re: Read-only folder
Sunday, October 5, 2003 at 5:13 pm
Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by jagged ben
(3536 messages posted)
Folders in Windows XP can not be read-only. Windows will never display a regular
check-mark in the read-only box when you open a folders properties, unless the folder
is on a read-only disc such as a CD-ROM. Normally you should see a greyed out check
mark, a green square, or whatever symbol your theme uses.
As Microsoft would say: "This is by design."
The square (or greyed out check mark) for a folder means NOTHING, NO CHANGE, WAITING
FOR YOU TO USE ME. This is because the read-only box in a folder's properties is
only used to apply or remove the read-only setting from all of the folder's files
at once. If you clear the box and click Apply, then the files in the folder will
be cleared of any read-only attributes they have. Like wise for checking the box
to apply the attribute to all files. The square reappears the next time because,
once again, you haven't used it.
FOLDERS do NOT have a functional read-only attribute in Windows. The read-only attribute
is only for files. The read-only check-box for folder properties is a bad and confusing
design. If you want to avoid read-only confusion, check individual files, ignore
folders.
Windows file systems actually use the read-only attribute for a folder to make it
customizeable, but the checkbox in a folder's properties has nothing to do with that.
You cannot prevent a folder's contents from being changed using the read-only attribute.
You can read more about that here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;326549
On Sunday, October 5, 2003 at 4:36 pm, Rebecca Asamoah wrote:
>Could someone tell me how to make a read-only folder read/write in Windows XP please.
> Unchecking the box does not work. Thanks
- Written in response to:
- Read-only folder (Rebecca Asamoah: Sunday, October 5, 2003 at 4:36 pm)
Responses to this message:
|
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | re: Read-only folder (jagged ben: Sun, Oct 5, 2003, 5:13 pm) |
|
