The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Dave — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:25:51 GMT

> As a bonus, my wife was impressed at the ease with which I’d figured out the source of the phantom files and even more impressed that I wrote the tool I used to solve it.

Yeah, but what about the dogs?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Phileosophos — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:50:46 GMT

So here's the obvious, unasked question: why is Microsoft spewing temporary files all over the desktop in the first place? If you have to create a virtualized directory to maintain backward compatibility with unsecure ActiveX controls, then why isn't that directory somewhere that won't bother the user? Something comfortable under the "temp" directory comes most immediately to mind. I can't fathom the sort of thinking that would allow said files to be created in a location where the user has a right to expect things to be consistent.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Tom — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:43:42 GMT

Phileosophos has clearly misunderstood the situation. The files do not show up in the Desktop because they are NOT located in the desktop. They're located in the virtualized directory, somewhere hidden so that the user won't be bothered by them.

Only to IE do the files appear to be in the Desktop. This is the whole point of having the backwards compatibility shim in the first place. The files must appear to the ActiveX control as though they were in the Desktop, so that the control will be able to find the file.

The general problem with almost-but-not-quite-seamless compatibility shims in Windows is that some vendors end up relying on them for years. I vote with my money by avoiding these types of programs (Quicken being the classic example), but most users don't know and don't care. Sometimes even Microsoft programs fall into this category.

Frankly, I think the only way to deal with this is to have a place to see every shim applied for every program on your system. But then, Microsoft has always treated partners and OEMs with kid gloves (especially after the antitrust suit). And so the ecosystem continues to be a quality jungle ...

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

DanF — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:48:04 GMT

Actually my Mom had this same issue (though I hadn't been able to sort it out). If I recall from my mom's case it wasn't that it spewed files all over the desktop, the desktop itself was clean. But what happened is (almost same scenario as Mark's wife). When she went to email a photo she could "see the photo on her desktop" in the file browser window even though it wasn't there on the "real" desktop. So she'd click it and try to send it and it wouldn't work, the email would send without the attachment.

I finally re-saved the picture to her My Documents/My pictures and everything worked fine. But it's nice to know what the real root cause was. Interesting as usual Mark.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Niels — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:50:04 GMT

Interesting reading as always.

I'm thinking the "phantom" files might have come from some webmail attachment downloads or similar, but just guessing. Maybe an ActiveX helper control for doing just that.

I think you forgot to add in a link: "As I described in an earlier blog post [link]"

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

John — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:01:39 GMT

Presumably it is a 3rd party ActiveX control spewing files on the desktop and not Microsoft (hopefully). This solution won't normally bother the user as the files only show up in the Choose File dialog. My guess is that Low Integrety processes (or perhaps just Internet Explorer) get a merged view of the real location (C:\Users\Me\Desktop) and the virtualized location (C:\Users\Me\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Virtualized\C\Users\Me\Desktop). But what happens if you are running IE in protected mode and save a file to your desktop? I don't run Vista, so I honestly don't know the answer to this question.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Gwyn — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:21:56 GMT

They weren't temporary files. From the names it looks like they were saved files, his wife had tried to save them to the desktop from within IE and they had been redirected to the virtualised desktop since IE was running with lower integrity.

Secondly, it wasn't spewing them all over the desktop, it had obviously redirected writes to the desktop to the virtualised directory.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Michael Dragone — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 23:10:51 GMT

"I had no idea what she was talking about (which was usually the case when she described her computer troubles)..."

"...I think in the end my lecturing on those subjects actually subtracted points."

Join the club, Mark. We have a secret handshake and discounts with local retailers.

Awesome post as always.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Liam — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:25:46 GMT

Ahh! Well there you go. I have this exact behaviour on my work lap-top when looking at the directory structure through SharePoint's multiple-file-upload interface. I've never really been bothered trying to fix it (as I'm usually in the middle of something when I notice it).

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Ollie — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:06:56 GMT

This is the reason why I don't like Vista. It tries to be easy, but finally has so much complexity, that it's mostly annoying. I really don't like the "I-see-a-file-but-it-is-not-where-it-is-supposed-to-be"-virtualization-thing. Conclusion: I am going to switch to Mac soon.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Craig — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:40:22 GMT

"my wife was impressed at the ease with which I’d figured out the source of the phantom files and even more impressed that I wrote the tool I used to solve it."

....Does your wife not realise just how much of a big deal you are? Or what you actually do? We all love your tools and your posts are always enlightening, highlighting just how little *some* of us actually know!

Awesome as always and I can't wait for Amazon to deliver your latest book to me!

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Tom — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:43:42 GMT

Actually, the case isn't closed, I don't think users have to see this issue show up... Will this be fixed in the future?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

sean — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 21:02:59 GMT

Don't use IE. Problem solved. That "Virtualized" directory does not exist on my Vista machine (on which I use Firefox).

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

joho0 — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:03:26 GMT

"She’d also gotten an in depth look at PMIE’s virtualization and integrity levels, but I think in the end my lecturing on those subjects actually subtracted points."

If it makes you feel any better, you can come to our office and lecture on any topic to your heart's content.

Great piece...and for the very first time, I knew what the problem was before reading your analysis. Actually, I attended your TechNet lecture on UAC and integrity levels which touched on PMIE. Is that cheating?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

David Moisan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:06:16 GMT

I've had the opposite problem that's extremely frustrating. I used a third-party PDF printer. It would put PDFs in a virtualized folder for My Documents.

Imagine the fun when you go to your "real" documents folder and then NOT find the pdfs you printed!

I switched to another pdf driver that doesn't do that.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

sinsi — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:12:30 GMT

I've had problems with .exe's from a .rar unzipped (unrar'd?) to the desktop - problems deleting them. Is this related? I've also unzipped a .exe by dragndrop from winrar to the desktop and not seen it, but it showed up in explorer. Maybe winrar and win7 don't get along.

So what did the dogs think?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Linda W. — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 13:54:36 GMT

Interesting way to solve the multi-integrity level & backwards compat...gawd...the things MS goes through to preserve backwards compat for some apps...it's torturous.

Have seen various solutions, for directories in "well-known" locations (desktop on win, /tmp on unix)...

SGI IRIX did something similar on the multi-level OS back in the 90's with /tmp. Every app expected to use it as a scratch space, but users were separated by virtual walls -- so to user progs, they all saw /tmp, but the os multiplexed them to /tmp/<privilege-level+label>.

Linux is just now adding something similar -- the ability to virtually merge multiple directories -- so read-contents appear like one big dir, but private files and writes go to another private dir...but user will always see the public dir+their own private dir....

Not sure of the details, as I saw the summary notes on the last kernel release.

Interesting how security issues from the 80's in the DOD are just now getting to the consumer market 20-30 years later...

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

muie — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 23:07:41 GMT

Phileosophos + 1

Had I been a Vista user I would find this behavior counter-intuitive, regardless how much sense the implementation makes.

Good thing I did not upgrade to Vista. Will wait for Windows 7, hopefully this problem (it is a bug, not a feature) will be fixed by then.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Ian Boyd — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 17:04:21 GMT

i thought one of the implemented features of virtualized folders was that Windows will present a unified view of the files when i browse to the "real" folder.

So if i save an image on my desktop: it will be saved on my desktop.

Is this not the case? Are files downloaded using IE lost to the user? Is that the intended behaviour?

i can barely explain the idea of folders to friends and family - let alone a folder that eats your files.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Jeff — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:20:18 GMT

Sounds like a terrible overlook of usability imo, until which files get "virtualized" is clearly defined.

Are normally downloaded files stuck into the virtualized storage area? Or only files which are related to 3rd party ActiveX controls?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

hasan adil — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:40:47 GMT

If a website launches a Java applet in IE7 PMIE mode on Vista then does IE further sandbox the applet i.e. on top of the security framework which the java runtime implements.

Thanks

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Richard — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:37:32 GMT

Nice article, as always. There seem to be a number of methods of associating folders into a single view now.

quote: I think in the end my lecturing on those subjects actually subtracted points. /quote

I completely relate. I lose those same points nearly every day. :)

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Luke Skywalker — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:10:42 GMT

Is this only on Windows Vista without SP1..i have X64 SP 1 installed...and i can save things to e.g. the desktop because of the ieuser.exe thats running at medium IL and is the RPC Server for the IL Low iexplore.exe to serve for things like copy things to the PC...etc....P.S. PMIE is enabled......

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

SmashManiac — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 20:19:49 GMT

What I don't get is how these files got into the virtualized drive in the 1st place.

Also, is there any way to clean virtualized drives?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

geowrian — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 02:22:52 GMT

While a very intelligent (and actually secure) way to do things, it's counter-intuitive. I understand why MS would choose this, but like Vista's UAC, the implementation is horrible. Like Mark's wife, it seems that the files are missing. Mark, many of the users on this blog, and myself could probably figure it out or at least find the "missing" files, but typical users probably wouldn't. They would just assume Vista lost their files or it's a bug or it's their computer. They wouldn't say "oh, this is good"...they don't even know it's a security mechanism.

Well designed, Microsoft, but horribly implemented.

The Case of the creative writing style !

Kamlesh Chandra — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:43:02 GMT

hi Mark,

became a fan of your approach and mindset, through your blog. The dedication and love I see in you, is something I would like to have too.

primary reason for writing; is to let you know that the titles you choose are simply awesome, generates interest, old English style, and tells it wont be tough reading it. :)

All best! :)

Kamlesh Chandra

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

adams — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:26:58 GMT

Hello.

This post reminds me a problem we have with few of our pcs (out of about few hundreds). Windows XP Pro, computers joined to a domain and some of them have troubles with refreshing the desktop (users have to right-click and choose refresh button). We investigated this issue for few months, checked most of our IT infrastructure, reinstalled, rejoined to a domain and found nothing... maybe you guys have any ideas?

Best regards.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

mgrimm — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:33:46 GMT

Microsoft should have devised a new icon treatment or type-prefix to flag these to the user, along with mouse-over help. Why another layer of obscurity? To Microsoft's customers this is nothing more than a bug.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

PMC — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:39:36 GMT

Implementation of virtual folders is a problem!

I almost think that this is the Microsoft's lawyer-ly approach to technology:

1. Put in a very secure way to do things you want to do -- like save a file from a Web site.

2. Implement same in the quickest style possible -- even highly experienced technical users have to use tools to find out what is happening.

3. Since implementation is inconvenient for users, tell them: you can turn off protected mode (or UAC or ...) as a "solution."

4. If they later complain that they were hacked, tell them that THEY chose to turn off the secure way to do things.

So, is there a way to mark "approved" controls as safe permanently, so they can function intuitively?

PMC

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

P Schmied — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:41:15 GMT

I'm wondering if the reason that the user can see these files is that like in Windows XP/2003, the Explorer view was changed to show all hidden files and folders and System files.

Most admins that I know turn this non-default view on for ease of administration and troubleshooting, but it can cause all kinds of issues when a non-tech users can see and manipulate these files, JUST LIKE MAKING ALL USERS MACHINE ADMINS CAN.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

PMC — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:14:27 GMT

@P. Schmied

No, not the problem -- there is an actual folder that IE Protected Mode makes with the files in it visible to users on-purpose. It has the a similar path from a C FOLDER that the actual path from the C DRIVE.

Nasty. Disturbing. Annoying.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

D. — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:48:53 GMT

i agree - the user should never be aware of this.

and nobodys wife should ever be forced to use process monitor ;)

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Anonymous — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 09:56:31 GMT

This isn't an IE bug or a Windows bug. This is a security breach in an add-on to IE, which IE & Vista are handling fairly gracefully. Windows 7 won't solve it, because it's not Microsoft's error. On IE and Windows end, it is a feature, it is not a bug.

The ActiveX control or BHO that saved these to the desktop need to be fixed. If they want write permissions to the desktop, then they should install a user-rights broker.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Joseph Behling — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:35:01 GMT

I good an great and you saved the day. Buthow do you keep all these files purged? since moving to vista unless I write an elaboatre script I can't use robocopy to basic backups of the user directory because of the virtualization directory. Robocopy gets stuck on this with a never ending diectory structure. Any better ideas.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

G. Morris — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:37:51 GMT

I can't stand that endless recursion of dirs, it really plays havoc when searching for something through a command window, as the name gets too long for Windows to process. As for the strange desktop behavior, I noticed early on that sometimes files that WERE on the desktop are mysteriously gone next time I log on. I've also had other weird things happen in Vista, like my desktop is arranged way differently than I left it. I put it back, and then sometimes it does the same thing. Sometimes not.. My wife has noticed the same occurences a few times as well. That's Microsoft for you!

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Paul — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 11:30:58 GMT

"This isn't an IE bug or a Windows bug."

Of course this is a windows bug! No one knows what the hell happens and where are the files!

They should either block low integrity operations altogether informing users why they do it or they should add mechanism to inform users where are the files.

MS solution is completely unacceptable yet at the same time typical, it showcases their usual contempt for end users.

If they really had to have virtualization each time a file is virtualized a dummy file should be created in the actual folder, this dummy file should upon mouse over or opening inform users in non technical terms what happened to their files and how to get desired behavior.

Is this all so hard to understand or are people just too accustomed to the way MS treats users to even notice the absurdity of their approach?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Rik Mayell — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:39:13 GMT

I appreciate that the legacy ActiveX controls and helper applications need somewhere to store their data but couldn't a less obvious, and visible location have been chosen?

Obviously, for the time being low integrity files will continue to be written here. To head off end user confusion a nice, simple, method or retrieving attachments, etc, needs to be implemented, at least as a stop gap!?

I haven't tested it, but I assume the same happens under Windows 7?

As to losing points with your dear wife, look out for the moment at which her eyes start to glaze over, works a treat for me.

Finally, great article, as ever.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Luigi D. Sandon — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 02:44:30 GMT

Now that Mr. Russinovich works at Redmond at least it can inform the guys who designed such a mechanism how they are just baffling users.

That's a perfect example of a bad techie solution that doesn't work in the real world.

I too agree that MS should stop to put too much emphasis on "compatibility". Windows should be compatible with well written applications, and should begin to stop those written without following the rules.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

awgie — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:12:02 GMT

Mark, great article. And great utilities - I have been using them for some time now.

I find it remarkable the number of comments that evidence users who are now, and are content to remain, ignorant of how Windows works. If every application, add-in, or activex object out there were 100% Windows-compatible, there would be no problem, and no need for PMIE. But the fact remains that many programs are written on non-Windows systems, and many more are written by malicious programmers, so there is a problem, and that is why the virtualized folders exist.

Why don't you all complain about truly annoying things like your wife's cooking, or the neighbour's dog crapping on your front porch? Be glad you even have computers. With all your whining, you'd never have survived 30 years ago when personal computers were in their infancy.

And finally...

To Ollie and anyone else foolish enough to think by switching to Mac, or any other operating system for that matter, that you will magically become immune to malicious software, think again.

And to Luigi, Windows IS compatible with well written applications, that are written to be Windows compatible. It is the applications that are NOT well written, or are malicious, that created the need for Windows to impliment this security step. And what "rules" are you referring to? If there were a single set of rules that every application developer HAD to follow, then there would be no more viruses, and every application created would be compatible with every other application, and they could all be run seamlessly on every operating system in existence.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Chuck — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:37:57 GMT

Well, someone once said that someday computers would be as easy to use as a telephone. I think that day has finally arrived. Whenever I am forced to use a phone that isn't my own cell, I usually don't have the slightest idea how to use it.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 21:08:09 GMT

Related question: I am concerned that the concept of "libraries" in WIndows 7 is going to create similar confusion perhaps. Have you looked to see what is happening there?

People are used to files and folders (even novices to computers) and this may make the "location" of a picture or document become even more difficult to understand.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

random_n — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:09:46 GMT

The Libraries feature of Windows 7 is there largely to facilitate sharing of individual files - the files can be shuffled between the personal and public documents folders without ever changing spots in the Library with a simple UI in the shell.

It's a logical feature with a pretty smooth implementation. The actual file locations are fairly easy to find as well, and don't have tons of junction points to throw off tree-walking utilities.

As for the virtualized folder issue, these files *should* be flushed when IE closes every single time, and the PMIE broker should pop up a warning whenever a virtualized file is created (with exceptions for the shell-generated junk like the thumbnail cache) with some straightforward actions the user can take. With some stern warnings for executable content (or even just ignoring it until the purge at quitting time), it shouldn't pose much of a security risk. Maybe for Windows 7 SP1, eh?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Adam — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:14:01 GMT

Is there a way to stop the desktop.ini file from showing up everywhere?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

liz — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:33:07 GMT

I have the same problem about desktop.ini file as well, it invades all my folders and desktop and most of files with "MY" words on it became inaccessible... So anyone for u can tell us this? And also why "Error 08x80070052 keeps popping up every time i want to copy a file to USB's? which it never happened before untildesktop.ini invades my files

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Alex — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:59:07 GMT

Interesting. It looks like it's bug in a "Open Dialog" window. If you do drag&drop into this window, it asks for the UAC confirmation. But if you copy a file with ctrl+c/ctrl+v - it will be just dropped there and appears then in a "virtualized" folder.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Alex — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:02:46 GMT

I would say even more. The behaviour of the "open file" dialog in case of PMIE is REALLY strange. If you try to remove a virtualized file, the conf. dialog appears under the "open file" dialog. To access it, you have to move the "open file" a bit.

All tests have been done on WinVista x64 SP1 with all latests updates from Windows Update

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Grof Luigi — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:16:16 GMT

All this comes from overcomplication.

Virtualizaition (or is it redirection?) of virtual folders like Desktop, My documents... Where is it going to end?

@Liz: you might have a virus

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

egads — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:27:46 GMT

Any reason you didn't just r-click and Open File Location to see it was in the virtualized folder?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Kevin John Panzke — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:53:47 GMT

I am having a problem with Phantom Download Files In Both Windows 7 Build 7000 And WS2008R2 Build 7000, Any Suggestions?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Kevin John Panzke — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:12:09 GMT

I am unable 2 either run, move. or delete the files in the windows 7 Build 7000 and WS2008R2 Build 7000 Downloads Folders.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

wtp — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:34:05 GMT

I am very [saddened/confused/more committed than ever to 'fox and XP/ all of the above]

SOMEWHERE along the line, maybe a decade ago or more, somebody lost the concept of a system/use-appropriate OS.

WHY does the "kitchen computer" (I'd suppose an e-mail/ web browsing/ memo display machine, in my home, something I'd build from scraps of "outdated" my-main-desktop systems,) in need of virtualization or similar resource-hungry capability at all?

Heck, if support weren't such a hassle, (finding printer drivers, etc) and someone in the family(1) wanted a "kitchen system" I'd be tempted to scare up a new drive for the truly ancient laptop I gave Spoiled Niece, when, at age 10, she asked if I could give her (ok, demanded) a computer to play with - she kept the old Win95-running Thinkpad until its original IBM 32MB HD finally died, and I haven't been able to find a replacement.

WHY should we even consider this insanity, or worse, a Citrix-equivalent running on Big Redmond's file-keeping network? (my old pal from 1984, Winston Smith, keeps asking me about THAT, er, 'stuff')

I think Step 1 would have been to strip it back to Win 98 2nd or 2K, and loaded it with programs one would even consider using in the kitchen (and installed half the stuff in that box someplace where it's appropriate).

-written on my bedside T41 w/half a gig

(1)In my extended family, RTFM means Ring the Family Maven, my job since Mom got a Sanyo 550 8080.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

KEVIN JOHN PANZKE — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:09:12 GMT

Nevermind, I found the problem with my Windows 7 Installation, the read only option was turned on 4 the Downloads Folder got turned on after my Upgrade Install from Vista 2 Windows 7 Beta 1.

re: ZOOMIT

V. Gokal — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:38:23 GMT

Hi. How about making a black pen and a white pen for ZOOMIT.

Then if I draw a line in blue (on black screen) the black pen can write over portions of the blue line, hence portions of the blue line can be "erased".

Or just make an eraser?

Thanks for a brilliant programe. I use it in my lectures all the time.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

macejv — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 23:47:23 GMT

Losing files from the desktop it is a very serious and annoying problem or issue. I have fixed this thing by using jv16 PowerTools 2009, an application made to optimize Microsoft Windows without losing any key information from your computer (a registry cleaner that has also the option of back-up-ing all the files and settings). I recommend this product to all of you, and i really hope that you will try it and it will show results.

Not only desktop

Peter — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 00:15:03 GMT

We had also recently such weird Phantom file thing in Vista.

In a [vendor]\[application] directory in Program Files one file (of many) was missing. However the application operated correctly using the "missing" file. Windows Explorer was not able to list the "missing" file in the directory, nor a command prompt with a dir command. In the command prompt starting notepad with the filename couldn't open the file. However a third party text editor was able to open the "missing" file from the command line.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Hairs — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:03:13 GMT

Another good example of Microsoft wasting the User's time implementing a massively complicated hack to half-implement some needed functionality because they can't bring themselves to tell some developers that a part of the OS has been taken out and replaced because it's borked/insecure/all over the place.

As usual Mark, another situation which exposes what a good developer you are, and the dichotomy whereby Microsoft has to employ genius level people to try and work out what's going wrong with the people doing the actual code and design.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

DannyD — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:50:25 GMT

Don't use IE. Problem solved. That "Virtualized" directory does not exist on my Linux machine (on which I use Epiphany).

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

macejv — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 01:17:24 GMT

It is right. Some files, folders and settings from our computer can disappear, at a random basis. In order to not encounter these kinds of problems or issues on your computer, an IT user will need to have some additional programs downloaded and installed on their computer (like a registry cleaner or/and a Windows Optimizer such as jv16 PowerTools 2009).

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Dave Johnson — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 20:29:45 GMT

Given the way that Vasti does virtually nothing that XP won't do and given the way it imposes all sorts of ludicrous restrictions because $soft doesn't like giving users control over their own machine, the solution is clear.

Either

1) for the simple minded, use a mac, it's designed for you.

2) For the more complex minded, use linux, it's designed for you.

3) Stick with XP, there will always be copies around that work and I doubt if manufacturers will stop writing drivers before we get Linux up to the point where non manual-reading users can just plug'n'play.

Vasti's just another $soft bodge, strangling the user's ability to use their own machine because so many make the mistake of *trusting* $soft software to not run any and all instructions that any old spammer or worm chooses to send it. The real cure, is a real OS (sadly still $soft, XP, for simplicity of use) but without trusting virus-havens like OE and IE.

Dave.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

David Gray — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:23:42 GMT

Great work as usual Mark and your wife.

Mark since you play BF2142. Could you please do a 'Case of the crashing Bf2142 Server'. It must bug you as much as it does me and thousands of other brothers in arms.

Thanks

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

SRS — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:03:17 GMT

@Dave Johnson - we all want to know. Which of the three do you use?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

microsoft sucks — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:56:58 GMT

I really dont understand how this is considered 'solved.' How is your wife supposed to save files to her real desktop? Is she supposed to know that she needs to be running in medium integrity in order to really save to the location she chose to save files?

Are users supposed to know that deleting their temporary internet files will erase all of their virtualized files? I am really not surprised that Microsoft screwed this up again.

*NT5CSC Help

Mark Israel — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:49:08 GMT

Mark,

I need help fixing a problem dealing with off-line files. Noe of my XP SP-3 users can do a search on a server Share drive. Example: Public

is on a 2003 R2 SP-2 server. It is shared out to Authenticated Users full control. When my users search using search companion it lags out and then they lose thier network connections to shared drives. The drive letter and directory are there but no files. I am hoping you might shed some light here as I am stuck. This is a new server with the exact same everything as the old server. FQDN, NETBIOS, IP Address and NTFS directory structure is identical. I wonder if I copied over something I need to undo???

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Sven — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:48:54 GMT

After reading the fact that it was IE showing this files and the screenshots showing it was Vista, I immediately knew it was because of file virtualization. I don't need no fancy tools; like Raymond I can use my psychic debugging powers. :P

The most important lesson here...

Leon Zandman — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 12:18:46 GMT

The most important lesson readers can learn from this story comes from this line:

"Since my wife doesn’t keep the Sysinternals tools on HER system..."

Indeed, give your wife her own system, so she cannot harm your system ;-)

how is the delete operation handled

andi — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:01:49 GMT

Does the legacy application "see" the existing, non-virtual files? I think the answer is yes.

If it does, how does vista solve the delete file operation for a legacy application?

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Chris, Happy still using WindowsME — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 21:56:44 GMT

Quote from Luigi D. Sandon: "I too agree that MS should stop to put too much emphasis on "compatibility". Windows should be compatible with well written applications, and should begin to stop those written without following the rules."

The point is that these ActiveX objects WERE written following the rules in force at the time. It is Microsoft who changed the rules, for good reason, but Microsoft now has a duty to honour the correct operation of existing ActiveX components.

The way forward is to inform the User. When an old style ActiveX control acts in this way, an information balloon should explain to the User, with clickable [+] and [-] to expand for a more or less detailed explanation. Don't forget information balloons can be invasive. Give balloons the abillity to be minimized so they can be read more thoroughly at a more appropriate time. Better still, give information balloons their own archive area.

Inform the User. Don't interrupt them. Don't confuse them.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Comet — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:08:48 GMT

If the "Desktop" view in Explorer, etc., would concatenate the user's virtualized Desktop with the user's real desktop (and, I suppose, the All Users real desktop), then the unified view would not confuse the user; they wouldn't care if the files were stored in the virtual location or in the actual location. As somebody mentioned, it would be good if the virtualized file icons had some type of indicator, similar to the shortcut arrow's usage.

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Gordon Edwards — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 09:38:19 GMT

Very interesting. I use W2K Pro SP4 (Yeah, I know, but don't you got to love it?) and sometimes the offspring put up a new desktop direct from their E:\ folders without bothering to make it into a .bmp blah blah... When they log off, often you can see old wallpapers flash up and disappear. I've always cured this by invading their privacy and making bmp's in the WINNT folder where they belong. But it's comforting to learn something of the virtualisation which dogs even older software!

re: The Case of the Phantom Desktop Files

Tapxe — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:06:07 GMT

I had this problem a few weeks back as well... I solved it very easily. Right-click->properties (or file-> properties from a pdf or something) then cut and paste. Done...

(well, i guess figuring out exactly why it happened is sort of interesting)