a new version
of the file, but you'd rather not have to close it first?
LOL.
"I've got a program". It won't output a file if the file already
exists and is locked by another application. It also does not
give any error messages.
What do you suggest I do with "the program I got"?
No nasty suggestions please.
...It also attracts a number of people who have no problem replacing
my question with what they decide I /really/ wanted to know
Yes, I've noticed that! (The ones who suggested you get the generating
prog. to create time-stamped versions haven't grasped what you want to do/happen.)
Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open >>the[]
document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer (i.
e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
problems.
(The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version while
WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
load it automatically.
Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open it manually, when you
know the other software has created a new version of the file, but you'd rather not have to close it first?
J. P. ,
Is there a commandline switch to override that behaviour and either open >>>the[]
document in a new window, or (preferrably) re-load the document.
I suspect there isn't, for two reasons:
Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ?
:-)
1. (As some have pointed out) WordPad is an editor, not just a viewer (i.
e. has the ability to write); this may be the root of some of the
problems.
problems like ... what ?
And do notice that its current behaviour has its own problem : If the >document has been recreated it is (very) easy to overwrite it with the old >contents still present in wordpad.
(The fact that the generating prog. _can_ create a new version while
WordPad has it open is slightly surprising.)
No, not really. If wordpad can load the whole document than there is no >reason to keep the file open - other than create a write (and read?) lock.
2. WordPad would have to _know_ that a new version has been created, and
load it automatically.
No, that (automatically) is not what I asked (having a document change under >your fingers while you're typing in it ? Yuck!). It only should happen
when tell it to do so.
Or are you saying that you'd be willing top open it manually, when you
know the other software has created a new version of the file, but you'd
rather not have to close it first?
Done manually or thru launching the document should not make a difference. >But my question was about me double-clicking the newly-generated document,
so lets keep it at that.
You know, having to close the old document first before being allowed to
open the (same named) new one would not even be that much of a problem to
me. What is is that currently wordpad brings the old document to top when I >double-click the new document - and doesn't tell a soul about it not being >the new document. :-(
And thats just *begging* me to continue using the old while thinking its the >new data - with the non-zero chance that I overwrite the new data with the >(edited) old data.
IOW, I'm effectivily trying to fix an UI problem.Not sure it's _quite_ UI.
Hello all,
I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by double-clicking it.
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I have to close the old, still-open document first.
Question:
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Shadow,
LOL.
"I've got a program". It won't output a file if the file already
exists and is locked by another application. It also does not
give any error messages.
What do you suggest I do with "the program I got"?
No nasty suggestions please.
LOL,
you have not actually read what I asked and what its about, are complaining >about your failing to do so, and are seemingly quite eager to let the whole >world know about it.
Well done !
Perhaps you can launch Wordpad.exe from inside your program,
treating Wordpad as a viewer and not as an editor.
That sort of thing. Then, when the conversion program has a new version to test, it uses the %ProcessInfo to kill the old one.
Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ? >>:-)
I think I'm quite good at that (certainly at seeing when people are
answering not quite the question that was asked, which doesn't make me popular).
problems like ... what ?
Well, I'd have thought - since it is _capable_ of writing, that it might "lock" the file, preventing anything else writing to it. But obviously
that's _not_ happening.
Yes. Ideally, you want a true viewer - read-only - for the type of file in question (.rtf?).
I don't suppose the prog. that's creating the file has its own viewer for them, that you until now haven't been aware of?
(What _is_ that prog.?)
OK, so _you_ instigate the opening (in this case by double-clicking).
It won't help with the problem, but I'm just curious: what is the reason you're looking at this document?
Obviously to see what's changed, but how big is the document - about a (WordPad) windowful?
What sort of change does the generating prog. usually make?
And thats just *begging* me to continue using the old while thinking its >>the new data - with the non-zero chance that I overwrite the new data with >>the (edited) old data.
Definitely a read-only viewer needed -
ideally, one without the behaviour of WordPad!
(Or do you _want_ to actually _edit_ the file?)
I'm pretty sure there _are_ other .rtf editors (not sure about viewers) around, but I don't know if they all have the same (won't open new copy) behaviour of WordPad.
If you try to re-load a changed file, it will load the one
in memory , not the changed one on disk.
I'd consider using another editor.
Still not sure what you are trying to do.
J. P. ,
Do you know that you're the first one who actually adresses my question ? >>>:-)
I think I'm quite good at that (certainly at seeing when people are
answering not quite the question that was asked, which doesn't make me
popular).
I think I make myself unpopulair by putting effort into isolating the
problem first and than formulating an exact question to it. IOW, I'm not >giving the people who respond a lot of leeway in their answers ...
And me being able to point out the downsides of offered work-arounds does
not help either...
just be a PEBKAC or ID:10T, not knowing the front from its desktops back.
:-|
I don't suppose the prog. that's creating the file has its own viewer for
them, that you until now haven't been aware of?
Nope, it doesn't have its own one. Why should it? Its output is just a >document that can be read by pretty-much every editor there is. Its like >asking if the DIR command has its own viewer. :-)
Or, in other words: The answer to the question I asked would be applicable
to more situations than the one I described.
It won't help with the problem, but I'm just curious: what is the reason
you're looking at this document?
Would you believe me if I said it was to pass the time ? No ? Than I won't >say it. :-)
Obviously to see what's changed, but how big is the document - about a
(WordPad) windowful?
That depends on the source. But normally its tens of screens full.
What sort of change does the generating prog. usually make?
That also depends on the source. Often the changes are minor, but sometimes >they are major.
Though in that case I might just take a riched20 component, wrap it in a >dialog and be done with it. Yep, I'm a (hobby) programmer. :-)
As earlier mentioned, I will start to consider other options* /after/ I have >concluded my current question. Yes, I'm odd like that. Sorry. :-)
* even though I already went thru inventorizing a few work-arounds/hacks >before posting my question, taskkill being one of them.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
I don't think Wordpad will work how you want. When it opens a
document, it loads the doc into buffer. If the target doesn't
change, it uses what is in its buffer. You could change the file
itself many times, but Wordpad will still show you the contents
of its buffer.
As a test using Notepad,[snip]
Is there really any formatting in the output file by the program
that would require RTF, or is it all just plain text?
just be a PEBKAC or ID:10T, not knowing the front from its desktops
back. :-|
I knew PEBKAC, but took me a while to figure out the second one!
Well, that's related to my asking below what was your _reason_
for wanting to monitor the changes.
These questions were trying to find what your _specific_ problem is.
from the lack of responses that actually give the switch, the answer
would appear to be "no, it has no such switch"
I had the feeling you wanted something like a "status window",...
If it isn't, what _do_ you want
for/with the output of this specific prog.
not as a general WordPad question (for which it doesn't seem an
answer is forthcoming)?
Paul,
Perhaps you can launch Wordpad.exe from inside your program,
treating Wordpad as a viewer and not as an editor.
Thats assuming I can rewrite "the program" ...
That sort of thing. Then, when the conversion program has a new version to >> test, it uses the %ProcessInfo to kill the old one.
Yes, thats possible (I mentioned taskkill in my initial post).
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program? In the[]
.bat file, run the program. After it exits, use a 'ren' command to
change the extension from .rtf to .txt.
<program>
ren <name>.rtf <name>.txt
Then when you double-click on the .txt file in Explorer, Notepad will
open. The test I did showed Notepad will work how you want.
You're assuming his secret program runs, writes the .rtf file, then exits.[snip]
then subsequently writes it - with the same name - _again_.
Write a script to automate the looping behavior you desire.
Well, that's related to my asking below what was your _reason_
for wanting to monitor the changes.
Again, I do *NOT* want to /monitor/ any changes.
I just want to see the contents of the document I just double-clicked.
Thats all. I asked for it, it needs to happen.
These questions were trying to find what your _specific_ problem is.
In a few words :? Explicitily asking for something to happen and
(silently!) being ignored (which has caused me problems in the past).
from the lack of responses that actually give the switch, the answer
would appear to be "no, it has no such switch"
I would already be glad with "I'm not aware of the existance of such a >switch" kind of replies - and than possibly /followed/ with suggestions of >other approaches.
I had the feeling you wanted something like a "status window",...
If it isn't, what _do_ you want
Simple: double-click a file, the file gets loaded and displayed. Rinse and >repeat.
for/with the output of this specific prog.
I see I made a mistake in mentioning the program which is the source of the >document. It allowed you to side-track yourself.
not as a general WordPad question (for which it doesn't seem an
answer is forthcoming)?
As far as I'm concerned the answer must still be sought in direct connection >to wordpad - as it is causing the problem, nothing else.
Pehaps I will use "taskkill" (or similar mechanisms) for a while and see how >I like it. Might even put something like it in a launcher program.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?[snip]
In message <[email protected]> at Wed, 27 Mar 2024 07:22:01, VanguardLH <[email protected]> writes
Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program? In the[]
.bat file, run the program. After it exits, use a 'ren' command to
change the extension from .rtf to .txt.
<program>
ren <name>.rtf <name>.txt
Then when you double-click on the .txt file in Explorer, Notepad will
open. The test I did showed Notepad will work how you want.
You're assuming his secret program runs, writes the .rtf file, then
exits. Reading between the lines - which is all we can do, as he won't
tell us what the prog. is! - I gather the mystery program writes the
.rtf (closing it when it has done), then subsequently writes it - with
the same name - _again_. Your "after it exits" assumes it _does_ exit.
IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same
name it already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.
Its not about /automatically/ updating the contents of wordpad when the file changes, its about showing the contents of the file when the user double-clicks it (a manual action).
As so often, my question is not only aimed at my current situation,
but also at other, similar ones (trying to solve the problem at its
root).
Vanguard,
Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?
Yes, I could.
But all of those try to circumvent the problem itself (which will still rear its ugly head in other circumstances where the origional files contents change) as well as having their own side effects.
I think that taskkill (which I mentioned in my initial post) is one of the few "solutions" (hacks) which seems to have no side effects - even though
its usage seems to be limited to where a script launches the changed document.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
"R.Wieser" <[email protected]d> wrote:
Vanguard,
Couldn't you use a batch script as a wrapper to your program?
Yes, I could.
But all of those try to circumvent the problem itself (which will still rear >> its ugly head in other circumstances where the origional files contents
change) as well as having their own side effects.
I think that taskkill (which I mentioned in my initial post) is one of the >> few "solutions" (hacks) which seems to have no side effects - even though
its usage seems to be limited to where a script launches the changed
document.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't do what
you want, and keep expecting someone to come up with a solution where
Wordpad has command-line arguments other than filespec and /p (for
printing). There are no other command-line args to Wordpad, including
no arg for forcing a flush of its buffer nor an arg to force a close of
the current doc to get a new copy loaded in its buffer.
However, tis likely that Rudy's "program" does have any configuration^___ not
settings to let him choose a different document format nor the extension
for its output file. That's why solutions regarding Wordpad are
reactive workarounds. Rudy is stuck with the behavior of the "program".
He isn't stuck with the behavior of Wordpad.
And CoPilot told me that WordPad has no API for interaction.
Wordpad is not a full-featured widget.
Maybe there is some way that a program could MMAP a file,
and then use some interface that tells it the file has
been changed on disk. The other option is the NTFS change
journal (FAT has no equivalent of that). The SearchIndexer
uses the change journal, and Everything.exe also uses
the change journal, to be informed of file system changes.
(You then apply a filter to the list, to only get
the changes you care about, such as a single file
you happen to have open at the moment.)
I've had editors warn me before, about changes
had been made since the file was opened, so I've
at least seen this feature in action.
While you could try LibreOffice Writer as an RTF proofer,
or OpenOffice Writer, We don't really know if they work
exactly like the Microsoft parser or not. I've always
found RTF to be a waste of time as an interchange mechanism.
Even if you take RTF from one Microsoft tool and feed
it to another Microsoft tool, there are no guarantees
on the outcome or the appearance.
If he wanted a solution he would have detailed the issue,
explaining what he needs to achieve.
But what he really wants is to snipp about how people are
too dumb for him to tolerate
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't
do what you want,
If you insist on using Wordpad, there is no good solution for you.
Using taskkill is no more a better a solution than others offered.
You open Wordpad with a file, you want to open another instance of
Wordpad to the same but since-changed file, but you involve taskkill
to eliminate the earlier instance of Wordpad. Why can't you just
exit the earlier instance before you load the next one?
No having to find the PID of the prior instance of Wordpad.
IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same
name it already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.
There is no "dirty bit" to identify a file has been changed after it has
been loaded
in any process with a file handle on it.
yes, there is a dirty bit to let the editor there was a change to
prompt you on exit to save changes.
An editor won't know if some other process has changed the file.
You want cooperating that doesn't exist.
Wordpad has the ancient and nasty trait of reusing its buffer
if the filespec is the same as before.
Since the target didn't change, it shows you what it already loaded.
The root of the problem is Wordpad is
has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p),
and won't do what you want.
Again, I do *NOT* want to /monitor/ any changes.
You do, sort of.
WordPad won't re-open a file it already has open. This is arguably a bug,
but that's the way it is.
I won't say "get over it", because I get very cross when people say that
sort of thing to _me_;
instead, I am trying to understand _why_ you want to do this. Railing "because it should" will only frustrate you;...
If what you were originally trying to do - even if you now won't admit
it!, which was see a changed document - is no longer of interest, but you want instead to pursue the WordPad bug ad infinitum (ad nauseam), fair enough, but tell us.
"VanguardLH" <[email protected]> wrote
| I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many
| of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size,
| so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened
| in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB.
Maybe images? I checked my system. I have 105 RTFs. If you
have over 10K then it sounds like it's time for some housecleaning.
I've used a RichEdit window for many years in my own code editor.
It's wonderfully powerful and the format is published. Though I'd
agree that Wordpad/Write is not very useful. It's the power of RTF
squeezed through a narrow funnel. If I want attractive formatting
I use HTML. These days, an HTML file can even have the images
embedded inline as base64. I keep VBScripts on my desktop to do
just that.
Vanguard,[]
At times you respond as if you have a head on your shoulders, and at other >times ... meh.[]
We're all guilty of that - including you, as well as me and Vanguard.
Like this perhaps ?
[quote=me, initial message]
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document and double-click it I still see the old contents.
....
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? [/quote]
You already knew what the answer to the
question was, before you asked it.
The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.
The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.
Thanks.
But as reddit is dependant on JS being available its largely a no-go area
for me. I would have liked to be able to have the sourcefiles of a few >programs available though.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Apparently it's at [snip], or was three years ago
it's either 2.93 GB or about 50 GB (I think the smaller [one post says
"The code for XP is 3GB ish but there's also a larger 50GB torrent that
also includes Windows Server 2003, MS-DOS 6, and a whole lotta Bill Gates conspiracy videos."]);
"J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]> wrote[]
| >I use HTML. These days, an HTML file can even have the images[]
| >embedded inline as base64. I keep VBScripts on my desktop to do
| >just that.
| >
| Is that what the "save as single file" option some browsers offer does?
I've never noticed that option. I'll have to check it out.
Mostly I've only used the option for my own purposes and
not with large images. The HTML can get very clunky if
you're saving a bloated page with big images. So personally
I'd just save them in a folder if I want them. But sometimes
J. P. ,
Apparently it's at [snip], or was three years ago
Thanks. Thats about the same time back as the linux article Paul linked
to.
it's either 2.93 GB or about 50 GB (I think the smaller [one post says
"The code for XP is 3GB ish but there's also a larger 50GB torrent that
also includes Windows Server 2003, MS-DOS 6, and a whole lotta Bill Gates
conspiracy videos."]);
Alas, I just tried with the HTTP as well as the HTTPS prefix, but the >connection fails either way.
Though googeling for the filename gives a few hits that I could look into.
I hope I will find a magnet link, as my downloader normally shows all the >included files, where I than can de-select the unwanted ones (just the XP >branch is currently enough for me).
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Newyana2 <[email protected]> WROTE:
"VanguardLH" <[email protected]> wrote
| I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many
| of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size,
| so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened
| in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB.
Maybe images? I checked my system. I have 105 RTFs. If you
have over 10K then it sounds like it's time for some housecleaning.
262 here (all but 15 on C:, so not created by me), all but 7 under your
300K threshold.
I'm guessing VLH has something that makes them, possibly as a
transitional stage that it's not cleaning up properly. Everything.exe is great for looking there - you can sort by date modified, size, or path
(and it remembers your choice, so I don't know what's the default -
probably name).
Vanguard,
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't
do what you want,
Do tell me where you have posted that you think that that wordpad can't do it.
*Thats* the problem.
You open Wordpad with a file, you want to open another instance of
Wordpad to the same but since-changed file, but you involve taskkill
to eliminate the earlier instance of Wordpad. Why can't you just
exit the earlier instance before you load the next one?
I can, and currently have to.
But I thought I made it rather clear why I wanted to eliminate that
manual middle step (and why!). If not I suggest you re-read the
thread, I've mentioned it multiple times.
No having to find the PID of the prior instance of Wordpad.
And with that you show that you have no clue how that taskkill works.
"J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
Newyana2 <[email protected]> WROTE:
"VanguardLH" <[email protected]> wrote
| I just checked, and there are over 10K .rtf files on my C: drive, many >>>| of which are for EULA or license docs. Most are under 300 KB in size, >>>| so not too bad. One is 27 MB for a readme.rtf in Thief 2. When opened >>>| in Wordpad, there is no way that content needs to consume 27 MB.
Maybe images? I checked my system. I have 105 RTFs. If you
have over 10K then it sounds like it's time for some housecleaning.
262 here (all but 15 on C:, so not created by me), all but 7 under your
300K threshold.
I'm guessing VLH has something that makes them, possibly as a
transitional stage that it's not cleaning up properly. Everything.exe is
great for looking there - you can sort by date modified, size, or path
(and it remembers your choice, so I don't know what's the default -
probably name).
As I said, most are EULA.rtf or license.rtf files. I used voidtools' >[Search] Everything, not Windows Search to find *.rtf files. Only 19
are in my Downloads folder of which most are provide license info in
several languages (locales). 254 are under the WinSxS folder where
multiple versions of system files are stored to allow compatibility with
apps that want old versions. You sure whatever you used to search for
*.rtf files looked everywhere?
9492 are for rollup fixes (under C:\Windows\servicing\LCU\). I'm not
yet sure that I want to remove the Last Cumulative Update folders that
can undo a cumulative update, but then I rely on daily scheduled image >backups to restore the exact prior state of my drives. When I run Disk >Cleanup (cleanmgr.exe) on the C: drive, and select to scan system files,
LCU might be the "Windows Update Cleanup" option which is deselected, by >default, and reports consuming 5.76 GB. On a 1 TB drive with only 98 GB >used, 5 GB isn't of much concern. I'll put that cleanup in a reminder
sticky to run after the next monthly scheduled full image backup.
Apparently the Stickies app I use for notes (I don't like the one in
Windows 10) uses RTF to allow formatting in my notes. I can't remember
I was only definite on how many files there were total. The 300KB size
is my eyes watching the Size column as I scroll the very long list while >looking to find a typical maximum size, and ignore the occasional big
jump (outliers). The list is too big for Everything (it hangs) to
select the entire list to right-click to get aggregate properties to
find their total space consumption. The big reduction will come when I
later run Disk Cleanup to get rid of the LCU subfolders.
Vanguard,
IOW, it gets a signal someone tried to open a document with the same
name it already has, but than blithely ignores al that information.
There is no "dirty bit" to identify a file has been changed after it
has been loaded
Why should a "dirty bit" be involved ? Just throw whatever is in there out and reload the provided file. Not really rocket science.
in any process with a file handle on it.
Mistake. As reading this thread about how wordpad (doesn't) deals with its underlying document should have shown you (there is no "handle" it keeps).
yes, there is a dirty bit to let the editor there was a change to
prompt you on exit to save changes.
Second mistake : trying to conflate the files "dirty" bit with the one
which signals that the editors contents where changed. Nasty move.
You want cooperating that doesn't exist.
Fourth mistake.
And that was told to me (by you or anyone else) ... where ?
The root of the problem is Wordpad is
(that it)
has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p),
Nice to see you contradict yourself in a single line. :-)
"Paul" <[email protected]d> wrote
| The source code for Windows XP was stolen.
| That means, somewhere, there's a copy of Wordpad source for WinXP.
|
In VBClassic and probably in .Net there are simple wrapper
controls for the MS RichEdit library. It's actually not a big deal
to create a Wordpad type of program. But does anyone use
it anymore? I used to use it for help files and such where I
wanted formatting, but HTML is more flexible and looks nicer.
There's something about the display of bold text in RTF that
always looked clunky to me.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:3d8b16242b56a3aafb8da7b5fc83ef993ebcf35b&dn=Microsoft %20leaked%20source%20code%20archive_2020-09-24
XP source is located in this archive: nt5src.rar
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't
do what you want,
Do tell me where you have posted that you think that that wordpad can't
do
it.
*Thats* the problem.
Syntax: wordpad [/p] <filespec>
That's it. Get over your desire for Wordpad to have more args.
You're going to leave Wordpad windows open indefinitely until
sometime later when you shutdown Windows?
I suggest *YOU* run at the command line:
taskkill /?
Specifying the PID is one way. Specifying the image name is another,
but takes out all processes with the same image name.
Really that hard for you to read the syntax description to see
PID is one way to specify what process to kill?
Apparently you profess that you don't use /pid or /im,
so how ELSE do you use taskkill?
Mistake. As reading this thread about how wordpad (doesn't) deals
with its underlying document should have shown you (there is no
"handle" it keeps).
No process can open a file to read or write without first creating
(open) a file handle (descriptor) on it.
"signals that the editor's content were change". That's the dirty bit, change flag, or whatever term you want to use.
And that was told to me (by you or anyone else) ... where ?
How about EVERYTHING that has participated here telling you
about workarounds
instead of the miraculous command-line arguments you WISH
Wordpad had?
The root of the problem is Wordpad is
(that it)
has no command-line args (other than filespec and /p),
Nice to see you contradict yourself in a single line. :-)
You're not only uber pendantic,
but want to omit that exclusions
can be specified in a rule.
wordpad.exe [/p] <filespec>
That's it. That's all you get. Nothing more.
Vanguard,
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge that Wordpad won't
do what you want,
Do tell me where you have posted that you think that that wordpad
can't do it.
*Thats* the problem.
Syntax: wordpad [/p] <filespec>
That's it. Get over your desire for Wordpad to have more args.
You seem to have a problem with your chronology.
I did not ask you if you *now* can come up with something, I asked you
where you did *before* chewing me out over it.
... or did you hope I would not notice what you did ? :-)
And by the way, I seem to have found information where you can, from
the commandline, select a different printer.
You're going to leave Wordpad windows open indefinitely until
sometime later when you shutdown Windows?
: -) You're fishing for reasons to why you can claim I'm wrong, and
: than retroactivily put that onto the current case, aren't you ?
I suggest *YOU* run at the command line:
taskkill /?
Specifying the PID is one way. Specifying the image name is another,
but takes out all processes with the same image name.
I suggest you do that again yourself, and now /actually read/ what it says.
Hint : the "/FI" argument.
Really that hard for you to read the syntax description to see
PID is one way to specify what process to kill?
I noticed, yes. The problem is that you said, in relation to what *I*
was doing, "No having to find the PID of the prior instance of
Wordpad.".
No, I didn't need a PID, so its anybodies guess (although I have a suspicion or two) to why you mentioned it.
Apparently you profess that you don't use /pid or /im,
You /realy/ have a reading problem, don't you ? I challenge you to quote where I said that I dodn't use /im. I'll even go further : quote where I mentioned /any/ of taskkill's arguments - *before* you tried to make claims to how I did it wrong ofcourse.
so how ELSE do you use taskkill?
Kid, your "you're wrong!" only exists because you, on purpose or
otherwise, change what /has/ being said into something that better
serves your own goals.
I asked for an existence. Which /should/ have been simple to answer.
But obviously not for you...
Hello all,
I've got a program which generates a wordpad document, which I than open by double-clicking it.
The problem is that when the document is open and I re-generate the document and double-click it I still see the old contents. To see the new contents I have to close the old, still-open document first.
Question:
Is there a way to override this behaviour using a command-line argument ? Even just having two document windows open would be an improvement.
remark: I prefer /not/ to use taskkill.
Long shot: Have you tried to see if there is any difference in
WordPad behaviour between doing a 'taskkill /f ...' and doing a
taskkill without /f?
$WISHFUL THINKING MODE ON
Perhaps without /f, WordPad will do the desired thing and re-read
the file.
I did not ask you if you *now* can come up with something, I asked
you where you did *before* chewing me out over it.
... or did you hope I would not notice what you did ? :-)
See Message-ID <[email protected]> where I mentioned
filespec and /p arguments, and only those. I said that 3 days ago.
That was my first response.
And by the way, I seem to have found information where you can,
from the commandline, select a different printer.
Yep, mentioned the /p arg back in my first response, too.
You're going to leave Wordpad windows open indefinitely until
sometime later when you shutdown Windows?
: -) You're fishing for reasons to why you can claim I'm wrong, and
: than retroactivily put that onto the current case, aren't you ?
And you divert via lambaste by not saying why you need to keep Wordpad
open between separate runs on your program.
Specifying the PID is one way. Specifying the image name is another,
but takes out all processes with the same image name.
I suggest you do that again yourself, and now /actually read/ what it
says.
Hint : the "/FI" argument.
Which can also specify image name or PID.
Have you yet disclosed just how you are running taskkill?
With which args?
Your "program" remains a mystery,
And you're still hiding. Instead of answering on how you use
taskkill, you obfuscate again.
Vanguard,
R.Wieser wrote:
And by the way, I seem to have found information where you can,
from the commandline, select a different printer.
Yep, mentioned the /p arg back in my first response, too.
show me where you mentioned /selecting a different printer from
wordpads commandline/.
As for /why/ I do it ? Thats as little your concern as the program I generate the document with was to J. P. . And yes, you're /still/ fishing for something you can complain about.
Hint : the "/FI" argument.
Which can also specify image name or PID.
Ah yes, trying to divert attention away from you having made a
mistake.
Have you yet disclosed just how you are running taskkill?
With which args?
Why would I need to do disclose that ?
Your "program" remains a mystery,
Good. That way you could not be sidetracked by it either.
show me where you mentioned /selecting a different printer from
from wordpads commandline/.
Again, "Yep, mentioned the /p arg back in my first response, too."
If /p doesn't work, try /pt.
Oh, we're supposed to come up with a solution to a vague scenario.
I gave specifics on how to use taskkill. You kept it a secret.
Ah yes, trying to divert attention away from you having made a
mistake.
I made no mistake. No reason to use /FI with a condition testing on
PID or image name versus just using /pid <pid> or /im <imagename>.
Because if you had identified the program, or noted it was a
script, others might've helped you with configuring the program
Wordpad can't be fixed unless you get its code to create NewWordpad
with MDI support, or add a buffer flush command-line arg, or however
you wish it to function.
Your use of taskkill is just another workaround.
No process can open a file to read or write without first creating
(open) a file handle (descriptor) on it.
True.
But what has that to do with what I said in the quote of mine just above
your response ?
"signals that the editor's content were change". That's the dirty bit,
change flag, or whatever term you want to use.
Ah yes, that was where you tried to conflate changes of the file and of
the contents of the editor.
Pray tell, *why* did you come up with the above ? Where did I mention
that was of any concern to me ? And yes, I expect you to quote it.
instead of the miraculous command-line arguments you WISH
Wordpad had?
Again, quote where I said that I /wished/, or as you try to make it sound like /demanded/ they (multiple?) would be available. Why ?
Frank,
Long shot: Have you tried to see if there is any difference in
WordPad behaviour between doing a 'taskkill /f ...' and doing a
taskkill without /f?
As a matter of fact, I did. It didn't make a difference - likely because taskkill first tries to ask nicely, and only if that doesn't work applies force.
And as wordpad most likely responds to being asked nicely the "force" method is never used.
$WISHFUL THINKING MODE ON
Perhaps without /f, WordPad will do the desired thing and re-read
the file.
Whooo! Yes, thats quite the long shot. :-)
But alas, when I tried that I didn't see that happen.
It would be nice to know what taskkill actually does, instead of
us having to guess.
Perhaps without /f, WordPad will do the desired thing and
re-read the file.
Whooo! Yes, thats quite the long shot. :-)
Well, it's not such a long shot, for the reasons I gave (and
you snipped).
If other operating systems can do it, there's
no reason Windows can't do it.
But alas, when I tried that I didn't see that happen.
To be expected, but worth the try (you already did).
Perhaps without /f, WordPad will do the desired thing and
re-read the file.
Whooo! Yes, thats quite the long shot. :-)
Well, it's not such a long shot, for the reasons I gave (and
you snipped).
Does Windows support any of those, as I think I recognise, Linux signals ?
If other operating systems can do it, there's
no reason Windows can't do it.
True.
But as I read taskkills help and saw nothing indicating it would support
such signals to be send, the reloading effect of whats /supposed/ to be a "close yourself please" request would be a rather wierd side-effect on wordpads behalf. Hence my "Whooo!" response.
But in that case, how would you tell taskkill to send a non-forced "close yourself please" to wordpad ? If available it would than be different than whats used for every other program, and that makes little logical sense ...
But alas, when I tried that I didn't see that happen.
To be expected, but worth the try (you already did).
Trying stuff out, even just to see what happens (and learn from it!) is
never a bad idea - as long as its not on an important 'puter/program/database/etc. ofcourse. :-)
Does Windows support any of those, as I think I recognise, Linux
signals ?
I don't know. I don't do any Windows programming
Yes, taskkill would need to have more than two 'signals', but
from 'taskkill /?' it looks it has only these two, not the
granularity which unix/Linux offer.
Vanguard,
I see you have decided not to back up your claims to what I and you said. I can't say I'm surprised.
Kid, don't *ever* try to put words into someones mouth here. Its /way/ to easy for the other to go back thru the posts and check what was actually said.
Others may than just (rightfully so) stop responding to you, but I'm a bit different and instead call you out for it.
And by the way: we had pretty-much the same conversation about 7 months ago. IOW, you didn't learn from it.
And oh yeah, don't try to /demand/ information from someone. That never
ends well.
Enough trolling. If you'd genuinely wanted help you'd have
been grateful for suggestions,
and more forthcoming about your "program".
It's OK, Rudy. Most of us understand that you're a
mysterious Zen master.
this is a fun game, right?
Let me try:
I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 10 that I intend to
write to memory. So why did my office light bulb go out?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 155:23:04 |
| Calls: | 12,092 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,703 |