Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
 

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
At this stage, Total Commander will "totally confuse" this guy. :-)

The concept of the filesystem hierarchy still hasn't sunk in. The
"light bulb" hasn't come on.

Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

(He's not dim; I'm quite proud that he's managed to convert most of his
LP collection onto CDs, using mp3directcut to cut sides into tracks, and
so on. He's a retired printer - from hot metal days, but I think would
have used linotype machines, not just hand-layout.)

hierarchy is so much easier to explain when your file manager has
"lines" like XP and older system have. I may end up installing only

(My friend has Vista, which I think still has the lines.)

the Classic Explorer part of Classic Shell, so he has the lines for his
eyes to follow. I've created a simple chart that visually shows the
hierarchy, but laid out as if it was an organizational chart, but I
don't know if he's really looked at it.

That is indeed the problem. You can't give them too much at once, or
they suffer from information overload.

I'm fairly sure that, at some point, he's going to decide he wants his
music categorized, into R&B, country, soft rock, etc., and that should
be the perfect time to explain the hierarchy.

Could be; good luck.

What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so
obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really
like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new
folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would
only ever do so in one or two specific places.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
 

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so
| obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some?
|

I don't think it's at all obvious. The original
idea was to use a desk/paper/file cabinet
metaphor, but the metaphor simply doesn't
work. It's not self-evident. Only the names
are the same. There are far too many
differences. Just one example: When you
move a paper across your desk it moves,
but when you put it into a file cabinet it
doesn't magically copy.

Likewise with writing files. We can say that
a DOC is equivalent to a paper-printed
letter, but it's simply not true. They have
very little in common until you print the DOC.
20 years of typewriters and White-Out won't
be of any help at all in learning how to cut,
copy, paste or get rid of talking paperclip
cartoons that pop up while you're trying to
learn how to cut, copy, paste. It's a high
bar to become adept with the tool.

I think the office metaphors actually end
up being an obstacle. People need to learn
a profoundly different system.

Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)
 

On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders.


Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing
folders, and several folders in each of them?

Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an
actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is
so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd
really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to
make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or
at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places.

Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila
folders stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify

I don't think it was/is a good metaphor anyway. I _have_ used manila
folders, but I don't think I've ever put them inside each other! They
were a good metaphor when the hierarchy was only one level deep, i. e.
not really a hierarchy. But ...

hierarchically to begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of

.... I think that's the real problem. At least, have never been trained
to think hierarchically. I guess there are _some_ who genuinely can't,
and a lot more who have never really been trained to. (And no, I'm not
claiming this is something simple to do. As I have found.)
[]
I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9
students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't
do it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math
section. So I helped them move their notes into the right sections,
step by step, and two days later it was all a mess again.

Despite it being them who invented the metaphor, Microsoft are a bit to
blame he their folders, and the ones they encourage users to use, are
very sloppy (and even inconsistent).

Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc.

I'm very untidy in my house, but (IMO) tidy inside my computer.

Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders.

A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure

Finding your files is like "going down a mine".

It also makes it possible to give a justification
for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying"
a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram,
it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another
without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving
a file up and down within a single inverted tree.

The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the
question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for".
And to answer that, the first GUI people said it
"was the top surface of your desk". Which it really
isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part
of the "story".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor

"The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay
at Xerox PARC in 1970"

I think at least some desktops offered more convincing
representations. (There have been attempts to animate
everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from
a productivity perspective.)

I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use
an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way.
You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff
and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the
explanations now should be a bit milder and easier
to take.

IPL CMS,

Paul

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who
doesn't grasp the concept of folders within folders.

A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure

I'm sure I must have used the tree metaphor; as far as it goes, it's a
good one: branches can have other branches but also leaves, and leaves
can even grow out of the trunk.

I think it's just a mental block.


Finding your files is like "going down a mine".

It also makes it possible to give a justification
for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying"
a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram,
it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another
without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving
a file up and down within a single inverted tree.

But that only works if you intuitively grasp the concept in the first
place. Extra metaphors are just, after a point, extra sources of
confusion.

The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the
question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for".
And to answer that, the first GUI people said it
"was the top surface of your desk". Which it really
isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part
of the "story".

I never thought it was a good metaphor, and don't really think of my
"desktop" as a real desk top.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor

"The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay
at Xerox PARC in 1970"

An awful lot of windows concepts seem to be the subject of claims from
Xerox PARC in the '70s (-:.

I think at least some desktops offered more convincing
representations. (There have been attempts to animate
everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from
a productivity perspective.)

I remember one - I think it was Packard Bell - who presented a view of a
hallway, with rooms opening off it.

I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use
an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way.
You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff
and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the
explanations now should be a bit milder and easier
to take.
I never programmed that particular processor, but if the reason is what
I think it is, I don't think I'd have wondered why I might want to use a
swap instruction. Of course I don't know about the "191 and 192 stuff".

IPL CMS,
interrupt, program, load?

Paul
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once a mind is opened it is very hard to shut.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul

IPL CMS,
interrupt, program, load?

Initial Program Load perhaps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conver...Monitor_System

The first computer I worked on, was a mainframe that took
punched cards. And those had a tiny bit of JCL at the start,
and you'd slap some number of 7-8-9 (orange) and 6-7-8-9
(pink) cards to your deck (those are a kind of record marker).
I think when i was done with punched cards, I'd collected
around two boxes (4000 cards).

Hey, look! They have a picture of the pink card!!! Yikes.
It's missing the 6-7-8-9 holes in a single column though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H...rd_Punch-2.jpg

And no, the inhabitants of the room didn't look like this.
The keypunch room looked like a hippie convention. These
people are entirely too clean cut.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...nes_in_use.jpg
https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/e...4506VV4002.jpg

Back then, they had a program to allow high-school students
access to the university mainframe.

There were 25 key-punches, but at busy times, there
wasn't a seat left in the house.

Surprisingly, not a lot of students took up the offer.
A good thing I guess. You couldn't bring food in there,
so staying there meant a bit of "suffering" :-)

Paul

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
At this stage, Total Commander will "totally confuse" this guy. :-)

The concept of the filesystem hierarchy still hasn't sunk in. The
"light bulb" hasn't come on.

Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac,
and would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43...kEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self
explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized
paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone
has any.

I got my brother-in-law to try Directory Opus, and we turned on the
feature that

(He's not dim; I'm quite proud that he's managed to convert most of his
LP collection onto CDs, using mp3directcut to cut sides into tracks, and
so on. He's a retired printer - from hot metal days, but I think would
have used linotype machines, not just hand-layout.)

The guy I'm working with is similar, and I think he may have been beat
down growing up with people telling him he is dumb. As a result, he's
possibly over compensated in areas of life. I haven't heard from him in
a couple of days, so I'm thinking he's finally got a grasp on just the
things he wants to do.

hierarchy is so much easier to explain when your file manager has
"lines" like XP and older system have. I may end up installing only

(My friend has Vista, which I think still has the lines.)

In XP the lines are optional, in Vista they don't exist. But Classic
Explorer, part of Classic Shell, can show the lines, and I have mine set
that way.

the Classic Explorer part of Classic Shell, so he has the lines for his
eyes to follow. I've created a simple chart that visually shows the
hierarchy, but laid out as if it was an organizational chart, but I
don't know if he's really looked at it.

That is indeed the problem. You can't give them too much at once, or
they suffer from information overload.

What I tell everyone one, is when what I say starts going over their
head, it's time to quit.

I'm fairly sure that, at some point, he's going to decide he wants his
music categorized, into R&B, country, soft rock, etc., and that should
be the perfect time to explain the hierarchy.

Could be; good luck.

What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so
obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really
like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new
folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would
only ever do so in one or two specific places.

Humans, I think, are basically visual at the core. But if the visual
feed your brain gets doesn't make sense, even that is useless. The
charts display the same thing as the MS file managers, but just laid out
in a way many of us are used to seeing, a simple organizational chart.
Even here, some explanation may be necessary.

For some, the use of color may help. So, if you ad a 3rd party program
like Folder Colorizer, where, say, all folders containing bills are
green, that may make it easier. I haven't tested this as yet.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/2/18 7:50 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is so
obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd really
like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to make a new
folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or at best would
only ever do so in one or two specific places.

Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila folders
stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify hierarchically to
begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of incorrectly classified
lists I've seen, even in papers published in professional journals. For
that matter, many scientific problems hide classification/category
errors in their assumptions. Eg, nature vs nurture. "If you don't ask
the right question...."

I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9
students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't do
it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math section.
So I helped them move their notes into the right sections, step by step,
and two days later it was all a mess again.

Is it a glitch, or just the fact that we are all not alike, and our
brains work differently?

Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc.
Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually.

You can put me in the neatness-blind category! LOL

All my life, if I left things in a mess, I knew that X was "over there".
When I try to organize, in a short time I don't know where anything is.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/2/18 12:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Wolf K
writes:
On 2018-03-02 07:34, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[...]
What _is_ it that makes the hierarchical file/folder system, which is
so obvious to us, so difficult to grasp as a concept to some? I'd
really like to know. My friend, for example, just about knows how to
make a new folder - but I suspect would never think of doing so, or
at best would only ever do so in one or two specific places.

Good question. It may be that some people never used real manila
folders stored in file cabinets. Or they just can't classify

I don't think it was/is a good metaphor anyway. I _have_ used manila
folders, but I don't think I've ever put them inside each other! They
were a good metaphor when the hierarchy was only one level deep, i. e.
not really a hierarchy. But ...

One metaphor I used to use is the case of a Christmas present. You open
the box, and there's another box inside plus a couple of items. Open
that box, and still another box and some items. On and on.

hierarchically to begin with. You wouldn't believe the number of

... I think that's the real problem. At least, have never been trained
to think hierarchically. I guess there are _some_ who genuinely can't,
and a lot more who have never really been trained to. (And no, I'm not
claiming this is something simple to do. As I have found.)
[]
I think it's a glitch in the brain. Eg, I used to have my grade 9
students organise their 3-ring binders by subject. About 10% couldn't
do it even when looking at a page of Geography notes in the Math
section. So I helped them move their notes into the right sections,
step by step, and two days later it was all a mess again.

Despite it being them who invented the metaphor, Microsoft are a bit to
blame he their folders, and the ones they encourage users to use, are
very sloppy (and even inconsistent).

Then there are people who are neatness-blind, or tone-deaf. Etc.

I'm very untidy in my house, but (IMO) tidy inside my computer.

Neurologists will solve some of these puzzles eventually.

(-:



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/2/18 8:42 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders.


Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing
folders, and several folders in each of them?

Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an
actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy.

I used to use the "folder in a folder" metaphor too, but this will break
down when the student suddenly realizes you can't physically fit any
more folders inside the one folder.

Maybe better is this:

You need a bunch of folders with the tabs staggered across the top. One
level is a folder with the tab on the left end. The next level down is
a physical folder with the tab one step to the right. Next level down
are folders with the tabs one more step to the right. :-)


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/2/18 3:33 PM, Paul wrote:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders.

A tree structure might be just as effective a teaching tool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_structure

The articles just shows that what makes sense to one person or group
makes absolutely no sense to another person or group.

Take the graphic of the hierarchy that contains groups of windows. To
me, that display is useless, especially to new users. Took me awhile to
figure that one out.

Finding your files is like "going down a mine".

That extra bold line you can have in Directory Opus excellently makes
that point obvious., IMO.

My brother-in-law really liked that line when I got him trying out DO.
Made it so simple to understand where the files were being taken from
and moved to.

It also makes it possible to give a justification
for behaviors when "moving" a file versus "copying"
a file. If you have two inverted trees in your diagram,
it's pretty hard to get the file from one tree to another
without copying it. Whereas you can imagine moving
a file up and down within a single inverted tree.

The purpose of the desktop metaphor was to answer the
question "what is this big space on the CRT screen for".
And to answer that, the first GUI people said it
"was the top surface of your desk". Which it really
isn't. But you have to make this stuff up, as part
of the "story".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor

"The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay
at Xerox PARC in 1970"

I think at least some desktops offered more convincing
representations. (There have been attempts to animate
everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from
a productivity perspective.)

I'm sure if someone was teaching you how to use
an IBM mainframe, the lesson wouldn't have worked this way.
You would be going "what is this 191 and 192 stuff
and why do I want to SWAP A B ?". Thankfully the
explanations now should be a bit milder and easier
to take.

IPL CMS,

Paul



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/2/18 4:37 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Paul
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

snip

I think at least some desktops offered more convincing
representations. (There have been attempts to animate
everything, but such attempts are doomed to fail from
a productivity perspective.)

I remember one - I think it was Packard Bell - who presented a view of a
hallway, with rooms opening off it.

We don't want to forget MS's Bob! LOL

snip

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/4/2018 1:37 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/2/18 8:42 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2018 12:34:34 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders.


Have you tried asking him to visualize a filing cabinet containing
folders, and several folders in each of them?

Perhaps even better than visualizing it is demonstrating it in an
actual filing cabinet, if you have one handy.

I used to use the "folder in a folder" metaphor too, but this will break
down when the student suddenly realizes you can't physically fit any
more folders inside the one folder.

Maybe better is this:

You need a bunch of folders with the tabs staggered across the top.* One
level is a folder with the tab on the left end.* The next level down is
a physical folder with the tab one step to the right.* Next level down
are folders with the tabs one more step to the right.* :-)


How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large
empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes
are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes.

Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging.
--
==
Later...
Ron C
==

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and
they've been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL

I would too (-:

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who
doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac,
and would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self
explanatory as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized
paper. I'd appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone
has any.

Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in
conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level,
which you say is what you were trying to convey.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , Ron C
writes:
[]
How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large
empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes
are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes.

Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging.

But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the
one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/5/2018 5:22 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ron C
writes:
[]
How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large
empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes
are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes.

Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging.

But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the
one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway.
Label your rooms properly/logically and what goes in that room
should follow. You don't put your car in the bathroom .. etc.
Then too, my "logical" hierarchy may seem totally illogical to you.
[YMMV]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
==

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.

Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL

I would too (-:

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and
would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory
as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd
appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any.

Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in
conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level,
which you say is what you were trying to convey.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.

Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.
[]
Not a bad analogy. I might use it. Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away
from the idea of size altogether - but there's nothing in the real world
that does. Mandelbrot graphics, perhaps, but they're not a common
concept either.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I am entitled to my own opinion."
"Yes, but it's your constant assumption that everyone else is also that's so
annoying." - Vila & Avon

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J. P. ,

Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether -
but there's nothing in the real world that does.

Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested
cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of
sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even
size wise).

Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes):
when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a
"child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in
a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times.


But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave
the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch
exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the
folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go
down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some
(deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you
use it).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
J. P. ,

Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether -
but there's nothing in the real world that does.

Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested
cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of
sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even
size wise).

Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes):
when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a
"child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in
a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times.


But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave
the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch
exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the
folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go
down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some
(deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you
use it).

More good thoughts! And pouches within pouches is just as graspable.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I
have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J.P. ,

Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:?

More likely it got removed when I rewrote that sentence ... but forgot to
also remove the marker. :-(

Ah, now I remember. It was about needing to be carefull about your "no size
constraints" request, as most of the this-world storage media are in fact
really quite limited. :-p The cardboard boxes and a transport truck
analogy popped into my mind.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/6/18 1:54 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.

Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.

GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer,
and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this. But I'll just use
loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of
binders.


Regards,
Rudy Wieser



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL

I would too (-:

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and
would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory
as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd
appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any.

Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in
conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level,
which you say is what you were trying to convey.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.




--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Ken,

GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer,
and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this.

Pretty much the same here, though directed at kids wanting to write
programs. I've never actually made something like that to actually *look*
at though, mostly trying to get them to visualize it was enough.

But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal
with the bulk of binders.

I myself like the concept of binders: You identify the containing papers by
the name on the front of the binder, and (normally) can replace that name
without messing with the contents. It also allows you to easily replace a
sheet anywhere you like. The binder itself also represents the sector
linkage list as present in the FAT. When you lose it the sheets are still
there, but will be hard to find back and handle.

.... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

"I'm aging like fine wine: I'm getting fruitier and more complex"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Rudy,

On 3/8/18 12:52 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure.:-)

Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Ken,

Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?

Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to)
have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather
than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ...

But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the
functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the
advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives").
Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a
bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss
of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick
format).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Wolf,

Nice analogy. Mind if I steal it? :-)

.... Damn! I know I forgot something: To copyright it so noone can use it
in my lifetime +70 years (IIRC).

But go ahead ofcourse. Thank you for mentioning you find it good enough to
use. Always nice to hear. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/8/18 3:42 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Ken,

Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?

Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to)
have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather
than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ...

A cardboard box, trimmed in height to let the file folders stick out the
top. 3 file folders standing in the box, A, B, and C. Inside folder A,
more folders, say A1, A2, and A3. In folder A1 is A1a, A1b, A1c.

Inside folder A will be some paper stapled together to represent a
single file/document, but it is not inside folder A1. Or, 3 or 4
bunches of paper, each representing a file/document. And so on.

Does that make more sense?
But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the
functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the
advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives").
Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a
bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss
of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick
format).

Binders=boot record??? When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3
ring binders. That was making no sense. LOL

That's a bit more detailed than I usually go, unless it seems the
individual will easily grasp it at that point. But I also recommend the
user have their data on different partitions/drives. with drives being
the preferred route. But with 1TB drives, and laptops usually only
having 1 drive bay, another drive is usually not a viable solution for
laptop owners. They don't want to drag that crap around! LOL

Ken Blake and I disagree on the idea of partitioning of the same drive,
but you can only work with what you have and what the owner is willing
to do.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

Does that make more sense?

Yes, it does. I hope your story includes storage shelves though (but as
representation for what ?), as I would not want to see those stacked. :-)
(have seen them stacked in real life, and you don't want to need to search
in there. :-\ )

Binders=boot record???

In my explanation ? Nope, not really. The boot record is followed by a
File Allocation Table (FAT for short), which is used to indicate which
sectors (sheets) belong to which binder (file) (and ofcourse which sectors
are still free, but thats thats not part of our visualisation). While in
the computer the name of a file is present in the folder structure, it only
contains an index to the first-used sector (or cluster actually) of a file.
With it you need to look into the FAT to find the next one. (My apologies
this already known to you).

When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3 ring binders.

Yes, that where *exactly* the ones that I ment (well, I always imagine the
18-ring ones, as those kept my papers whole, even when I mistreated them
:-) )

But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.
[]
But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.

I think this is for a whole different level of user to the ones we're
discussing above as far as understanding the basic file/older concepts
is concerned, but I will still always keep OS-and-software on a
different partition (or drive) to my data, but nowadays not mostly for
size reasons, but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles
the OS partition to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one.
(There is still _some_ size aspect, in that I _image_ my OS-and-software
partition [and any hidden ones], so I can restore them in the event of
disaster [disc failure, ransomware, or some "update" or similar
rendering the system unbootable], but just _sync_ my data partition -
and keeping them separate makes the imaging process faster, so I'm more
likely to do it more often.)

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar. In the event of
anything other than ransomware (such as disc death), restoring the OS
alone from image will restore access to the data without having to
restore _that_.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

We shall never - never! - allow foreigners to run our economy. They might cure
it. (George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" [1977].)

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On 3/8/18 9:27 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Ah, a box in a box thing, now I get it.

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

Does that make more sense?

Make sense to me, but I think folder actually work better, because the
icons are... well... folders. LOL And the icons for a document may
look like a piece of paper

I don't go as deep as you i figure if they don't understand it by the
3rd level, they aren't going to get it at that point in time. And I
don't think it's a good idea to leave open the possibility of them
thinking you can do the "box in a box" thing an unlimited number of
levels deep. While I don't know if there's a limit on the number of
levels, there is the limit in the length of the path.

Yes, it does. I hope your story includes storage shelves though (but as
representation for what ?), as I would not want to see those stacked. :-)
(have seen them stacked in real life, and you don't want to need to search
in there. :-\ )

I use shelves when I explain Libraries. Too keep it short, the items
you see under Libraries is the same as in the old fashioned library card
files. The thumbnail you see is not real, it's just a pictured of the
item you want, which is stored in the bowels of the library (their hard
drive).

Binders=boot record???

In my explanation ? Nope, not really. The boot record is followed by a
File Allocation Table (FAT for short), which is used to indicate which
sectors (sheets) belong to which binder (file) (and ofcourse which sectors
are still free, but thats thats not part of our visualisation). While in
the computer the name of a file is present in the folder structure, it only
contains an index to the first-used sector (or cluster actually) of a file.
With it you need to look into the FAT to find the next one. (My apologies
this already known to you).

No apologies necessary, I did know this. But another reader may not.

Back in my 8-bit days, I'd spent hours typing a document for the local
fire department. Then, in exhaustion, deleted it. After some good
sleep, I learned how the system linked one sector to another. It too
about 2 hours with a sector editor, but I got it all back. It was not a
windows/DOS box, and I didn't know of any other way of doing it. It
sure beat retyping, though. LOL

When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3 ring binders.

Yes, that where *exactly* the ones that I ment (well, I always imagine the
18-ring ones, as those kept my papers whole, even when I mistreated them
:-) )

But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

Just to see if I could do it, I built my newest computer when 8.0 came
out. 2 drives, with the boot drive being SSD, the data drive is a
mechanical.

Reason 1: The SSD would give me faster boot times.

Reason 2: I always assume the worst, that malware will try to infect
the data. But, if you do things in a non-standard way, I.E. on a
separate drive, maybe a particular malware won't go looking for that and
infect/damage your data.

Reason 3: It's a lot quicker to reinstall the OS if you have already
eliminated having to deal with your data.

But, still do backups. I'm much better at doing backups on the Mac with
Time Machine than I do on any of my Windows systems. It's just so
damned much easier. If I knew of any or a competent Windows backup that
worked the way Time Machine does, I'd jump right on that.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.11.6
Firefox 53.0.2 (64 bit)
Thunderbird 52.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:00 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

But I also recommend the user have their data on different
partitions/drives. with drives being the preferred route.

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.



2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from
being the smallest one available.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount.
I use about 800GB, and I know many people who use substantially more.
Even my wife, who does next to nothing on her computer, uses about
70GB.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of
them? What is each one for, and how big is each one?



Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).


I have three physical drives: one 1GB SSD for Windows and installed
programs, one 2TB HD for data, one 2TB HD for data backup.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need. But I want substantial
extra space for growth. I don't want to have to buy more or larger
drives as my needs increase in the future, largely because I don't
want to have to argue with my wife about spending the money.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks of
backing up to an internal HD. That's why the second 2TB HD is not my
primary place for backup. I regularly backup to an external drive, and
use the internal one as another, more frequent, layer of backup. I
actually have five layers of backup.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.



You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.


Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.



Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

J. P.

You're going up; I want to go down.

I don't think so. I'm just building upon what they already know to larger
stuff. Working my way down from a building to a filing cabinet and its
contents won't go down that well (of you pardon me the pun here :-) ).

make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum

Personally I think you're making a mistake there (which will probably bite
you in the behind at some time): there *is* a limit to how many folders you
can make, and this limit is influenced by the contents of each folder.

Which, using my earlier suggested cardbord boxes analogy, is easy to explain
and understand: there are only so many boxes you can place in a van. Even
when you buy a bigger van - or even a transport truck (or cargo ship!) -
you're still going to get full at some point ...

But I think I know where your "ad infinitum" comes from. Thats, as I
mentioned, why I suggested the cardboard boxes-within-boxes-within-boxes
approach.

but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles the OS partition
to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one.

I'm not so worried about that scrambling (though it happened to me once,
using a cheap drive bay). I'm more worried about an easy restore process
being sabotaged because of the datafiles (on that same partition) that would
get lost by it (as mentioned, for the OS partition I always assume a full
partition backup/restore).

I _image_ my OS-and-software partition ... but just _sync_ my data
partition

Same here. The OS is a clusterf*uck of interconnected files, and being able
to restore them one-by-one makes little sense (could well make the problem
larger instead of smaller). The datafiles on the other hand ...

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe

I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference between a single, multi-partition
setup, or a multi-drive one here. I also would not be too sure about
anything accidentally killing the OS (on its own drive) not as easily have
damaged (some of) the data (on another drive).

And in the case of *targetted* fauling up I would even say that the data is
much more interresting than the OS: If the backups are affected too the OS
can always be reinstalled. The data ? Well ...

In other words, my OS-seperate-from-the-data approach is because of the
difference in backup and retrieval methods, nothing more.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

R.Wieser wrote:

Yesteryear, when drives could hold *much* less than today, that was my
preferred setup too. But nowerdays with its 2 Terra byte smallest size and
my *total* usage (OS and all of my data partitions) of not even 50 GByte it
would be silly to use two of them.

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

If all that extra space is bothering you, there are
120GB SSDs for $50.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16820242399

Then, you can use an external HDD (1TB) for backups.

Paul

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.

:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.

Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?

You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?

Why do you have multiple folders on your data drive/partition ? I mean,
you *can* store everything in the root, can't you. :-p

What is each one for, and how big is each one?

#1 - OS partition. 50 G allocated, 6 used
#2 - "working" partition. 50 G allocated, 7 used
#3 - "documentation" and "temp" partition. 50 G allocated, 12 used
#4 - program origionals (ZIP or DVD image formats) backups. 50 G allocated,
14 used.

There is still about 270 G not assigned on that drive. I do not even
expect to ever use it.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need.

Same here, even though I've got just a single drive.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks
of backing up to an internal HD.

Phew! I was already thinking of how I could rant about how ... unadvisable
that would be. :-)

By the way, the 2 TByte drive I spoke of earlier is actually an USB one
which I use for backups.

*edit*
Ackkk... I just realized that I forgot to tell something that *might* make
a difference: The 'puter I'm talking about in the above is my main, "work"
machine.

I do have another machine on which I also run games, but that one isn't that
big either: 230 GB used, including DVD copies (for backup of the
origionals). Not much of a gamer I'm afraid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:39:55 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.

:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.


With sources like Amazon.com, and many others, almost everything is
available in every town.


And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.

Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?

You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?


No, you said "data partitions." I was asking why you had more than one
data partition.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
Ken,

A cardboard box, trimmed [snip]

We definitily have a different way of looking at it. I myself imagine the
boxes closed, with a name ontop (living room, bedroom, attick). You have to
really open them to see what is inside (files and/or more folders. Maybe
even empty). It also allows you to stack them (into a container/transport
vehicle).

Reading your explanation I get the image of of a filing cabinet: Each drawer
represents a folder, and each file represents ... well, a file. :-)
Although I have used the analogy too, it does not scale all that well to
folders-within-folders. But I got away with that by designate a filing room
as the "parent" folder, and a halway with filing rooms as the grandparent
folder. Add floors to get a great-grandparent. Normally that is as far as
most people need to go to imagine another layer of folders onto of that.

You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.



You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.

True; there's a maximum path length for a start (though I think the old
subst command can circumvent that a little). But certainly for more
levels than a person struggling with the concepts is likely to go to.
And Microsoft themselves do rather love them ...
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\Microsoft\Assistance\Client\1.0\en-US
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Skype\Apps\login\js
C:\Documents and Settings\Toshiba\Local Settings\Application
Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Recovery\High\Last Active

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.



Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.

Yes; really only disk death, or certain kinds of catastrophic update
failure or similar software fault, will kill C: and not D:. Power
glitches/lightning _might_ just kill one drive, but it could equally be
either one. _Some_ viruses might only go for C:, but probably few these
days.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish
follow migrating caribou. - Paul Tomblin, cited by "The Real Bev", 2017-2-18.

Explaining the file system hierarchy.
 

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:25:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.



Yes, I just do a simple copy.