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.