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.