Vista's Amnesia Strikes Again



  • My first WTF, be gentle.  Found this while emptying my Recycle Bin.  Sorry for the shit quality, photofuckit struck.

    So, if I'm understanding this, Vista is telling me the file it wanted to delete for me doesn't exist, and it wants to know if i want it to...

    Create...

    The file...

    To...

    Delete it.

     

    Or something.

     

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D



  • It seems that the physical file on disk was deleted, but the reference to it in wherever Windows stores it's references to deleted files was not.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Master Chief said:

    Sorry for the shit quality, photofuckit struck
    Oh, the irony: the file mentioned in the screenshot is a png, the screenshot isn't.



  • @PJH said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Sorry for the shit quality, photofuckit struck
    Oh, the irony: the file mentioned in the screenshot is a png, the screenshot isn't.
     

    The editor I use (Fireworks) generally pops out perfectly fine looking JPGs, I'm not sure what photofuckit did to this one on upload.



  • @PJH said:

    @Master Chief said:
    Sorry for the shit quality, photofuckit struck
    Oh, the irony: the file mentioned in the screenshot is a png, the screenshot isn't.

    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks. So many sidebar commenters seem to find lossy images offensive even if it doesn't detract from whatever is being shown - anyone care to elighten me?



  • @versatilia said:

    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks. So many sidebar commenters seem to find lossy images offensive even if it doesn't detract from whatever is being shown - anyone care to elighten me?
    Usually because a 40k JPG will look much worse than a 40k PNG when it comes to screenshots.



  • @ender said:

    @versatilia said:
    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks. So many sidebar commenters seem to find lossy images offensive even if it doesn't detract from whatever is being shown - anyone care to elighten me?
    Usually because a 40k JPG will look much worse than a 40k PNG when it comes to screenshots.

    Perhaps with a sensible window manager / widget theme with large solid surfaces, but this is Vista's fancy-schmancy candy UI we're talking here. I had to reduce that image to 16 colors before the size of the PNG got close to the JPG (still being 4kB larger at 26kB). It looks absolutely horrible.

    The text in the screenshot is perfectly legible, nevermind the few compression artifacts that can be seen if you look closely. Hell, it'd be possible to get the joke from a plain text transcript of the dialog contents, but a screenshot adds its own bit of authenticity. Compression method of the screenshot is a total non-issue here.



  • @tdb said:

    I had to reduce that image to 16 colors before the size of the PNG got close to the JPG
     

    Did you take the jpeg from this thread? Because that one already has articfacts, which reduce compressability.

    The original image will compress better.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @versatilia said:

    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks.
    Um, because it's quite possible to get better quality png's at a lower size than a jpg?

     

    (Presuming Photobucket doesn't do to me what it apparently did to the OP...) Compare:

    28K JPG:

    [IMG]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh189/PaulJHerring/jpg_quality_85.jpg[/IMG]

    19K PNG:

    [IMG]http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh189/PaulJHerring/png_compression_9.png[/IMG]

    The colour, in particular, is more accurate in the png for starters.

     

     



  •  You accidentally the whole image!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

     You accidentally the whole image!

    Hmmm?



  • @PJH said:

    @versatilia said:

    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks.
    Um, because it's quite possible to get better quality png's at a lower size than a jpg?

     

    (Presuming Photobucket doesn't do to me what it apparently did to the OP...) Compare:

    28K JPG:

    19K PNG:

    The colour, in particular, is more accurate in the png for starters.

     

     

    For images of text PNG is superior. For images of nature JPEG is superior.  For pictures of man-made things with lots of hard edges and straight lines it isn't quite to cut and dry.



  • @PJH said:

    @versatilia said:

    Why do we have this holy war on lossy screenshots? I'd rather get the joke from a 40K JPG than a 400K PNG thanks.
    Um, because it's quite possible to get better quality png's at a lower size than a jpg?

     

    (Presuming Photobucket doesn't do to me what it apparently did to the OP...) Compare:

    <snip>

    The colour, in particular, is more accurate in the png for starters.

     

     

    Of course it is, when you choose an example like that with large solid surfaces. Now do me a favor and try it with this screenshot of a typical Vista UI: http://tredosoft.com/files/pictures/vista.png.

    GIMP's maximum quality JPEG compression got it to about half the size of the PNG (383k vs 681k) with no noticeable artefacts (I could find some with the right tools, but not with my eyes). A 256-color PNG with no dithering was 127k and looked like crap; a JPEG with a quality setting of 83/100 got to the same size at considerably better quality even though there now were noticeable artefacts.

    I admit that the JPEG compression of the OP's screenshot skewed my initial results a bit, but it's hard to say whether or not the original would've compressed better with PNG or JPEG. That titlebar in particular is difficult for any lossless compression.



  • @PJH said:

    @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

     You accidentally the whole image!

    Hmmm?

    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/I_accidentally_X



  • It's not even asking you if you want to create that file, but rather, that folder. Apparently image files can be directories now.



  •  I read that and I still have no idea what it is about. That is one bady written article. With a lot of flashy banners on the left. They accidentally my eye.

    Nope, still not funny.



  • @tdb said:

    Of course it is, when you choose an example like that with large solid surfaces. Now do me a favor and try it with this screenshot of a typical Vista UI: http://tredosoft.com/files/pictures/vista.png.

     

    This one: [url]http://molhanec.net/vista.png[/url] has 102978 bytes. (I could probably get better, but this is IMHO OK).

    It's important to know if you want to show the screenshot as a graphics example -- e.g. theme overview -- (1 % of the time), than is 24 bit JPEG better, or as as a something which has some WTF text to read (99 % of the time), than is PNG much better because it won't blurry the text which is ugly. Also you normally post just the window, not the whole desktop so the conversion to 256 colors is better.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @XIU said:

    @PJH said:

    @Kiss me I'm Polish said:

     You accidentally the whole image!

    Hmmm?

    http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/I_accidentally_X

    I'm aware of the meme. Just wondering to which part of that post was being referred to, since I've just had yet another look, and can see no apparently words.

    Some awkward phrasing yes, but no missing words.



  • @Master Chief said:

    <snippage>

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D

     

    Windows Vista? WTF?



  • @D-Coder said:

    @Master Chief said:

    <snippage>

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D

     

    Windows Vista? WTF?

    Vista has been out for years.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @D-Coder said:

    @Master Chief said:

    <snippage>

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D

     

    Windows Vista? WTF?

    Vista has been out for years.

     

    Hmm, Wikipedia says, "On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide...", so almost three years. Ooooookay. I won't argue this further.




  • @D-Coder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @D-Coder said:

    @Master Chief said:

    <snippage>

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D

     

    Windows Vista? WTF?

    Vista has been out for years.

     

    Hmm, Wikipedia says, "On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide...", so almost three years. Ooooookay. I won't argue this further.

     

    I've been running Windows 7 for months and it isn't even released yet.  Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.



  • @tster said:

    @D-Coder said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @D-Coder said:

    @Master Chief said:

    <snippage>

    For the record though, this is the only thing I've seen in Vista yet that truly made me go "What the fuck", despite years of using it.  I still love it. :D

     

    Windows Vista? WTF?

    Vista has been out for years.

     

    Hmm, Wikipedia says, "On January 30, 2007, it was released worldwide...", so almost three years. Ooooookay. I won't argue this further.

     

    I've been running Windows 7 for months and it isn't even released yet.  Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.

     

    There exist exceptions for everything. To quote WP: Some English words of foreign origin are much better known in the plural. In common usage, the original plural is considered the singular form. See [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Words_better_known_in_the_plural[/url] for examples.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    I've been running Windows 7 for months and it isn't even released yet.  Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.

    Exception:  "y'all"

    "y'all": 1 to 5 people, depending on local usage

    "all y'all": 3 or more people

    "all y'alls":  6 or more people, depending on local usage



  • @mol1111 said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.

     

    There exist exceptions for everything. To quote WP: Some English words of foreign origin are much better known in the plural. In common usage, the original plural is considered the singular form. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Words_better_known_in_the_plural for examples.

    What the fuck are you talking about?  We're talking about the word "years", not a foreign plural that was adopted as a singular.  Hint: a word that was plural in one language but is used singular in another language is not plural in the latter language.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    We're talking about the word "years"
     

    The conversation was shifted, by you, to the more generic topic of:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.



  • @tster said:

    Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.
     

    To be really nitpicky, in some situations the plural can be used with reference to any value other than one:

    • This project will take one month.
    • This project will take 589 months.
    • This project will take 1.000000000001  months.
    • This project will take 0.03 months.
    • This project will take 0 months.



  • @barfoo said:

    @tster said:

    Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.
     

    To be really nitpicky, in some situations the plural can be used with reference to any value other than one:

    • This project will take one month.
    • This project will take 589 months.
    • This project will take 1.000000000001  months.
    • This project will take 0.03 months.
    • This project will take 0 months.


     

    yeah, good point.



  • @dhromed said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    We're talking about the word "years"
     

    The conversation was shifted, by you, to the more generic topic of:

     @morbiuswilters said:

    See, I was under the impression that the plural of a word was always 2 or more.

    Which doesn't change the pointlessness of his reply.  My comment to tster was just pointing out that using the plural form of "year" for any quantity over 1 is, um, correct.  Then he chimes in with an irrelevent comment about how some borrowed words were actually plural in their original language but singular in English which doesn't change the fact that in English the plural form is correct for any quantity other than 1.

     

    Seriously, this has to be the stupidest conversation ever.  Some idiot doesn't know Vista has been out for years and then tries to save face by acting as if "3 years" isn't a large enough quantity to be considered plural.  When tster points out how silly this is, I reply with a joke that slightly rephrases what he said to drive the point home.  Then some other idiot ruins my joke by failing to understand that borrowed words don't always retain the same rules of grammar as in their origin language.



  • @barfoo said:

    @tster said:

    Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.
     

    To be really nitpicky, in some situations the plural can be used with reference to any value other than one:

    • This project will take one month.
    • This project will take 589 months.
    • This project will take 1.000000000001  months.
    • This project will take 0.03 months.
    • This project will take 0 months.

    Which means that "it has been out for years" is an accurate statement for any amount of time other than the point of time when it has been out for exactly 1 year.  Since we know points have no width or length, it is obvious that we can never be at exactly 1 year.  Therefore, it is never correct to use the singular.



  • @bstorer said:

    @barfoo said:

    @tster said:

    Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.
     

    To be really nitpicky, in some situations the plural can be used with reference to any value other than one:

    • This project will take one month.
    • This project will take 589 months.
    • This project will take 1.000000000001  months.
    • This project will take 0.03 months.
    • This project will take 0 months.


    Which means that "it has been out for years" is an accurate statement for any amount of time other than the point of time when it has been out for exactly 1 year.  Since we know points have no width or length, it is obvious that we can never be at exactly 1 year.  Therefore, it is never correct to use the singular.
     

    While this concept is funny, it isn't correct. The noun here "year" is joined with the quantity stated ("1" or "2") not the exact actual length of time (1.00001, 2.1, etc.).    For instance, It would be grammatically correct to say "Vista has been out for 1 year," even though factually it is bullshit.



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:

    @barfoo said:

    @tster said:

    Anyways, the plural of a word usually means 2 or more.
     

    To be really nitpicky, in some situations the plural can be used with reference to any value other than one:

    • This project will take one month.
    • This project will take 589 months.
    • This project will take 1.000000000001  months.
    • This project will take 0.03 months.
    • This project will take 0 months.


    Which means that "it has been out for years" is an accurate statement for any amount of time other than the point of time when it has been out for exactly 1 year.  Since we know points have no width or length, it is obvious that we can never be at exactly 1 year.  Therefore, it is never correct to use the singular.
     

    While this concept is funny, it isn't correct. The noun here "year" is joined with the quantity stated ("1" or "2") not the exact actual length of time (1.00001, 2.1, etc.).    For instance, It would be grammatically correct to say "Vista has been out for 1 year," even though factually it is bullshit.

    Which just means it is incorrect in a different way, but still incorrect.  Hence, I demand the immediate irradication of all singualar nouns pertaining to time, lest they be misused in this manner.



  • @bstorer said:

    Which just means it is incorrect in a different way, but still incorrect.  Hence, I demand the immediate irradication of all singualar nouns pertaining to time, lest they be misused in this manner.

     

    We need an ultimatum time frame.  Say....   1 week?



  • @bstorer said:

    @tster said:
    While this concept is funny, it isn't correct. The noun here "year" is joined with the quantity stated ("1" or "2") not the exact actual length of time (1.00001, 2.1, etc.).    For instance, It would be grammatically correct to say "Vista has been out for 1 year," even though factually it is bullshit.
    Which just means it is incorrect in a different way, but still incorrect.  Hence, I demand the immediate irradication of all singualar nouns pertaining to time, lest they be misused in this manner.
    Vista's been out for year.

    The connotation of "years" is that it's many.  When someone says "years," people usually understand that it's more than just a few, let's say 5 or more.

    Leave it to a group of nerds to try to ignore the connotation of saying "years" and define it as simply "not one."



  • @tster said:

    @bstorer said:

    Which just means it is incorrect in a different way, but still incorrect.  Hence, I demand the immediate irradication of all singualar nouns pertaining to time, lest they be misused in this manner.

     

    We need an ultimatum time frame.  Say....   1 week?

    You have an hours to fix that post before I release the hunter bots.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    The connotation of "years" is that it's many.  When someone says "years," people usually understand that it's more than just a few, let's say 5 or more.

    WTF?  How do you figure?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    The connotation of "years" is that it's many.  When someone says "years," people usually understand that it's more than just a few, let's say 5 or more.

    WTF?  How do you figure?

    This is probably related to that time his lawyer told him to refer to the victim as "13 years old" instead of as a "13-year-old" because the plural gives the connotation that she is older.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    The connotation of "years" is that it's many.  When someone says "years," people usually understand that it's more than just a few, let's say 5 or more.
    WTF?  How do you figure?
    Um, having spoken this language for 27 years? 

    "It's been years since I played my N64."

    "I've had these allergies for years."

    "It's been years since I've had to use a dictionary to look up a word, but morbiuswilters still does it every day."

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in both cases it's understood to be upwards of five years or so.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in all three cases it's understood to be upwards of five years or so.
    FTFY



  • @TwelveBaud said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in all three cases it's understood to be upwards of five years or so.
    FTFY

    The connotation of "both" is 3 or more.



  • @TwelveBaud said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in all three cases it's understood to be upwards of two years or so.
    FTFY

     

    FTFH.

     Honestly, what a stupid argument.  If you are going to assume shit, the least you can do is understand that there will be communications problems with other people.



  • @tster said:

    @TwelveBaud said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in all three cases it's understood to be upwards of five years or so.
    FTFY

     

    FTFH.

    Honestly, what a stupid argument.  If you are going to assume shit, the least you can do is understand that there will be communications problems with other people.

    FTFM. If you're going to try to correct me, get it right.



  • @tster said:

    @TwelveBaud said:

    @belgariontheking said:

    Neither of those imply that it is "not one" and in all three cases it's understood to be upwards of two years or so.
    FTFY

     

    FTFH.

    Honestly, what a stupid argument.  If you are going to assume shit, the least you can do is understand that there will be communications problems with other people.

    Boom.  Headshot.  Communicating poorly or having a poor understanding of communication does not make you clever*.

     

    Trying to claim there is some unwritten definition of "years" that implies a number larger than 5 is just bizarre.  Especially when that claim is being made in defense of a douchebag who was being overly-pedantic in the first place.  Maybe to some people "years" seems like it should be a long time, but there is no formal requirement for that and trying to correct someone who actually used the word properly makes you a dickbag.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Maybe to some people "years" seems like it should be a long time, but there is no formal requirement for that and trying to correct someone who actually used the word properly makes you a dickbag.
    Are you listening to yourself?  Are you the one that defines what words and phrases mean?  Maybe it's a midwest thing, but when he said "I've been using Vista for
    years," I thought he meant many, and I thought it odd myself.  However, I didn't say anything about it until you pedantic assholes tried to redefine the phrase.  It does not mean "not one."

    He did not use it properly.  2 1/2 years is not "many."  This is a simple thing.  



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Maybe to some people "years" seems like it should be a long time, but there is no formal requirement for that and trying to correct someone who actually used the word properly makes you a dickbag.
    Are you listening to yourself?  Are you the one that defines what words and phrases mean?  Maybe it's a midwest thing, but when he said "I've been using Vista for
    years," I thought he meant many, and I thought it odd myself.  However, I didn't say anything about it until you pedantic assholes tried to redefine the phrase.  It does not mean "not one."

    He did not use it properly.  2 1/2 years is not "many."  This is a simple thing.  

     

    1.  I am from Missouri (born and raised).  Perhaps it's just a moron thing ;)

    2.   lets see if I can follow this logic:

    He did not use "it" properly because 2.5 != many

    What the fuck are you trying to say?  I would agree with you if he said, "I've been using Vista for 'many' years."   But he didn't... he said "for years." 



  • @tster said:

    He did not use "it" properly because 2.5 != many

    What the fuck are you trying to say?  I would agree with you if he said, "I've been using Vista for 'many' years."   But he didn't... he said "for years."

    Years with no other qualifier implies "many."  You think it means "not one" which it does not.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    @tster said:

    He did not use "it" properly because 2.5 != many

    What the fuck are you trying to say?  I would agree with you if he said, "I've been using Vista for 'many' years."   But he didn't... he said "for years."

    Years with no other qualifier implies "many."  You think it means "not one" which it does not.

     

    I think it means 2 or more in the context it was given.

    You want to assign adjectives to things which were not given an adjective.  Unless you say "many years," you don't mean "many" you just mean "years."  Otherwise why would the word "many" exist?

    In the end your argument is doomed to failure because the person that said "I've been using Vista for years" in actuality meant 2 or more.  He didn't mean 5 or more and he didn't mean "many years."  

    This is once again a case where natural language can be somewhat ambiguous, but you should have been able to understand what he meant by the context.  If you make the wrong assumption about an ambiguity and then realize that the assumption was wrong, don't try and argue that the original statement was wrong until you see if another meaning makes more sense.



  •  It's been many a year since I saw a flamewar this fun.



  •  Vista isn't the only OS that has troubles figuring out what to do with files and folders:

    This was Ubuntu (8.04 IIRC).


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.