OT - At last, a Windows Explorer work-around for .jpg folders

[Jay Honeck]

Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.

I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
warning, and no work-around.

I eventually found that I could use DOS (remember DOS?) to copy the
files into a new folder, higher "upstream" in the directory tree, which
would allow it to work without crashing. (In the C:/ root directory,
for example, rather than buried down in C:\family photos\las vegas)

This was a giant pain in the tooska, however, as using DOS commands to
copy files from a folder that is 10 levels deep in a directory tree is
an exercise in frustration. One wrong character, and *bzzzzt!*, it
ain't gonna work.

Microsoft has been strangely silent on this problem, much to my dismay.
Luckily, today I FINALLY found the solution. The glitch has to do
with the icons that are used in Explorer to denote a picture file, and
(in turn) it's also directly related to having Photoshop set up as your
default picture viewer. Further, it also is directly related to having
folder names that are longer than 10 characters long -- something XP
can handle, but (apparently) Photoshop cannot.

SO, long story short, there are now TWO work-arounds to this problem:

1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
folder names.

2. Leave Photoshop as is, but be sure to keep your file names to 10 or
fewer characters in length.

I have chosen the latter course, for now, and it works.

Why the heck Microsoft or Adobe couldn't simply announce this
problem/fix is beyond me -- it's been a hot topic of discussion all
over the 'net, and most people with XP and Photoshop have experienced
it at times. It took a generous computer sleuth to figure out the
solution, through trial and error, and post it online.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Peter R.]

Jay Honeck > wrote:

> 1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
> picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
> folder names.

Actually, Jay, one simple method for changing this is to go into Windows
Explorer, then "Tools > Folder Options" off the WE menu. Choose the "File
Types" tab.

In this list, scroll down to the JPG entry, highlight it, and click the
"Change..." button in the "Details for JPG Extension frame just below the
list.

Choose your program to whatever you want and you are on your way. I use
Windows Picture and Fax Viewer for JPGs, since it is a quick picture
browser of sorts.


--
Peter

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Were you opening the files with Photoshop or Windows? I've got +10
character filename jpgs scattered all over my home and work harddrives and
have never had this problem with Photoshop 6 and WinXP.



"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.
>
> I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
> both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
> to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
> all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
> warning, and no work-around.
>
> I eventually found that I could use DOS (remember DOS?) to copy the
> files into a new folder, higher "upstream" in the directory tree, which
> would allow it to work without crashing. (In the C:/ root directory,
> for example, rather than buried down in C:\family photos\las vegas)
>
> This was a giant pain in the tooska, however, as using DOS commands to
> copy files from a folder that is 10 levels deep in a directory tree is
> an exercise in frustration. One wrong character, and *bzzzzt!*, it
> ain't gonna work.
>
> Microsoft has been strangely silent on this problem, much to my dismay.
> Luckily, today I FINALLY found the solution. The glitch has to do
> with the icons that are used in Explorer to denote a picture file, and
> (in turn) it's also directly related to having Photoshop set up as your
> default picture viewer. Further, it also is directly related to having
> folder names that are longer than 10 characters long -- something XP
> can handle, but (apparently) Photoshop cannot.
>
> SO, long story short, there are now TWO work-arounds to this problem:
>
> 1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
> picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
> folder names.
>
> 2. Leave Photoshop as is, but be sure to keep your file names to 10 or
> fewer characters in length.
>
> I have chosen the latter course, for now, and it works.
>
> Why the heck Microsoft or Adobe couldn't simply announce this
> problem/fix is beyond me -- it's been a hot topic of discussion all
> over the 'net, and most people with XP and Photoshop have experienced
> it at times. It took a generous computer sleuth to figure out the
> solution, through trial and error, and post it online.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter R.]

"Peter R." > wrote:

> Actually, Jay, one simple method for changing this is to go into Windows
> Explorer, then "Tools > Folder Options" off the WE menu. Choose the "File
> Types" tab.

I just remembered the even easier method. In the Windows Explorer file
list pane (pane to the right of the folder hierarchy), click on a JPG file
with your mouse's right button.

Look for an "Open With" option in that context sensitive menu that appears.
Select "Open With > Choose Program" menu choice.

In this window that appears, select your program of choice, then be sure to
click the "Always Use the Selected Program..." checkbox towards the bottom
before clicking the OK button.

This will register the new program as the default OPEN program to use with
JPGs.

--
Peter

[Lakeview Bill]

Unfortunately, if you use the "Open With" method described here, if you ever
want to change the file association you will need to edit the Registry. And
if you are dealing with questions such as these, you probably want to leave
the registry alone.

Setting the file association via the Tools | Folder Options | File Types
method in Windows Explorer is a better method, as you can readily change any
file association made in this manner...




"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Peter R." > wrote:
>
> > Actually, Jay, one simple method for changing this is to go into Windows
> > Explorer, then "Tools > Folder Options" off the WE menu. Choose the
"File
> > Types" tab.
>
> I just remembered the even easier method. In the Windows Explorer file
> list pane (pane to the right of the folder hierarchy), click on a JPG file
> with your mouse's right button.
>
> Look for an "Open With" option in that context sensitive menu that
appears.
> Select "Open With > Choose Program" menu choice.
>
> In this window that appears, select your program of choice, then be sure
to
> click the "Always Use the Selected Program..." checkbox towards the bottom
> before clicking the OK button.
>
> This will register the new program as the default OPEN program to use with
> JPGs.
>
> --
> Peter

[Peter R.]

Lakeview Bill > wrote:

> Unfortunately, if you use the "Open With" method described here, if you ever
> want to change the file association you will need to edit the Registry. And
> if you are dealing with questions such as these, you probably want to leave
> the registry alone.

Hmmm... Can't you just go back through the same process to register a new
program? Or are you implying that the "Open With" option goes away after
using it once in this manner?

I was under the impression that all file extension/program relationships
lived in the registry, regardless of how they were set (via program
install, Open With option, or through the Tools menu option off the WE
menu).

--
Peter

[Lakeview Bill]

My answers interspersed...

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Lakeview Bill > wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, if you use the "Open With" method described here, if you
ever
> > want to change the file association you will need to edit the Registry.
And
> > if you are dealing with questions such as these, you probably want to
leave
> > the registry alone.
>
> Hmmm... Can't you just go back through the same process to register a new
> program? Or are you implying that the "Open With" option goes away after
> using it once in this manner?

IIRC: You can do this again. But, I failed to note something in my previous
post. If you use the "Open With" option, it only associates the file type
with the program used to open it.

If you go through the "Tools" option in Windows Explorer, you can also set
up other options such as assigning a program to print a document with that
extension, or you can even set up multiple Open options, i.e have program
"xxx" open it by default, but also have a context menu selection for "Open
with yyy".

But if you use the "Open With" option, you can't go back and use the "Tools"
option to modify the file assignment until you directly edit the registry.


> I was under the impression that all file extension/program relationships
> lived in the registry, regardless of how they were set (via program
> install, Open With option, or through the Tools menu option off the WE
> menu).

True, the file assignments, however they were set, do reside in the
registry. The difference is that with the WE "Tools" option it is not
necessary to directly edit the registry (with regedit.exe), whereas if you
use the "Open With" option, you do need to directly edit the registry in
order to remove the association...


> --
> Peter

[john smith]

In article . com>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.
>
> I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
> both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
> to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
> all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
> warning, and no work-around.
>
> I eventually found that I could use DOS (remember DOS?) to copy the
> files into a new folder, higher "upstream" in the directory tree, which
> would allow it to work without crashing. (In the C:/ root directory,
> for example, rather than buried down in C:\family photos\las vegas)
>
> This was a giant pain in the tooska, however, as using DOS commands to
> copy files from a folder that is 10 levels deep in a directory tree is
> an exercise in frustration. One wrong character, and *bzzzzt!*, it
> ain't gonna work.
>
> Microsoft has been strangely silent on this problem, much to my dismay.
> Luckily, today I FINALLY found the solution. The glitch has to do
> with the icons that are used in Explorer to denote a picture file, and
> (in turn) it's also directly related to having Photoshop set up as your
> default picture viewer. Further, it also is directly related to having
> folder names that are longer than 10 characters long -- something XP
> can handle, but (apparently) Photoshop cannot.
>
> SO, long story short, there are now TWO work-arounds to this problem:
>
> 1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
> picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
> folder names.

> 2. Leave Photoshop as is, but be sure to keep your file names to 10 or
> fewer characters in length.

3. Switch to FIREFOX for your default browser.

4. Switch to Apple and use iPhoto. Easily scroll through 250,000 photos.
As Steve Jobs said at the MacWorld demo... "like butter!"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.
>
> I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
> both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
> to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
> all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
> warning, and no work-around.


What's a lot of pictures? I have 5 folders, labeled by year for the
last 5 years. Each folder has several hundred pictures. 90+ percent of
the pictures have been fixed or cropped and every one of them has had
their name changed. Every one of them is a jpg. I use 3 different
programs for working with these pictures, but Photoshop is not one of
them. Not once has windows or just windows explorer crashed. I've
never even heard of the problem.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-21, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.

It is for exactly reasons like this I love Apple iPhoto so much.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jay Honeck]

> Were you opening the files with Photoshop or Windows? I've got +10
> character filename jpgs scattered all over my home and work harddrives and
> have never had this problem with Photoshop 6 and WinXP.

I wasn't even opening the files. This glitch is a function of clicking on
the FOLDER (that contains the .jpg files) in Windows Explorer, which then,
in turn, crashes while the resulting window is being populated with icons.

Go to a directory (or "folder") in Windows Explorer that has a file name
longer than 10 characters, and has many (say, 100) .jpg files in it. If
you've got Photoshop set to be your default picture viewer, Explorer might
crash when you simply click on the folder.

I don't know why this doesn't impact all users. I don't think Microsoft
knows, either. I'm just glad to have a work-around.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> them. Not once has windows or just windows explorer crashed. I've never
> even heard of the problem.

Count your blessings. It's been a scourge of mine for several years.

For a while this same type of thing (instant shut-down, no "blue screen of
death" or any warning at all) would happen with Frontpage, too, but
Microsoft seems to have licked that in one of their recent upgrades.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Microsoft has been strangely silent on this problem, much to my dismay.
> Luckily, today I FINALLY found the solution. The glitch has to do
> with the icons that are used in Explorer to denote a picture file, and
> (in turn) it's also directly related to having Photoshop set up as your
> default picture viewer. Further, it also is directly related to having
> folder names that are longer than 10 characters long -- something XP
> can handle, but (apparently) Photoshop cannot.
>
> SO, long story short, there are now TWO work-arounds to this problem:
>
> 1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
> picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
> folder names.
>
> 2. Leave Photoshop as is, but be sure to keep your file names to 10 or
> fewer characters in length.
>
> I have chosen the latter course, for now, and it works.
>
> Why the heck Microsoft or Adobe couldn't simply announce this
> problem/fix is beyond me -- it's been a hot topic of discussion all
> over the 'net, and most people with XP and Photoshop have experienced
> it at times. It took a generous computer sleuth to figure out the
> solution, through trial and error, and post it online.

Glad you got your problem resolved.

I find it interesting that, although photography is my main hobby, and
I participate in many photo newsgroups and mailing lists, I've never
heard anybody mention a problem like this, and never experienced it
myself. However, I've never had Photoshop as my default viewer, I
find it rather overkill (IrfanView is my default viewer; I can
transfer to photoshop from within IrfanView and from within Thumbs
Plus).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

[Ross Richardson]

Interesting, I have tons of .jpgs on my hard drive and run Windows ME. I
have had no problems, but I don't have file names that long. I usually
keep the camera file name. I use Photoshop to print and inhance as I
need. But I have found that it is much cheaper for Wall-Mart to do my
printing if I have a lot of photos to print. My wife likes to keep photo
albums also.

Ross

Jay Honeck wrote:

> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.
>
> I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
> both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
> to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
> all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
> warning, and no work-around.
>
> I eventually found that I could use DOS (remember DOS?) to copy the
> files into a new folder, higher "upstream" in the directory tree, which
> would allow it to work without crashing. (In the C:/ root directory,
> for example, rather than buried down in C:\family photos\las vegas)
>
> This was a giant pain in the tooska, however, as using DOS commands to
> copy files from a folder that is 10 levels deep in a directory tree is
> an exercise in frustration. One wrong character, and *bzzzzt!*, it
> ain't gonna work.
>
> Microsoft has been strangely silent on this problem, much to my dismay.
> Luckily, today I FINALLY found the solution. The glitch has to do
> with the icons that are used in Explorer to denote a picture file, and
> (in turn) it's also directly related to having Photoshop set up as your
> default picture viewer. Further, it also is directly related to having
> folder names that are longer than 10 characters long -- something XP
> can handle, but (apparently) Photoshop cannot.
>
> SO, long story short, there are now TWO work-arounds to this problem:
>
> 1. Uninstall Photoshop, and reinstall it without making it the default
> picture file viewer for .jpg flies. This allows you to still use long
> folder names.
>
> 2. Leave Photoshop as is, but be sure to keep your file names to 10 or
> fewer characters in length.
>
> I have chosen the latter course, for now, and it works.
>
> Why the heck Microsoft or Adobe couldn't simply announce this
> problem/fix is beyond me -- it's been a hot topic of discussion all
> over the 'net, and most people with XP and Photoshop have experienced
> it at times. It took a generous computer sleuth to figure out the
> solution, through trial and error, and post it online.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> It is for exactly reasons like this I love Apple iPhoto so much.

Anyone who thinks that Apple iPhoto (or any other particular software
application) is immune to this kind of problem is an idiot.

All software has bugs. The main question is whether you use the software in
a way that causes you to see them.

[Randy Aldous]

Jay - I remembered seeing mention of something that sounded like
9kinda, sorta, at least) to what you experienced. Here are a few links
that may or may not help (sometimes, when researching an issue, I find
information that appears to not even be close, but in reading through
it, one picks up a hint or tip that will help lead to the solution you
are looking for.)

(in no particular order - and watch for wrapping - if it bad, I'll come
back with make-a-shorter-link(s) )

http://www.experts-exchange.com/Operating_Systems/Win2000/Q_20796444.html

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/techfiles/explorer-crashes.html

http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/winxp/t1061425126
(this is quite a long thread, but as you scroll through the fluff, you
may find some other useful links...)

http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board/message?board.id=sw_winxp&message.id=53588



Good luck.

Randy

[Bob Chilcoat]

I have a similar problem to the one Jay had, but I don't use Photoshop. If
I try and scroll down one particular (large) folder of pictures, and if I
have the view by "Thumbnails" option on, likely as not the entire folder
will suddenly disappear from the screen. I can reopen it, but now it's even
more likely that the same thing will happen. If I have view by "List" or
"Details" on instead, it seems to always work. Very frustrating, because
who can remember what "P2349737.jpg" was?

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>> Like many of you, I keep a LOT of pictures on my hard drive. Also,
>> like many of you, I use Adobe Photoshop to crop and enhance my photos.
>>
>> I have had an infuriating problem with Windows Explorer (in Win XP,
>> both Home and Professional) crashing instantly and utterly when trying
>> to open a folder with many .jpg picture files in it. It wouldn't do it
>> all the time, but when it did, it was always fatal -- there was no
>> warning, and no work-around.
>
>
> What's a lot of pictures? I have 5 folders, labeled by year for the last
> 5 years. Each folder has several hundred pictures. 90+ percent of the
> pictures have been fixed or cropped and every one of them has had their
> name changed. Every one of them is a jpg. I use 3 different programs for
> working with these pictures, but Photoshop is not one of them. Not once
> has windows or just windows explorer crashed. I've never even heard of
> the problem.

[Jay Honeck]

>I have a similar problem to the one Jay had, but I don't use Photoshop. If
>I try and scroll down one particular (large) folder of pictures, and if I
>have the view by "Thumbnails" option on, likely as not the entire folder
>will suddenly disappear from the screen.

That's the problem precisely, Bob. Does Windows Explorer shut down
completely when this happens?

The work-around may be the same. You might try shorter folder (not file)
names?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[.Blueskies.]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:DmlUf.44562$oL.15608@attbi_s71...
> >I have a similar problem to the one Jay had, but I don't use Photoshop. If I try and scroll down one particular
> >(large) folder of pictures, and if I have the view by "Thumbnails" option on, likely as not the entire folder will
> >suddenly disappear from the screen.
>
> That's the problem precisely, Bob. Does Windows Explorer shut down completely when this happens?
>
> The work-around may be the same. You might try shorter folder (not file) names?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Wow, I have a folder with 5653 files in 9 folders buries down under this path: "D:\My Documents - Shared\My
Pictures\planes". I do not recall any crashes or hung machines ever. I do have photoshop SE and I do use the thumbnail
view quite often. Am I lucky?

[.Blueskies.]

"David Dyer-Bennet" > wrote in message ...
>
> Glad you got your problem resolved.
>
> I find it interesting that, although photography is my main hobby, and
> I participate in many photo newsgroups and mailing lists, I've never
> heard anybody mention a problem like this, and never experienced it
> myself. However, I've never had Photoshop as my default viewer, I
> find it rather overkill (IrfanView is my default viewer; I can
> transfer to photoshop from within IrfanView and from within Thumbs
> Plus).
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, >, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
> RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>



I wonder if it is a hardware issue; main system memory or hard drive...

[Jay Honeck]

> Wow, I have a folder with 5653 files in 9 folders buries down under this
> path: "D:\My Documents - Shared\My Pictures\planes". I do not recall any
> crashes or hung machines ever. I do have photoshop SE and I do use the
> thumbnail view quite often. Am I lucky?

Dunno. It apparently doesn't happen on all computers with Photoshop and XP.
And perhaps Photoshop SE doesn't cause the same problem?

Since neither Adobe nor Microsoft has come out with a real "fix", I suspect
it's one of those "phantom glitches" that affects only machines with some
bizarre combination of factors? Who knows -- maybe you've got to have
Windows XP, plus Photoshop as your default viewer, plus Itunes installed?

It really could be something *that* goofy.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-22, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> It is for exactly reasons like this I love Apple iPhoto so much.
>
> Anyone who thinks that Apple iPhoto (or any other particular software
> application) is immune to this kind of problem is an idiot.

Apple iPhoto doesn't have that bug though. The thing is Apple iPhoto is
_vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.
PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
Explorer.

That's why I prefer Apple iPhoto for this kind of thing - it is designed
to do one thing - catalog, classify and allow some basic enhancement of
photographs and absolutely nothing else. It does this job very well.
There is a LOT to be said for not making things any more complex than
they need be.

Added to this, iPhoto seems to be well designed, certainly from a user
interface point of view.

> All software has bugs. The main question is whether you use the software in
> a way that causes you to see them.

More complex software (particularly combinations of two pieces of
complex software) are much more likely to have a lot more bugs though.
iPhoto may have bugs, but because of the vastly lower level of
complexity (I bet iPhoto is at least two orders of magnitude simpler
than the combination of Windows Explorer and PhotoShop), I'm much less
likely to run into problems with it than Jay with a combination of
Explorer and PhotoShop.

iPhoto is a lot cheaper than PhotoShop, too. Even if I include the cost
differential between an Apple PowerBook and the equivalent sized and
featured laptop PC. Oh wait - a similarly specified laptop PC is
actually more expensive :-)

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Jim]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> Dunno. It apparently doesn't happen on all computers with Photoshop and
> XP. And perhaps Photoshop SE doesn't cause the same problem?

'Sup Jay.

I'm kinda late in this thread but thought I'd toss this out there, anyway:
I know you already found a fix for your particular issue but if you just
want to view your files and do some light editing, you need to check out
Google's Picassa. It's a free download that organizes your pics, allows for
easy burning, easy captions and basic editing tools.

http://picasa.google.com/

As to your initial problem with locking up, I would point to your particular
type of RAM memory in your computer as a culprit. It sounds like you only
have the problem when you "hit" your RAM in just the right (wrong) way.
Another fix may have been to simply swap RAM modules from one slot to
another or replace the RAM altogether.

A glance at the "Event Viewer" in "Computer Management" would probably give
you a clue as to the root issue.

In any case, I'm glad you found the problem.

Jim

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Jim" >
wrote:


> As to your initial problem with locking up, I would point to your particular
> type of RAM memory in your computer as a culprit. It sounds like you only
> have the problem when you "hit" your RAM in just the right (wrong) way.
> Another fix may have been to simply swap RAM modules from one slot to
> another or replace the RAM altogether.

or even just re-seating the RAM modules.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-22, Peter Duniho > wrote:
>> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> It is for exactly reasons like this I love Apple iPhoto so much.
>>
>> Anyone who thinks that Apple iPhoto (or any other particular software
>> application) is immune to this kind of problem is an idiot.
>
> Apple iPhoto doesn't have that bug though. The thing is Apple iPhoto is
> _vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.
> PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
> Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
> Explorer.
>

Photoshop doesn't have that problem either. At least not with everyone that
uses it. True Photoshop is a complex beast but it has features that iPhoto
doesn't, lot's of them. I personally think it is over kill for what Jay is
using it for.

There are several reasons that Jay could be having this problem and several
of them have not a thing to do with either Windows or Photoshop. I was an
Apple guy from my first Apple IIe and worked with several Macs until about 7
years ago when both work and the games I wanted to play knocked me out of
the Mac arena. Apple makes a great machine and for certain uses it has no
peer. But don't let anyone fool you it is not perfect and has bugs and
glitches all it own.

At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

[Jay Honeck]

> As to your initial problem with locking up, I would point to your
> particular type of RAM memory in your computer as a culprit. It sounds
> like you only have the problem when you "hit" your RAM in just the right
> (wrong) way. Another fix may have been to simply swap RAM modules from one
> slot to another or replace the RAM altogether.

I don't think so. It wasn't "locking up" in the traditional sense -- it was
simply disappearing, completely and utterly, without warning or apology. No
"blue screen of death", no frozen keyboard -- just, POOF, gone.

If you Google this weird problem, you'll find a zillion bulletin board posts
about it. None that I have seen mention the machine as being the culprit.

And thanks for the "Picassa" recommendation!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

"many times faster"? are you nuts?

How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
This I would love to see.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Garner Miller]

In article >, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:

> I was an Apple guy from my first Apple IIe and worked with several
> Macs until about 7 years ago when both work and the games I wanted to
> play knocked me out of the Mac arena. Apple makes a great machine and
> for certain uses it has no peer. But don't let anyone fool you it is
> not perfect and has bugs and glitches all it own.

With all due respect, your experiences with the Apple machines of 7+
years ago are not at all relevant to the machines of today. The
operating system is *completely* rewritten five years ago, the hardware
is much better (and uses more commodity parts for inexpensive
upgrades), and the reliability, stability, and security model put
Windows (even 2000 and XP) to shame.

No, it isn't perfect, but if you're basing your opinion on the
old-technology machines, you're misinforming yourself. (It's the
equivalent of me disliking Windows because of poor experiences with Win
95 on a Pentium 90 -- no comparison with today's machines.)

> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

Alienware makes a fine machine -- hopefully that'll still hold true now
that Dell has purchased the company. And if I were a heavy gamer, I'd
buy one for that purpose. But I don't believe your speed claims hold
water -- the current top-end PowerPC G5 machine uses two dual-core
2.5GHz processors, and will far outperform the Athlon64 I'm assuming
you're using.

[john smith]

In article >,
Garner Miller > wrote:

> Alienware makes a fine machine -- hopefully that'll still hold true now
> that Dell has purchased the company. And if I were a heavy gamer, I'd
> buy one for that purpose. But I don't believe your speed claims hold
> water -- the current top-end PowerPC G5 machine uses two dual-core
> 2.5GHz processors, and will far outperform the Athlon64 I'm assuming
> you're using.

I listened to a podcast last week that revealed that intel has a group
of inhouse games that have been playing with overclocking their
processors for some time now. They have convinced conservative
upper-management that it can be safely done with outstanding results.

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Apple iPhoto doesn't have that bug though.

You don't know that. All you know is that you've never seen it or heard of
it.

Until Jay posted about his problems here, practically none of us (many of
whom use the same software as he) had heard of the bug either.

> The thing is Apple iPhoto is
> _vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.

That's not really a fair comparison, since you left out Finder on the iPhoto
side. And Finder is every bit as complex a piece of software as Windows
Explorer.

> PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
> Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
> Explorer.

Why compare iPhoto to Windows Explorer? They don't do the same thing.

Furthermore, it's unlikely Photoshop is part of the problem per se. Windows
Explorer doesn't run other applications just for the purpose of displaying
directory (folder) contents. It may extract icon data from the application,
but the application code itself isn't executed. If removing Photoshop from
the picture resolved the problem (as it seems to in Jay's case) it's still a
problem strictly limited to Windows Explorer; it just means that the data
extracted from Photoshop is one element in exposing the Windows Explorer
bug.

So the valid comparison is between Finder and Explorer, and the two are very
much in the same degree of complexity.

Even so, the bottom line is that you are not immune to problems even when
using iPhoto (ignoring for the moment that iPhoto doesn't run on Windows
anyway).

Pete

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
>
>> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
>> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
>> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
>> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.
>
> "many times faster"? are you nuts?
>
> How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
> one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
> times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
> This I would love to see.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> Looking for a sig the
> lawyers will hate
>

I haven't burned any DVDs but when I get a chance I will. I'm not sure but I
think the dual NVIDIA cards may offload some of the video processing so it
might not be a fair comparison.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Garner Miller" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Gig 601XL Builder
> wrote:
>
>> I was an Apple guy from my first Apple IIe and worked with several
>> Macs until about 7 years ago when both work and the games I wanted to
>> play knocked me out of the Mac arena. Apple makes a great machine and
>> for certain uses it has no peer. But don't let anyone fool you it is
>> not perfect and has bugs and glitches all it own.
>
> With all due respect, your experiences with the Apple machines of 7+
> years ago are not at all relevant to the machines of today. The
> operating system is *completely* rewritten five years ago, the hardware
> is much better (and uses more commodity parts for inexpensive
> upgrades), and the reliability, stability, and security model put
> Windows (even 2000 and XP) to shame.
>
> No, it isn't perfect, but if you're basing your opinion on the
> old-technology machines, you're misinforming yourself. (It's the
> equivalent of me disliking Windows because of poor experiences with Win
> 95 on a Pentium 90 -- no comparison with today's machines.)
>

No, I still have frequent access to Macs specificlly a G5 with the most
either the most current or close to it version of OS X.

As far as reliability and stability I'll match my Alien against the Macs.
Security, that's a different matter. Some of the issues that have hit the
Windows machines are because of the users and some are because of the OS.
But many are because there just aren't that many people out there writing
malware to effect the Mac OS.


>> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
>> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
>> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
>> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.
>
> Alienware makes a fine machine -- hopefully that'll still hold true now
> that Dell has purchased the company. And if I were a heavy gamer, I'd
> buy one for that purpose. But I don't believe your speed claims hold
> water -- the current top-end PowerPC G5 machine uses two dual-core
> 2.5GHz processors, and will far outperform the Athlon64 I'm assuming
> you're using.

I think it will kind of depend on the specific task. The last head to head
comparison I read about was A 64 Bit G4 against a 32bit AMD. The tests were
some Photoshop tasks and they were split.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Garner Miller > wrote:
>
>> Alienware makes a fine machine -- hopefully that'll still hold true now
>> that Dell has purchased the company. And if I were a heavy gamer, I'd
>> buy one for that purpose. But I don't believe your speed claims hold
>> water -- the current top-end PowerPC G5 machine uses two dual-core
>> 2.5GHz processors, and will far outperform the Athlon64 I'm assuming
>> you're using.
>
> I listened to a podcast last week that revealed that intel has a group
> of inhouse games that have been playing with overclocking their
> processors for some time now. They have convinced conservative
> upper-management that it can be safely done with outstanding results.

Aleinware pretty much made a business out of overclocking machines.

[john smith]

> I think it will kind of depend on the specific task. The last head to head
> comparison I read about was A 64 Bit G4 against a 32bit AMD. The tests were
> some Photoshop tasks and they were split.

Which brings up the sad commentary that Apple has to take a step
backwards to 32-bit software to run on the new intel processors.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:

> >> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
> >> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
> >> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
> >> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.
> >
> > How long does it take this wicked fast machine to process/encode
> > one hour of video for burning on a DVD? For your claim of "many
> > times faster", it would have to complete the job in less than 10 minutes.
> > This I would love to see.
>
> I haven't burned any DVDs but when I get a chance I will. I'm not sure but I
> think the dual NVIDIA cards may offload some of the video processing so it
> might not be a fair comparison.

Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
> encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.

You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).

The latest and greatest video cards include support for "DXVA" (DirectX
Video Acceleration). It provides a way for applications other than 3D
acceleration to take advantage of the immense processing power present on
modern 3D accelerator cards.

The processors on the video cards aren't completely specialized, and it
turns out that they are suitable for handling a variety of computational
tasks, including transcoding video streams (such as is necessary to convert
digital video from one format to another, including when burning a DVD).

Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
whatever wiggle room he needs. :) It is certainly true that his Alienware
computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far
(though as they introduce more Intel-based Macs, that will cease to be
true), and one need not come anywhere close to 10 minutes to burn a 60
minute DVD to prove "many" times faster. I doubt any Apple can do a DVD in
better than real-time (and probably slower) so as long as "many" only means
"three", all he needs is to be able to burn a 60-minute DVD in 20 minutes,
probably not even that quickly (depending on actual Mac performance, of
course).

Now, can his PC burn a DVD in 20 minutes? Don't know. But especially if
it's using DXVA for the video transcoding, and he has a fast DVD burner,
it's not entirely out of the question. Even at 30 minutes, he'd still be
able to support "many" (assuming he goes with an odd definition like "two"
:) ).

So, how fast can the fastest Mac burn a DVD anyway? :)

Pete

[john smith]

Alienware machines are know for speed at gaming.
That does not necessarily translate into speed for other processes.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
> > encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.
>
> You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).

more specifically, the video card in my G5 doesn't get involved in
the processing. Thus any attempt to wiggle out of the claim of
"many times faster" is invalid.


> Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
> whatever wiggle room he needs. :) It is certainly true that his Alienware
> computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far

twice <> many

And I'd like to see proof of your assertion


> (though as they introduce more Intel-based Macs, that will cease to be
> true), and one need not come anywhere close to 10 minutes to burn a 60
> minute DVD to prove "many" times faster. I doubt any Apple can do a DVD in
> better than real-time

well, you yourself need some updating.

My not-top-of-the-line G5 will process AND burn a 60 minute DVD in about 40
minutes. I haven't tried to make this faster by fiddling with various settings.
This is fast enough for me. :-)

[incorrect conclusions based on faulty-data deleted]

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> more specifically, the video card in my G5 doesn't get involved in
> the processing. Thus any attempt to wiggle out of the claim of
> "many times faster" is invalid.

No one was talking about YOUR computer using the video card. The potential
"error" suggested was that HIS computer might use the video card. At least,
that was my understanding. You don't have dual video cards, do you?

>> Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
>> whatever wiggle room he needs. :) It is certainly true that his
>> Alienware
>> computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far
>
> twice <> many

As I said, his definition of "many" may not be the same as yours. That's
the problem with vague words like "many". They can mean a variety of
things, and two people may go to the grave arguing about the "correct"
meaning (even though there are numerous, or even infinite correct meanings).

> And I'd like to see proof of your assertion

You'd have to look up benchmarks at the various review sites. I make the
statement based on general knowledge of the PowerPC versus AMD/Intel CPU
performance ("Gig" didn't mention which CPU brand he actually has, but
assuming it's supposed to be really fast, it's probably an AMD part, for
their superior floating point performance).

> [...]
> My not-top-of-the-line G5 will process AND burn a 60 minute DVD in about
> 40
> minutes.

If you say so. You must at least be using a dual-proc box. Even so, your
experience doesn't match what I've read about the G5's (or any other Mac for
that matter).

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> > My not-top-of-the-line G5 will process AND burn a 60 minute DVD in about
> > 40
> > minutes.
>
> If you say so. You must at least be using a dual-proc box.

yep. The 2.3 GHz dual core G5 is but one of the machines that Apple makes,
yet isn't as fast as the 2.5 Ghz quad G5 (or the older 2.7 GHz dual
processor G5).

>Even so, your
> experience doesn't match what I've read about the G5's (or any other Mac for
> that matter).

All I can report on is my own actual experience with my dual core G5 and
my other older Apple computers.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-23, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net> wrote:
> At home I'm running an Alienware 3.5 Ghz machine with WinXP and I have
> restarted it exactly 4 times (other than after new software loads) in the
> last 12 months. So stability is not an issue and it is MANY times faster
> than anything Apple makes today and it was a year old last December.

I strongly doubt that. If you've not used an Apple machine in 7 years
then you can easily have that misapprehension, but in those 7 years:

- Apple have ditched the (technically awful and unstable) Mac OS 9 and
moved to a modern operating system.
- Apple are now using the same CPUs as your PC.

I also strongly doubt your Alienware is 'MANY times faster' than a new
Core Duo iMac. Overall, your Alienware is probably slower than a 4 CPU
PowerMac.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-24, Peter Duniho > wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Well, AFAIK the video cards don't have anything to do with the
>> encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD.
>
> You could use a little updating (but not much...this is relatively recent).
>
> The latest and greatest video cards include support for "DXVA" (DirectX
> Video Acceleration). It provides a way for applications other than 3D
> acceleration to take advantage of the immense processing power present on
> modern 3D accelerator cards.

But his year old nVidia card won't be doing that. Also, don't forget
Apple don't make the proprietary hardware they used to - modern Macs use
nVidia graphics cards too.

> Regardless, I find the term "many" to be ambiguous enough to give "Gig"
> whatever wiggle room he needs. :) It is certainly true that his Alienware
> computer is at least twice as fast as anything Apple is offering so far

I strongly doubt it's even 50% faster than a Core Duo iMac (which is now
on sale) and I strongly expect that for paralellizable tasks, it is
significantly slower than a quad CPU PowerMac.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-23, Peter Duniho > wrote:
>> The thing is Apple iPhoto is
>> _vastly_ simpler than a combination of Windows Explorer + PhotoShop.
>
> That's not really a fair comparison, since you left out Finder on the iPhoto
> side. And Finder is every bit as complex a piece of software as Windows
> Explorer.

No, it's entirely fair. Finder is merely telling the OS to load iPhoto,
which then goes and displays the pics. From what I understand, on Jay's
system, the Windows Explorer is using a component from Photoshop to
display thumbnails (and possibly other photo metadata) - so the two are
interrelated.

>> PhotoShop is a complex large piece of software, and so is Windows
>> Explorer. Apple iPhoto is likely much less complex than Windows
>> Explorer.
>
> Why compare iPhoto to Windows Explorer? They don't do the same thing.

It is just a general indication of the total level of complexity - I
thought that was pretty clear; perhaps I could have written that better.

But in any case, Jay is using a very complex piece of software to
preview his photographs, and I'm using a less complex piece of software
to preview my photographs. All things being equal, I'm less likely to
have problems because the complexity is less.

I'm not sure where you're coming from - I think you see me as slamming
Windows but I'm not; I love iPhoto because it does nothing more than
allow me to catalog, preview and do some basic enhancement of my
pictures and export them. It doesn't try to be an art package and it
isn't a general purpose file manager. It is designed specificially for
the task which it does and it does it better than a general purpose file
manager does (and code wise it is vastly less complex).

I'm sure there are similar applications for Windows, and perhaps Jay
ought to consider using one because it'll result in a much better (eugh)
'user experience'.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[john smith]

> I also strongly doubt your Alienware is 'MANY times faster' than a new
> Core Duo iMac. Overall, your Alienware is probably slower than a 4 CPU
> PowerMac.

Correct. The Quad Core is currently the fastest machine available for
any platform.

[john smith]

> I'm sure there are similar applications for Windows, and perhaps Jay
> ought to consider using one because it'll result in a much better (eugh)
> 'user experience'.

Anyone using Adobe's fee LIGHTROOM application?

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> But his year old nVidia card won't be doing that. Also, don't forget
> Apple don't make the proprietary hardware they used to - modern Macs use
> nVidia graphics cards too.

Last I checked, Apple did not have DXVA, nor anything like it.

In any case, my point is simply that video cards DO have lots "to do with
the encoding/processing of converting DV into a video DVD". Even if "Gig"'s
computer doesn't support it (and you don't know that it doesn't), the fact
remains that DXVA is a reality today.

[john smith]

Here is a new wrinkle...
Windows chokes on file sizes 2 GB and above.
(Apples don't have this problem.)
That may come down to a RAM issue as another poster pointed out.

[Dylan Smith]

On 2006-03-24, Peter Duniho > wrote:
>> But in any case, Jay is using a very complex piece of software to
>> preview his photographs, and I'm using a less complex piece of software
>> to preview my photographs. All things being equal, I'm less likely to
>> have problems because the complexity is less.
>
> If you are previewing photos in Finder, the complexity is the same. If you
> are not previewing photos in Finder, then you are not doing the same thing
> Jay is doing.

But I am *not* previewing photographs in Finder. Otherwise I'd have said
"This is why I love Finder so much" instead of "This is why I love
iPhoto so much".

I am doing the same thing Jay is doing - I'm trying to organize my
photographs, categorize them and do some minor cropping and enhancement.
The comparison is entirely valid. You're saying I shouldn't compare the
experience of trying to drive a screw with a hammer versus a screwdriver
because hammers and screwdrivers are different (even though what I'm
actually trying to express an opinion on is the efficacy of putting the
screw in). To me, using a combination of Explorer + PhotoShop to
categorize and do minor edits to photographs instead of iPhoto (or for a
Windows user, perhaps Picassa or other similar software) is like using a
hammer to drive in screws.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net

[Peter Duniho]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
>> If you are previewing photos in Finder, the complexity is the same. If
>> you
>> are not previewing photos in Finder, then you are not doing the same
>> thing
>> Jay is doing.
>
> But I am *not* previewing photographs in Finder.

Did you read my post? You know, the part you quoted?

The conclusion to your statement "But I am *not* previewing photographs in
Finder" is that "you are not doing the same thing Jay is doing".

It's quite simple, really.

Pete