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!"