Stupid stupid f***ing windows!

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gollem

Ars Tribunus Militum
1,926
Subscriptor
  • #1
    Last night I downloaded a redhat iso file. I didn't have enough space on c: but I did have enough on h:<BR>It starts downloading, at 100 megs the free space on c: is down to zero, no error messages other than you're running out of disk space, the download continues. At 200 megs I still can't find any partition with decreasing free space. I think "this is not right, but windows can't be THAT stupid, continuing the download without it getting saved anywhere".<BR>This morning I go to my computer and find a 60 meg iso file! When I went to bed 550 megs were already downloaded! Shit.<BR>So I start downloading again (modem users eat your heart out View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif ), but first I change the temporary internet folder to h:\<BR>At the end of the download what do you think? Although the place for the temporary file and the place where I said I wanted it are the same it still wants to copy the damn thing, it wants another 630 megs,WTF.<P>I ended up moving 600 megs over the network and manually copying the file from the temporary directory. AArgh, I need a bigger disk and another OS.
     
    I

    IMarshal

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,956
  • #11
    resteves:<P>Nope.<P>1) On a Mac, nothing changes with regard to downloading files from a browser. This is completely browser-implementation dependent. If IE has the same behavior on a Mac that it has on Windows, then it'll save to its temp dir, then copy to your destination. Same for Netscape, whatever its system is.<P>2) Every filesystem supports file and directory moves that just change index bits and don't actually move physical data around from sector to sector.<P>Just because this is the Battlefront doesn't mean we can be sloppy and inaccurate.
     
    A

    a blindmouse

    Ars Centurion
    222
  • #12
    umm... nope. Resteves is correct; IE on the mac actually does download to your specified destination folder or disk.... no temp crap. At all.<P>So if I say Dl to the desktop Folder, that's exactly where the file goes from the moment I click the link. If I want to DL to my Jaz drive, my startup disk is never touched.<P>Looks like microsoft's Mac SW team has some tips for the Win team...
     
    R

    resteves

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,841
  • #17
    <BR>iMarshall<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR><BR>1) On a Mac, nothing changes with regard to downloading files from a browser. This is completely browser-implementation dependent. If IE has the same<BR> behavior on a Mac that it has on Windows, then it'll save to its temp dir, then copy to your destination. Same for Netscape, whatever its system is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I suppose it is possible that this behavior *could* be implemented on Windows, but that begs the question of why it is not done this way. All of the programs I know of on the Mac will work this way. I wonder if it has anything to do with how the OS operates, making it more difficult to do this on a Windows machine. (I find it hard to believe that it would not be done if it was easy.)<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> 2) Every filesystem supports file and directory moves that just change index bits and don't actually move physical data around from sector to sector.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>All I can base it on is my personal experience and what is said on this thread. The original poster said that he could *not* just move the file without having the extra space available to write to before it deletes the original, even if it is just 'moving' within the same drive. So if what you say is correct, how come he could not do it. (I am not saying you are wrong, but then what was stopping him?)<P>
     
    G

    gollem

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,926
    Subscriptor
  • #18
    I burned the iso file to cd without errors, if there were errors while downloading, wouldn't I get crc errors when burning or only when I try to install?<BR>I don't think I'll have some virus inside, it's not warez and it was from a reputable site, linked from the redhat site.<BR>I could have ordered a cd IF they ship to Europe, normally that's not mentioned on the site so I'd have to start e-mailing them about it.
     
    I

    IMarshal

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,956
  • #20
    Given the volume of people who misunderstood my reply, I must have phrased my response rather badly.<P>blindmouse:<P>Read what I said carefully. I didn't say that IE did the same as Windows on the Mac. I meant that file download behavior was browser-implementation specific and that it wasn't an indication of a magical property of the Macintosh hardware or OS that made it better for downloading files from a network.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Looks like microsoft's Mac SW team has some tips for the Win team...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Precisely my point.<P>John Campbell:<P>When I said "Same for Netscape, whatever its system is.", the word 'system' refers to 'file download mechanism', not to OS. Sorry for the confusion.<P>resteves:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I suppose it is possible that this behavior *could* be implemented on Windows, but that begs the question of why it is not done this way. All of the programs I know of on the Mac will work this way. I wonder if it has anything to do with how the OS operates, making it more difficult to do this on a Windows machine. (I find it hard to believe that it would not be done if it was easy.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>C'mon, resteves, neither behavior is anything more than trivial to implement. This was a design decision. From my programmer's eye, what happened in the Windows port of IE was that some management guy said "hey, why don't we use the IE file cache to store partially downloaded files and then copy them to their intended destination when they're done?", and then passed the code work off to some intern. I suspect the original motivation was to allow features like transparent resumes if a download from an HTTP 1.1 server is interrupted.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All I can base it on is my personal experience and what is said on this thread. The original poster said that he could *not* just move the file without having the extra space available to write to before it deletes the original, even if it is just 'moving' within the same drive. So if what you say is correct, how come he could not do it. (I am not saying you are wrong, but then what was stopping him?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>I believe the original poster's problem was that IE was doing this:<P>CopyFile (temp, final);<BR>DeleteFile (temp);<P>instead of this:<P>MoveFile (temp, final);<P>That's why I said the codework was done by an intern. You could use a debugger to find out for sure, but that's what it looks like IE is doing. Stupid? Yes.<P>On Windows filesystems, as on just about any others, you can move a 100MB file anywhere you want on the same partition with 3 MB of free disk space. Try it if you don't believe me. (Numbers used for illustration purposes only. No files were corrupted in the writing of this post).
     
    R

    resteves

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    2,841
  • #21
    <BR>I have no way of knowing if it was just dumb code, but your explanation seems plausible. The only problem I have with it is why MS would decide to do something so stupid (apparently) on the Windows side, and do it 'right' on the Mac side. They had to make two dumb decisions on Windows, and doesn't Navigator do it the same way on Windows (temp file first, copy instead of move) If so (and I am not sure) then it seems improbable that both companies did the same two mistakes on Windows, and did it better on Mac.<P>
     
    X

    xwred1

    Ars Praefectus
    5,423
  • #25
    IMarshall did state a motive for Microsofts implementation of a caching system in IE/Win32. Last time I check, this was an IE-only thing and netscape doesn't do it. There's probably some obscure way where it can help a bunch of idiots (thats who MS is catering to most of the time).<P>Its probably not there on the Mac because someone on the Mac team decided to throw it out. It has *nothing* to do with the OS, if it did, other programs like CuteFTP or LeechFTP would be able to do direct download writes.
     
    I

    IMarshal

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,956
  • #27
    <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There's probably some obscure way where it can help a bunch of idiots (thats who MS is catering to most of the time).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>It's actually a pretty useful feature. Imagine you're downloading that 432MB Linux ISO that you gotta have over your 14.4 line and at 97% done your ISP decides you've been online long enough, buddy, go talk to your wife or something. Netscape will restart from scratch, IE will simply resume the download at 97% after you reconnect.<P>And this covers phone line glitches, router congestion, server timeouts or reboots and other miscellaneous network problems.<P>So on the whole, it might even save a murder or two. That's Microsoft for you, making the world a better place for all of us. ;-D
     
    I

    IMarshal

    Ars Tribunus Militum
    1,956
  • #31
    John Campbell:<P>Of course you are completely correct. However, this is a design decision, and Microsoft's target audience for IE is the casual user, for whom transparent resumes are much better than a game of hunt-the-file.<P>And on a home machine with a single partition, it makes perfect sense to use the temp files directory to store partial downloads. After all, why not? What I would object to is that they didn't implement both behaviors and include a checkbox to select either.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Jump to latest Follow Reply
    Jump to latest Follow Reply