Finder display not all messed up

My Finder display is all messed after the update for 10.9.3 for my early 2011 macbook pro I open finder up and and it shows the icons all messed up, the lists works fine, columns works but the display is all split up horizontally. I have restarted and no change...

Open the Universal Access system preference and see if the Display on the Seeing pane is set to White on Black. If it is, select Black on White and that should get your display back in order. Also make sure that the Enhance Contrast slider is set to "normal".
Hope this helps.

Similar Messages

Finder has colors all messed up.

My problem is that when I log into the administrator account on my Aluminum iMac, all of the colors are messed up, and the screens looks like it was drawn from a comic book. This only affects the administrator account, when I log into the other accounts, the problem is non-existent. I recently installed the Facebook iPhoto exporter, would this be the problem, although I uninstalled and restarted.
Any help would be appreciated.
P.S. I tried to screen grab the desktop, but when I open the file on another user account, it appears normal.

Open the Universal Access system preference and see if the Display on the Seeing pane is set to White on Black. If it is, select Black on White and that should get your display back in order. Also make sure that the Enhance Contrast slider is set to "normal".
Hope this helps.

Since I downloaded the firefox update I no longer have the firefox screen and not all my bookmarks will work. Why?

After I downloaded the latest update firefox as I knew it disappeared. The opening screen no longer shows the fox logo. The search box on the toolbar lists as conduit search. And I am finding that not all my bookmarks still work. Example-I have to go to att to access my mail. That is fine if that is the way it is supposed to work but if so I would like to know how to change my home screen--or at least the first thing I see when firefox opens to the att site as I generally use my computer for email. I am also accustomed to using google search and as I am a crazy old cat lady I am not really ready to change the way I am familiar with my computer.
Ideally, could I get the fox picture screen with the google search and the ability to click on the bookmark labeled mail back on my computer???
I am not computer literate unless it acts as it always has. Thanks, Dawn

hello dawn, please be aware that there are malicious websites out there which will trigger fake update notices/popups which try to trick you into downloading software bundled with adware. please never click on such websites or execute such files on offer - updates are handled automatically by firefox and you don't have to download any file for it (you can always manually check if you're up-to-date by going to ''firefox > help > about firefox'').
please try these steps to regain your firefox:
# [[Reset Firefox – easily fix most problems|reset firefox]] (this will keep your bookmarks and passwords)
# afterwards go to firefox > addons > extensions and in case there are still extensions listed there, disable them.
# go to the windows control panel and remove all software recently installed where you don't know which purpose it has or otherwise looks suspicious.
# finally run a full scan of your system with different security tools like the [http://www.malwarebytes.org/products/malwarebytes_free free version of malwarebytes] and [http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/download/adwcleaner/ adwcleaner] to make sure that adware isn't present in other places of your system as well.
[[Troubleshoot Firefox issues caused by malware]]

TS1424 i purchased several complete albums and not all the songs downloaded completely

I purchased several complete albums only to find out not all the songs downloaded completely . Who do i need to contact at apple to fix this problem ??

You do not need to contact anyone.
Delete and redownload the trouble songs:
Downloading past purchases from the App Store, iBookstore, and iTunes Store

HT4641 Hello there i am using the latest version of pages but when I imported a word do.ument with some figures ( mainly pictures, X-rays, CT scans, and ECG ) I could not find them they all vanishes although the text was perfectly displayed . Can anybody

Hello there i am using the latest version of pages on ipad3 but when I imported a word doument with some figures ( mainly pictures, X-rays, CT scans, and ECG ) I could not find them they all vanishes although the text was perfectly displayed . Can anyone help.
Thanks

Thank you very much!
I cant believe this little comment has been so helpful!
But yes it is:
I explain, despite my efforts to find, googled it, forums, faqs, etc...
no where it mentionned the manifest.fm file is... INSIDE the .jar!
Your comment "a zip" made me attempt to open it with winrar, and I found a manifest.fm file inside!
So far I was editing the one at the "source" of my project and rebuilding it with netbeans.
I am going to try that now.
Actually.... :( no its mentionning my main class!
Manifest-Version: 1.0
Ant-Version: Apache Ant 1.7.0
Created-By: 10.0-b19 (Sun Microsystems Inc.)
Main-class: courseworkjava3d.Simple3D
Class-Path:
X-COMMENT: Main-Class will be added automatically by buildWell I have no problems uploading you the .jar, it is for a coursework it is not a private project or whatever:
http://www.uploading.com/files/CM2LKWYU/BetaCourseworkJava3d_Final.jar.html
Oh and I felt on your comment "dont ask us" as if I was suppose to know... i'm a beginner, I did not know that! And I tried to give you so many infos so you dont lose your time if you want to help, especially as after my own research I found many, many results for this "main class" and I tried a few solutions!
Edited by: CupofTea on Apr 13, 2008 3:28 AM

CS4 NOT capable of sharp displays at all zoom levels

I must have been asleep, until now, and missed the significance and importance of what follows.
In post #11 here:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/375478?tstart=30
on 19 March 2009 Chris Cox (Adobe Photoshop Engineer - his title on the old forums) said this, in a discussion regarding sharpness in CS4:
"You can't have perfectly sharp images at all zoom levels.". Unfortunately, my experience with CS4 since its release late last year has repeatedly confirmed the correctness of this statement.
What makes this statement so disturbing is that it contradicts an overwhelming amount of the pre- and post-release promotional advertising of CS4 by Adobe, to the effect that the OpenGL features of CS4 enable it to display sharp images at all zoom levels and magnifications. What is surprising is that this assertion has been picked up and regurgitated in commentary by other, sometimes highly experienced, Ps users (some unconnected with, but also some directly connected with, Adobe). I relied upon these representations when making my decision to purchase the upgrade from CS3 to CS4. In fact, they were my principal reason for upgrading. Without them, I would not have upgraded. Set out in numbered paragraphs 1 to 6 below is a small selection only of this material.
1. Watch the video "Photoshop CS4: Buy or Die" by Deke McClelland (inducted into the Photoshop Hall of Fame, according to his bio) on the new features of CS4 in a pre-release commentary to be found here:
http://fyi.oreilly.com/2008/09/new-dekepod-deke-mcclelland-on.html
Notice what he says about zooming with Open GL: "every zoom level is a bicubically rendered thing of beauty". That, when viewed with the zooming demonstrated, can only be meant to convey that your image will be "sharp" at all zoom levels. I'm sure he believes it too - Deke is someone who is noted for his outspoken criticism of Photoshop when he believes it to be deserved. It would seem that he must not have experimented and tested to the extent that others posting in this forum have done so.
2. Here's another Adobe TV video from Deke McClelland:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1584v1021
In this video Deke discusses the "super smooth" and "very smooth" zooming of CS4 at all zoom levels achieved through the use of OpenGL. From the context of his comments about zooming to odd zoom levels like 33.33% and 52.37%, it is beyond doubt that Deke's use of the word "smooth" is intended to convey "sharp". At the conclusion of his discussion on this topic he says that, as a result of CS4's "smooth and accurate" as distinct from "choppy" (quoted words are his) rendering of images at odd zoom levels (example given in this instance was 46.67%), "I can actually soft proof sharpening as it will render for my output device".
3. In an article by Philip Andrews at photoshopsupport.com entitled 'What's New In Adobe Photoshop CS4 - Photoshop 11 - An overview of all the new features in Adobe Photoshop CS4',
see: http://www.photoshopsupport.com/photoshop-cs4/what-is-new-in-photoshop-cs4.html
under the heading 'GPU powered display', this text appears :
"Smooth Accurate Pan and Zoom functions – Unlike previous versions where certain magnification values produced less than optimal previews on screen, CS4 always presents your image crisply and accurately. Yes, this is irrespective of zoom and rotation settings and available right up to pixel level (3200%)." Now, it would be a brave soul indeed who might try to argue that "crisply and accurately" means anything other than "sharply", and certainly, not even by the wildest stretch of the imagination, could it be taken to mean "slightly blurry but smooth" - to use the further words of Chris Cox also contained in his post #11 mentioned in the initial link at the beginning of this post.
4. PhotoshopCAFE has several videos on the new features of CS4. One by Chris Smith here:
http://www.photoshopcafe.com/cs4/vid/CS4Video.htm
is entitled 'GPU Viewing Options". In it, Chris says, whilst demonstrating zooming an image of a guitar: "as I zoom out or as I zoom in, notice that it looks sharp at any resolution. It used to be in Photoshop we had to be at 25, 50 , 75 (he's wrong about 75) % to get the nice sharp preview but now it shows in every magnification".
5. Here's another statement about the sharpness of CS4 at odd zoom levels like 33.33%, but inferentially at all zoom levels. It occurs in an Adobe TV video (under the heading 'GPU Accererated Features', starting at 2 min 30 secs into the video) and is made by no less than Bryan O'Neil Hughes, Product Manager on the Photoshop team, found here:
http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1556v1686
After demonstrating zooming in and out of a bunch of documents on a desk, commenting about the type in the documents which is readily visible, he says : "everything is nice and clean and sharp".
6. Finally, consider the Ps CS4 pdf Help file itself (both the original released with 11.0 and the revised edition dated 30 March 2009 following upon the release of the 11.0.1 update). Under the heading 'Smoother panning and zooming' on page 5, it has this to say: "Gracefully navigate to any area of an image with smoother panning and zooming. Maintain clarity as you zoom to invididual pixels, and easily edit at the highest magnification with the new Pixel Grid." The use of the word "clarity" can only mean "sharpness" in this context. Additionally, the link towards the top of page 28 of the Help file (topic of Rotate View Tool) takes you to yet another video by Deke McClelland. Remember, this is Adobe itself telling you to watch this video. 5 minutes and 40 seconds into the video he says: "Every single zoom level is fluid and smooth, meaning that Photoshop displays all pixels properly in all views which ensures more accurate still, video and 3D images as well as better painting, text and shapes.". Not much doubt that he is here talking about sharpness.
So, as you may have concluded, I'm pretty upset about this situation. I have participated in another forum (which raised the lack of sharp rendering by CS4 on several occasions) trying to work with Adobe to overcome what I initially thought may have been only a problem with my aging (but nevertheless, just-complying) system or outdated drivers. But that exercise did not result in any sharpness issue fix, nor was one incorporated in the 11.0.1 update to CS4. And in this forum, I now read that quite a few, perhaps even many, others, with systems whose specifications not only match but well and truly exceed the minimum system requirements for OpenGL compliance with CS4, also continue to experience sharpness problems. It's no surprise, of course, given the admission we now have from Chris Cox. It seems that CS4 is incapable of producing the sharp displays at all zoom levels it was alleged to achieve. Furthermore, it is now abundently clear that, with respect to the issue of sharpness, it is irrelevant whether or not your system meets the advertised minimum OpenGL specifications required for CS4, because the OpenGl features of CS4 simply cannot produce the goods. What makes this state of affairs even more galling is that, unlike CS3 and earlier releases of Photoshop, CS4 with OpenGL activated does not even always produce sharp displays at 12.5, 25, and 50% magnifications (as one example only, see posts #4 and #13 in the initial link at the beginning of this post). It is no answer to say, and it is ridiculous to suggest (as some have done in this forum), that one should turn off OpenGL if one wishes to emulate the sharp display of images formerly available.

Thanks, Andrew, for bringing this up. I have seen comments and questions in different forums from several CS4 users who have had doubts about the new OpenGL display functionality and how it affects apparent sharpness at different zoom levels. I think part of the interest/doubt has been created by the over-the-top hype that has been associated with the feature as you documented very well.
I have been curious about it myself and honestly I didn't notice it at first but then as I read people's comments I looked a little closer and there is indeed a difference at different zoom levels. After studying the situation a bit, here are some preliminary conclusions (and I look forward to comments and corrections):
The "old", non-OpenGL way of display was using nearest-neighbor interpolation.
I am using observation to come to this conclusion, using comparison of images down-sampled with nearest-neighbor and comparing them to what I see in PS with OpenGL turned off. They look similar, if not the same.
The "new", OpenGL way of display is using bilinear interpolation.
I am using observation as well as some inference: The PS OpenGL preferences have an option to "force" bilinear interpolation because some graphics cards need to be told to force the use of shaders to perform the required interpolation. This infers that the interpolation is bilinear.
Nothing is truly "accurate" at less than 100%, regardless of the interpolation used.
Thomas Knoll, Jeff Schewe, and others have been telling us that for a long time, particularly as a reason for not showing sharpening at less than 100% in ACR (We still want it though ). It is just the nature of the beast of re-sampling an image from discrete pixels to discrete pixels.
The "rule of thumb" commonly used for the "old", non-OpenGL display method to use 25%, 50%, etc. for "accurate" display was not really accurate.
Those zoom percentages just turned out to be less bad than some of the other percentages and provided a way to achieve a sort of standard for comparing things. Example: "If my output sharpening looks like "this" at 50% then it will look close to "that" in the actual print.
The "new", OpenGL interpolation is certainly different and arguably better than the old interpolation method.
This is mainly because the more sophisticated interpolation prevents drop-outs that occurred from the old nearest-neighbor approach (see my grid samples below). With nearest-neighbor, certain details that fall into "bad" areas of the interpolated image will be eliminated. With bilinear, those details will still be visible but with less sharpness than other details. Accuracy with both the nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolations will vary with zoom percentage and where the detail falls within the image.
Since the OpenGL interpolation is different, users may need to develop new "rules of thumb" for zoom percentages they prefer when making certain judgements about an image (sharpening, for example).
Note that anything below 100% is still not "accurate", just as it was not "accurate" before.
As Andrew pointed out, the hype around the new OpenGL bilinear interpolation went a little overboard in a few cases and has probably led to some incorrect expectations from users.
The reason that some users seem to notice the sharpness differences with different zooms using OpenGL and some do not (or are not bothered by it) I believe is related to the different ways that users are accustomed to using Photoshop and the resolution/size of their monitors.
Those people who regularly work with images with fine details (pine tree needles, for example) and/or fine/extreme levels of sharpening are going to see the differences more than people who don't. To some extent, I see this similar to people who battle with moire: they are going to have this problem more frequently if they regularly shoot screen doors and people in fine-lined shirts. Resolution of the monitor used may also be a factor. The size of the monitor in itself is not a factor directly but it may influence how the user uses the zoom and that may in turn have an impact on whether they notice the difference in sharpness or not. CRT vs LCD may also play a role in noticeability.
The notion that the new OpenGL/bilinear interpolation is sharp except at integer zoom percentages is incorrect.
I mention this because I have seen at last one thread implying this and an Adobe employee participated who seemed to back it up. I do not believe this is correct. There are some integer zoom percentages that will appear less sharp than others. It doesn't have anything to do with integers - it has to do with the interaction of the interpolation, the size of the detail, and how that detail falls into the new, interpolated pixel grid.
Overall conclusion:
The bilinear interpolation used in the new OpenGL display is better than the old, non-OpenGL nearest-neighbor method but it is not perfect. I suspect actually, that there is no "perfect" way of "accurately" producing discrete pixels at less than 100%. It is just a matter of using more sophisticated interpolation techniques as computer processing power allows and adapting higher-resolution displays as that technology allows. When I think about it, that appears to be just what Adobe is doing.
Some sample comparisons:
I am attaching some sample comparisons of nearest-neighbor and bilinear interpolation. One is of a simple grid made up of 1 pixel wide lines. The other is of an image of a squirrel. You might find them interesting. In particular, check out the following:
Make sure you are viewing the Jpegs at 100%, otherwise you are applying interpolation onto interpolation.
Notice how in the grid, a 50% down-sample using nearest-neighbor produces no grid at all!
Notice how the 66.67% drops out some lines altogether in the nearest-neighbor version and these same lines appear less sharp than others in the bilinear version.
Notice how nearest-neighbor favors sharp edges. It isn't accurate but it's sharp.
On the squirrel image, note how the image is generally more consistent between zooms for the bilinear versions. There are differences in sharpness though at different zoom percentages for bilinear, though. I just didn't include enough samples to show that clearly here. You can see this yourself by comparing results of zooms a few percentages apart.
Well, I hope that was somewhat helpful. Comments and corrections are welcomed.

Finder shows some but not all files in a folder

In some circumstances, Finder only shows some (but not all) of the files in a folder. Why?
I notice this with Excel autosave files in the Office 2011 Autorecovery folder (Macintosh HD ▸ Users ▸ Conor ▸ Library ▸ Application Support ▸ Microsoft ▸ Office ▸ Office 2011 AutoRecovery). In my case, Finder shows 34 files but "ls" in a Terminal window reports 40 files. The missing files do not start with a period (.) and have the same permissions as other files that show in Finder (-rw-r--r--@ 1 <myname> staff). Here's the last four lines of "ls -al" - the first two appear in Finder, but not the last two:
-rw-r--r--@ 1 myname staff    55296 8 Oct 2013 Word Work File D_1239425731.tmp
-rw-r--r--@ 1 myname staff    55296 8 Oct 2013 Word Work File D_1240072173.tmp
-rw-r--r--@ 1 myname staff    52796 13 Feb 11:08 safe1.xlk
-rw-r--r--@ 1 myname staff    95320 12 Mar 16:06 safe2.xlk
I have tried copying files from this folder to another folder, and/or changing their names. They still do not appear in Finder, nor are they visible in the File Open dialog of applications, even when the dialog is listing other files in that directory - but if I manually type the name into the File Open dialog, the app manages to find and open the file.
If I Spotlight-search for the file name, or search in Finder, without specifying that specific directory ("This Mac"), the file is not found, but if I direct the Finder search at that particular directory, then the search returns the relevant files.
So: why does Finder hide certain files when showing a folder, even though it can find and show those files if you specifically ask for them?
Now using OSX 10.10 (Yosemite), but I'm pretty sure I noticed this on OSX 10.8 as well.

So simple - thanks. I'd not been aware of the hidden flag, and now I've found the -O option on ls to display it.
Follow-on question: I now see that you can change the system-wide defaults to display hidden files with this...
     defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles -boolean true ; killall Finder
...but is there a way to specify this on a per folder basis? I'm happy enough to hide hidden files in general, but it would be nice if I could set an attribute/flag/whatever on the Office AutoRecovery directory that told Finder "in this folder, always display hidden files". Can I do this?

Firefox and Twitter and Finder does not display

I have recently upgraded to Lion recently. The Transition was way rougher compare to the Snow Leopards.
I am running a MBP 15", 2009 Mid-2009 version.
It has 2 graphic cards on board, 9400m and 9600GT.
When I first launched Lion, I was quite shock that my Firefox and Twitter do not display at all.
After tweaking the system preferences, I realized that when the 9400m graphic card is activated, there isn't any display on several of the Applications,
including the popular ones like Finder, Twitter and Firefox. The issues are fix when I switch to my 9600GT graphic card.
Do any of you have the same issues that I am facing?
I do hope Apple resolves these issues quickly.
As using my 9600GT graphic translate to very bad battery life and a very warm laptop! I am not happy at paying $29.99 for something that breaks.

Hey kennychan,
I've had the same problem. I've done a clean re-install on a reformatted drive and the problem was gone. If you can do a clean reinstall I recommend you give it a shot.
Best wishes,
Dmitry

Finder does not display icon for word / excel in list view

Hi,
I got a new macbook air, with Yosemite pre installed. I copied over all my files (from my old macbook using a USB drive) and next I installed MS office for mac.
For some reason Finder does not display the correct excel of word icon in list view (I set preview thumbnail to NO in view options), but it it displays the generic file icon.
It appears to be very random, as some files do display the icon and others do not. It also appears to have nothing to do with the doc/docx xls/xlsx variations.
Also some of my parallels icons do not display correctly in list view.
When I open a INFO panel, it does show the correct icon. Example below:
Any body know how to reset / fix this ?

Still got no solution...
There has to be some one that knows about this ..?
Any professionals reading this that can point in some direction for a solution?

Finder icons not displaying or not displaying properly

I'm having a problem where icons in finder such as word documents pdfs and the main volume of my hard drive are not displaying at all or are not displaying correctly. One .rtf file I saved on my desktop had the same icon as a jpeg I had saved on the desktop too.
Anybody have any idea of what I can do about this?

Create a new admin user account, log into it, and see if the behavior persists. If so, it's system-wide and reinstalling the COMBO updater is advisable. You might consider going to 10.4.10, but with the usual caveat of backing up your current boot volume to a bootable backup/clone.
If not, then you've corruption/conflicts within the original user folder, usually preference files. Get Preferential Treatment and verify/repair them. Determining the conflict is a hit and miss proposition and time consuming. See my posts at http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=4703015 for the steps.

Finder does not show all files from NAS

Hi there
I have a NAS attached to my mini where music, ... is stored. I can access it from both the mac as well as a PC.
for some reason the mac finder does not display all the files in the directory even though the files are there (i can see and open them when accessing the NAS through the PC). at the moment I only see this happen in a folder that contains video (mpg) files and some event must have triggered this strange behaviour because I could play the file sometime ago without problem.
also, some of the files are shown as a folder than a file in the finder. E.g. a clip called last_holiday.mpg would show as a folder (when you open it it is empty) rather than a video file.
I have tried to re-mount the share, but this has no effect.
Is this a bug or is there some wrong setting?
thanks for any help,
Chris

I have this same problem with mounted DAV server folders. I can see the files via Windows and other DAV clients -- just not via Finder. Moreover, it does not apply to all files: some of them do show up. And, it does not happen all of the time: just occasionally.

Vision M - Not all music displaying in creative Media Explo

When i connect my Vision M to my PC and go into creative Media explorer not all the artists are displayed in the drop down list, i can find them when i go into Creative Media Organizer though..does anyone have any suggestions as to why this would be

Thanks - I've already tried to reinstall the software and there is no update in the download section of microphoto for the Media Explorer.

LR 4 RC2 ...vexing problem, 3 sessions with support and still not able to find? With all settings re

LR 4 RC2 ...vexing problem, 3 sessions with support and still not able to find? With all settings reset and running a test catalog a raw image when opened in develop will when imediately going back to library view show a significant color shift in red, orange and purple but only in images with significant content in those colors. at first the culprit appeared to be camera calibration default but not reproducable. The problem exists even when opening older images from months ago? Also if second screen running in loupe mode the image is not shifted.
Any ideas please
Dave

Jim01403, Geoff and others...I'm new here so I'll need a little time The thread is very interesting, populated by serious mature people, how refreshing! It clearly is part of what i'm experiencing and is answered answered here...thank you. My main problem is still the significant color shift between develope and library modules. I'll attach one from each so you and others can see. Unfortunately the library version is the bad one so printing is now very problematic...Note, this occurs in either single or with second monitor on the library version is displayed. I have reset virtually everything and wonder if a cache is not updating or color space is not matching? A symptom/detail worth noting, when switching to library mode, the correct image is displayed for about a second then it jumps to what you see in the examples. As if the library module starts to rendering from develope settings then jumps tback to the original inedited preview??
Maybe just go back to 3.6 and tread water till 4.1 is fixed?
Dave

Finder can not find and display certain files. Why? Any fix,please?

I've discovered to my surprise that Finder can not find and display certain files. Computer is Mac book OS X (10.6.8)
No matter what Finder settings I use, there are files which it can not detect and display.
Here are just some examples of files sitting in the HD but Finder can not display them:
Located in preference panes :
fibre channel 1.7
Located in :    /Library/StartupItems/BRESINKx86Monitoring
BRESINKx86Monitoring
FxLicenseManager
Located in    /Library/StartupItems/FxLicenseManager
EAP8021X
Located in    /System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/EAP8021X.framework
The questions:
What to make of this inability of Finder to ,well, find? (again - I tried all possible settings of Finder!)
Is there any way to fix it?
Thanks for any competent suggestion!

Well, guys,
Interesting suggestions but the problem remains -Finder (aka Spotlight) is not capable to find certain files.Period.
I consider it as a fault of the system because in comparison, a search facility of a plain Windows based machine is capable to dig out and display any file, no matter now deeply hidden...
As far as the suggestion above by softwater goes , well, I've used the additional foptions extensively and nothing produced the result needed -that's why I created this discussion.
If someone still believes that using Finder with all its options is good enough, here is a test for you to perform on your own Mac:
-Open /Library/StartupItems/ and have a look inside - most likely you have a bunch of items. Write down the names of one or two of them. For this test I've chosen
FxLicenseManager located in    /Library/StartupItems/. You can use any file you want grom this location...
- Then go to Finder and set it to display everything in Library of the HD. Remember - for this test you pretend you don't know any file name in this folders.
If the Finder works properly it shall display folders of Library >Startup items with all stuff inside, including the FxLicenseManager file I used for this test.
Finder displayed nothing. It is obvious that for Finder, certain locations are off limits. That's why I consider Finder as a faulty.
Of course if someone can set the Finder's options to do the above search and succeed, I'll be glad to try ...:-)
At this point, what I gather from this discussion is that :
1. Finder (Spotlight) feature is not to be trusted,despite number of fancy but rather useless options.
2. If you need to really find everything usually not displayed by Finder you better get real searching software.

NON Verizon web page not displaying at all

Site http://forum.greytexpectations.org/
Does not display on all my home machines-this morning it displayed on one machine and not on 2 others!
Please respond with a fix ASAP.
Ising IE8 with current MS fixes.

bode225 wrote:
eljefe wrote:
I get a 404 Not Found error from that link, both with IE8 and Firefox. I suspect the website is down.
This doesn't seem to be a Verizon related problem to me.
its your problem!
Negative.
We do not work for Verizon. We are end users, like you.
If you want to speak to Verizon, go to http://www22.verizon.com/content/contactus/ - and
#1 Call them.
#2 Text Chat with them.
#3 Write them an e-mail.
#4 Wriite them a letter.
^^
If you are the original poster (OP) and your issue is solved, please remember to click the "Solution?" button so that others can more easily find it. If anyone has been helpful to you, please show your appreciation by clicking the "Kudos" button.

Finder display not all messed up

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for