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

| Everything doesn't actually _do_ searches: what it actually does when
| you type in what you're looking for is filter. It has already _done_ the
| search, and found everything

I understood that. To my mind it's wasteful. If I
can find a file in less than a second I don't need a program
storing and updating a database to do the same thing.

Fairy nuff. We're all different.

| (-: [My C: partition (this is W7) has 40.1G used, and that's almost
| entirely Windows itself, installed software, and the software's own
| housekeeping (configuration files etc.); I never _save_ anything to C:.]

A lot of that is bloat junk. A new install is typically
7-9 GB. I make disk images for that reason. Win7
will grab a copy of any old thing it comes across and
stash it in winsxs. I haven't even tried to track down
all the wasteful bloat of Win7. But I've heard people
complain about 80+ GB. So I keep disk images in case
it gets too big, so I can just dump it and start over.

I agree. I just can't be bothered keeping on top of it to the extent you
do, though do do so to a lesser extent. (FWIW, my winsxs - based on its
properties in Windows Explorer, so that may be wrong from what people
have said about hard and soft links, junctions, and other arcanery - is
8.94 GB [50,630 files, 11,533 folders], 9.04 GB on disk. So rather more
than a quarter of the 40G.)
[]
And the biggest problem: You need to do something like add
EXIF tags so that the software knows the photo is of Fido Jones.
If a person knows how to use a file system they can do much
better organizing with a lot less work.

Agreed, EXIF tags are good, as they're part of the file, not some
external software.

I avoid the "librarian" problem by not having a dog. But I'm
also not so finicky about my system. I'm not trying for librarian
accuracy. I want to be able to find the photo later. That's all.

I didn't mean accuracy when I referred to the librarian problem - I
meant their dilemma; any classification system (such as the Dewey and
more recent ones, for books) suffers the problem of when you have an
item which it is reasonable to file under disparate sections.

So in your example I might have a folder named Personal with
a subfolder named Family. That would cover the dog and the

That's getting round the problem by just broadening the categories until
you make just one that includes both.

neighbors. I also don't take a lot of photos. And of the ones I

In which case the above is reasonable. I'm also not keen on having
folders with only one file in them.

do take, I go through them before storing them. I don't just
download the whole camera storage into a folder.

Me neither. Well, I _do_ tend to download the lot, as they're easier to
view on the PC than the camera, but I do then go through them.

| Playing devil's advocate here (I'm more like you), I could argue that
| that's still "using their computer". (I could also say that it's a
| matter of degree: _you_ [and I] are happy with the "conceptual model"
| the OS presents us with of our files and folders, rather than keeping
| track of where the individual data clusters are on the "drive".)
|

It is using their computer, of course, but they're not
using the tool itself. They're using a series of wrappers.

Again, why does it _matter_, except to purists like us?

The file system was created as an abstraction layer to
store and access data. To use a file organizer that shows
you a folder containing all JPGs on the system that have
"Fido Jones" in the EXIF data is a further abstraction. It's not
understanding the basic end-user functionaly of the computer.

To me, that example _is_ using an ability of the computer, that it's
better at than a human with a stack of photo prints. If the EXIF tags
have been done well (and that _does_ need a human), being able to at
will see all Fido photos (whether the Smiths are in them or not), and in
the next breath see all Smith photos (whether ...), is a _good_ use of
one of the abilities of a computer.

| When you ask these people where their tax records are they
| say, "I don't know but Word knows". Their photos of last
| Summer at the lake? Who knows?! "Photoshop knows where
| they are. That's all that matters.". Backup? Who knows.
| "Aconite handles that." Or, increasingly, it's
|
| I was going to say (playing DA again) why should it actually _matter_
[backup]
| but then you mentioned Aconite (which I presume is some sort
| of backup software); if that works with Word, Photoshop etcetera and
| actually does backup properly, then perhaps they really _don't_ need to
| know where their files really "are".
|
Aconite is popular with "tech support" people. someone
pays a tech support person, who in turns makes them
pay for an Aconite subscription and sets them up with a
gmail account. Aconite syncs to cloud storage. So if the
computer has problems, the tech support person can just
refresh it with Aconite. and since the person has been set
up with things like gmail, they didn't have any local files
to lose, anyway. Very convenient for tech support. But
the person with the computer is paying a lot in terms of
money and privacy for the luxury of not understanding how
to use their computer.

I'm with you. They're with the IT guy. It's a bit like paying someone
who knows how to fix your car _and likes doing so_. These people are
happy to pay the IT guy, because they aren't _interested_ in those
matters, and consider dealing with them a _chore_, which perhaps you
(and to a lesser extent I) don't.

It's similar with Adobe subscription. People are paying
through the nose for creative suite, which is now only
available by subscription. If you don't understand the file
system and don't make local copies of photos then you
won't know that your photos are *only*
online at Adobe's site. If you end your subscription you
lose your photos. That kind of scam is feasible precisely
because people don't understand their computers and
can't be bothered. Tech companies take advantage of that.

Scammers have always been with us and always will be.

There was a recent discussion about whether Microsoft was
eliminating local accounts in Win10. I don't know the upshot
of that but I expect that's on its way. They're training people

From what I've been reading local accounts are still there, but
semi-hidden (a small print, unemphasised option during Windows setup),
and you're probably right they'll disappear altogether soon.

to use an adware/spyware consumer services kiosk. And most
people prefer that because it's easy. Most young people
don't even understand the idea of owning their data. They've
grown up with the likes of Facebook.

And lack of privacy.

2
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.