OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:17:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Thaas · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I hadn't been to that site for awhile. When I went there to find a
link to answer your question I poked around. Ended up downloading ten
toys I couldn't live without trying.

--
Thaas

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Daniel Haude · Dec 21, 2004

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:17:54 -0700,
Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote
in Msg. <2v1es0lh24oem2d552s20apdanlrr6iush@4ax.com>

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

It probably doesn't have to do with the operating system. Having
individual directories for single files sounds as if the file structure
was automatically created by some braindead program.

(2) Any cute way, or utility I can buy, so that a right click on a
file name in Explorer will give a *complete* path that I can
copy/paste into a text file?

Dunno if this helps you, but "find . -type f" will print out a list of
complete paths to *all* regular files below the current directory.
Available with many other (IMO sometimes essential) utilities at
http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/

Of course that's all strictly command-line stuff.

--Daniel

Thaas · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:26:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I enthused too soon.

Both of these utilities, when activated, kill the double-click file
opening function for any associations you have customized.

So to the trash bin :-(

...Jim Thompson
That's strange. I've been using both for the last year or so and

never had a problem. Bears investigation. Would you like some links
to file association repair utilities?

--
Thaas

Thaas · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:55:21 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:26:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I enthused too soon.

Both of these utilities, when activated, kill the double-click file
opening function for any associations you have customized.

So to the trash bin :-(

...Jim Thompson
That's strange. I've been using both for the last year or so and
never had a problem. Bears investigation. Would you like some links
to file association repair utilities?
Okay, now I see what you're talking about. Seems to work differently

depending on how far into a folder tree you are.

At the desktop it adds CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere below the
default action for folders. For files it puts CopyThisPath &
NewFolderHere at the top of the context menu and moves the default
action down, but the default is still emboldened and still works.

Dive down into a folder and for files CopyThisPath & NewFolderHere
eventually stay at the top and CopyThisPath becomes the default
action.

Definitely a bug. I'll report it to the Camtech guy and let you know
what happens.

--
Thaas

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:08:16 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:55:21 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:26:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I enthused too soon.

Both of these utilities, when activated, kill the double-click file
opening function for any associations you have customized.

So to the trash bin :-(

...Jim Thompson
That's strange. I've been using both for the last year or so and
never had a problem. Bears investigation. Would you like some links
to file association repair utilities?
Okay, now I see what you're talking about. Seems to work differently
depending on how far into a folder tree you are.

At the desktop it adds CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere below the
default action for folders. For files it puts CopyThisPath &
NewFolderHere at the top of the context menu and moves the default
action down, but the default is still emboldened and still works.

Dive down into a folder and for files CopyThisPath & NewFolderHere
eventually stay at the top and CopyThisPath becomes the default
action.

Definitely a bug. I'll report it to the Camtech guy and let you know
what happens.

Thanks, Thaas! It would help if you reported it also. The Camtech
guy replied to me rather curtly, "No, they do not and there's no way
they could", and then I replied, "Only reporting my observations".

He's probably young... I NEVER say "Can't be"... guaranteed to result
in a hole in the foot ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:22:53 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

Because the file system supports it and isn't so crap that doing so kills
performance unlike on some other operating systems.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Bob Stephens · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:22:53 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid
wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

Because the file system supports it and isn't so crap that doing so kills
performance unlike on some other operating systems.

So one file in each directory is efficient?

...Jim Thompson

This is my pet peeve about Unix in all it's guises. My short term memory is
just about useless, and I wind up spending more time searching through the
byzantine file system for that one crucial file than I do performing any
useful work.

Bob

Jim Thompson · Dec 21, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:51:19 GMT, Bob Stephens
<stephensyomamadigital@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

[snip]

So one file in each directory is efficient?

...Jim Thompson

This is my pet peeve about Unix in all it's guises. My short term memory is
just about useless, and I wind up spending more time searching through the
byzantine file system for that one crucial file than I do performing any
useful work.

Bob

Typically I receive device libraries in TAR or GZIP archives.
Unarchiving they create a ton of directories which I promptly coalesce
into a rational structure so I can group all the process corners, etc.

Of course, when they visit me, they can't understand anything I'm
doing.

And a new PSpice look-alike proposes to have library setups like
that... NO-NO!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Chuck Harris · Dec 21, 2004

Jim Thompson wrote:

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

Because the file system supports it and isn't so crap that doing so kills
performance unlike on some other operating systems.

So one file in each directory is efficient?

Not really, but it is alot easier for future programmers
to work with than some proprietary binary library file
format.

The nice thing about the unix filesystem is it can find its
way through structures like this as fast as a special library
utility could. The cost is a directory entry per file, and
on average 50% of a 512 byte block.

-Chuck Harris

Chuck Harris · Dec 21, 2004

Bob Stephens wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

So one file in each directory is efficient?

...Jim Thompson

This is my pet peeve about Unix in all it's guises. My short term memory is
just about useless, and I wind up spending more time searching through the
byzantine file system for that one crucial file than I do performing any
useful work.

Bob

In an abstract form, the unix file system is identical to the Windoze
file system. They both use a tree structure that can be made arbitrarily
deep. For example:

/usr/local/share/ooblick/goop/yellowgoop/bin/foo..

Windoze users are used to thinking that their filesystem isn't that way,
because they are used to seeing if in a pictograph form composed of
folders, containing folders, containing folders...

In the above path, /usr is a folder called usr, and /usr/local is another
folder called local that is inside of /usr...

There are file system explorers by the dozens on all varieties of unix.
Some are made to look and feel exactly like the windows explorer. There
are windows like gui's on all unix varieties of unix. Some are so closely
modeled after Windows that I would bet you couldn't tell you weren't running
windows.

You might think the unixes are playing catch up with windows, but they aren't,
Sun and apollo were shipping fully graphic user interfaces with mice, that were
very much like the windows system back when Bill was porting MSDOS to the
first IBM-PCs.

-Chuck Harris

Rich Grise · Dec 22, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:51:19 +0000, Bob Stephens wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:41:50 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:22:53 +0000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid
wrote:

Jim Thompson <thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

I'm in my usual mode of receiving (Spice) library files from systems
using Linux/Unix/Eunuchs, so paths are a gezillion deep, with *one
file* in each directory :-(

(1) Why in the hell do the Linux/Unix/Eunuchs types do that?

Because the file system supports it and isn't so crap that doing so kills
performance unlike on some other operating systems.

So one file in each directory is efficient?

...Jim Thompson

This is my pet peeve about Unix in all it's guises. My short term memory is
just about useless, and I wind up spending more time searching through the
byzantine file system for that one crucial file than I do performing any
useful work.

$ find / -name "whatever*" -print 2> /dev/null

Use quotes if you use wildcards so that the shell doesn't expand it.

'2> /dev/null' dumps the stderr output so it doesn't report the
directories you don't have permission to read.

locate works too, and is faster, but reports everything that's even close,
even without wildcards, so its output can be a little busy.

Good Luck!
Rich

Chuck Harris · Dec 22, 2004

Tim Williams wrote:

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.12.22.04.30.45.650909@example.net...

$ find / -name "whatever*" -print 2> /dev/null

12345678901234568789012345678901234567890123, uh..33.

C:\>DIR/S whatever.*
1234567890123456, 16.

No permissions to worry about burping on, either. Plus you can add /P
for pause list or /W for wide list. Or | MORE if you want to do /P the
roundabout way.

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

-Chuck Harris

Thaas · Dec 22, 2004

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:24:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:08:16 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:55:21 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:26:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I enthused too soon.

Both of these utilities, when activated, kill the double-click file
opening function for any associations you have customized.

So to the trash bin :-(

...Jim Thompson
That's strange. I've been using both for the last year or so and
never had a problem. Bears investigation. Would you like some links
to file association repair utilities?
Okay, now I see what you're talking about. Seems to work differently
depending on how far into a folder tree you are.

At the desktop it adds CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere below the
default action for folders. For files it puts CopyThisPath &
NewFolderHere at the top of the context menu and moves the default
action down, but the default is still emboldened and still works.

Dive down into a folder and for files CopyThisPath & NewFolderHere
eventually stay at the top and CopyThisPath becomes the default
action.

Definitely a bug. I'll report it to the Camtech guy and let you know
what happens.

Thanks, Thaas! It would help if you reported it also. The Camtech
guy replied to me rather curtly, "No, they do not and there's no way
they could", and then I replied, "Only reporting my observations".

He's probably young... I NEVER say "Can't be"... guaranteed to result
in a hole in the foot ;-)

...Jim Thompson
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

--
Thaas

Jim Thompson · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:24:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:08:16 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:55:21 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:26:22 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:37:49 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:26:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 13:34:32 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

This Camtech site has several other useful utilities. Copy-this-path
adds a command to your right-click context menu that will do what you
want.

http://camtech2000.net/Pages/Useful.html

PERFECTO!!! Thanks!

...Jim Thompson

GREAT Utilities!

I downloaded "CopyThisPath" and "NewFolderHere"

...Jim Thompson

I enthused too soon.

Both of these utilities, when activated, kill the double-click file
opening function for any associations you have customized.

So to the trash bin :-(

...Jim Thompson
That's strange. I've been using both for the last year or so and
never had a problem. Bears investigation. Would you like some links
to file association repair utilities?
Okay, now I see what you're talking about. Seems to work differently
depending on how far into a folder tree you are.

At the desktop it adds CopyThisPath and NewFolderHere below the
default action for folders. For files it puts CopyThisPath &
NewFolderHere at the top of the context menu and moves the default
action down, but the default is still emboldened and still works.

Dive down into a folder and for files CopyThisPath & NewFolderHere
eventually stay at the top and CopyThisPath becomes the default
action.

Definitely a bug. I'll report it to the Camtech guy and let you know
what happens.

Thanks, Thaas! It would help if you reported it also. The Camtech
guy replied to me rather curtly, "No, they do not and there's no way
they could", and then I replied, "Only reporting my observations".

He's probably young... I NEVER say "Can't be"... guaranteed to result
in a hole in the foot ;-)

...Jim Thompson
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.

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

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Jim Thompson · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:54:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

Thaas · Dec 22, 2004

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:47:54 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 09:54:21 -0700, Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:26:28 GMT, Thaas <mysig@sprynet.com> wrote:

[snip]

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.

[snip]

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

--
Thaas

OT: Copy PATH from Windows Explorer ??

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Thaas

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Daniel Haude

Guest

Thaas

Guest

Thaas

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Bob Stephens

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Rich Grise

Guest

Chuck Harris

Guest

Thaas

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Thaas

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor