OT Tablet

Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?

OldGuy wrote in :

Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?




You'll need a tablet that runs full blown windows. Windows RT is the
reduced version that only runs tablet apps. Stay away from RT. Look for
full Windows 8.0/8.1.


--

Pat

email: phartzATcoxDOTnet

OldGuy wrote:
Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?



From a hardware perspective, there are ARM processors,
and Intel x86 processors. Windows RT is for ARM processors.
The other flavor of Windows is for x86 processors. Office 2003,
from a bygone era, is an x86 executable, drawing pictures
on a desktop screen.

Microsoft made two Surface products in their initial
hardware release. One uses an ARM processor, the other
uses an x86 Intel processor. Each would be using a
different version of OS.

A tablet could use an ARM processor, in an attempt
to save power. It would run Windows RT. But Intel is
catching up, and it won't be long before viable tablet
devices have an Intel processor instead.

http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/...s/tablets.html

As another peculiarity for you (just to muddy the waters),
AMD is working on an x86 processor, with an ARM core on it
as well. But the ARM processor is used as a security processor,
so for the time being, the OS on one of these would still be x86.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6007/a...e-capabilities

So now the question becomes, if I run the desktop version of
Windows (the one with a desktop and Metro tiles) on my x86 tablet,
will it all work ? The Metro tiles make sense for a small screen.
Could you actually use Office 2003 on a 12.1" screen ? Would
that drive you nuts ? Do you remember the tiny Apple computers
with the petite CRT screen, where you had to scroll back and
forth to see your work ? To use the desktop mode of the
OS effectively, there needs to be enough controls to use it.
You'd want a keyboard for extended typing. Kinda suggests
a Surface Pro, where you have a keyboard that detaches and
the unit can also work as a tablet.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...20674&pid=15.1

The Microsoft Store (brick and mortar store) is now selling
a Dell Venue, which I understand is similar to a Surface. You could
check out what processor it uses.

*******

Now, what are the odds that Office 2003 is compatible with
any version of Windows 8 ? That might be an easier question
to answer.

Microsoft will tell you in no uncertain terms, that Office 2003
is not compatible. However, you have to look to your "Internet buddies"
to get the real answer. The answer is... weird.

http://windowssecrets.com/forums/sho...dows-8-Pro-x64

"There is no comprehensive fix at this time for the Windows Update
problem. It is conjectured that this may be a 'Certificates' issue
with Office 2003. That would necessitate a Hotfix from Microsoft
for software that passes out of active support next year."

Paul

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-10 9:36 PM, OldGuy wrote:
Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?

Surface RT is limited, but I don't know how much.

Surface Win8/8.1 is not. If Office 2003 runs on your Win7/8 desktop, it
will run on the tablet.


Well...kind of...technically no such thing as Surface 8.0/8.1
All Surface products run Windows 8x.
- RT is an edition of the Windows *8*x operating system; RT uses 32
bit ARM architecture
- Windows 8 and Windows 8 pro are editions of the Windows 8x operating
system using IA32 and X64 architecture

Surface Products a
- Surface RT and Surface 2 - ARM processors that only run pre-installed
software and MSFT Store apps. Additional desktop application software
cannot be installed

- Surface Pro and Surface 2 Pro - Intel x86 processor (capable of
running 32 and 64 bit versions of Windows). In addition to
pre-installed, MSFT Store apps...desktop software (including 3rd party)
can be installed provided it meets compatibility requirements.

Office 2003 has a sketchy history of 'running' on Win8x. Not designed
for it...can run, can be problematic regarding '03 features and a higher
propensity or failed Widows Update installations (program,
optional,etc.). Some conflicts also exist with Win8 .NET required
versions. And of note, security updates will be discontinued on April
8, 2014 (same end of life as XP).
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2777626


--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

Per OldGuy:
e.g. can I load Office 2003?

My understanding so far:

- Officially, MS does not support Office 2003
under 8.x

- Plenty of people have posted that they are using
Office 2003 under 8.x with no or minimal problems.

- There's something about "Libraries" (whatever *they*
are...) that seems to be the center of why MS
disowns 2003 under 8.x.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 3/11/2014 9:25 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-11 9:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per OldGuy:
e.g. can I load Office 2003?

My understanding so far:

- Officially, MS does not support Office 2003
under 8.x

- Plenty of people have posted that they are using
Office 2003 under 8.x with no or minimal problems.

- There's something about "Libraries" (whatever *they*
are...) that seems to be the center of why MS
disowns 2003 under 8.x.

"Libraries" are automatically generated lists of items such as pictures.
Technically, the library is a list of pointers to the items. It's an
attempt to make it easy for users to find stuff without having to
navigate through layers of subfolders, etc.

However, you can also create folders within libraries, or move or copy
folders into a library. This creates an inconsistency: an item deleted
at the root level still exists, since all you've deleted is the pointer.
An item deleted from a folder is deleted, since the pointer is to the
folder, not the items inside it. This has casued some grief. There have
been rather heated discussions about libraries.

AIUI, Office 2003's method of storing documents conflicts with
libraries, but since I use neither, I can't be sure. Nor can you. ;-)

I suspect that successful use of O-2003 entails avoidance of libraries.

HTH

Is this true of Office 2000 as well?

--
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro

On 3/11/2014 9:16 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-11 12:36 AM, Paul wrote:
[...]
A tablet could use an ARM processor, in an attempt
to save power. It would run Windows RT. But Intel is
catching up, and it won't be long before viable tablet
devices have an Intel processor instead.
[...]

Dell is already advertising Surface-type tablets with Win8.1.

Dell has been selling them since 2011 with Windows 7. And I got two
before Windows 8 was released and I got the $14.95 upgrade from
Microsoft for Windows 8. In fact, this is actually one of them.

Windows tablets have been around for a longtime. Somewhere around 2002,
a bunch of Dell ex-employees started Motion Computing and they only made
Windows tablets. There were others in the Windows tablet market, but
they also manufactured other computers too. In fact, while this one says
Dell on it, it's really a re-branded Motion Computing CL900.

--
Bill
Dell Latitude Slate Tablet 128GB SSD ('12 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Intel Atom Z670 1.5GHz - 2GB RAM - Windows 8 Pro

On 3/10/2014 9:36 PM, OldGuy wrote:
Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?


Check out the AUSU Transformer T100. I got for $400, runs full Windows
8.1 and includes Office. I have had it for 3 weeks and love it.

On 3/11/14 8:25 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-11 9:15 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per OldGuy:
e.g. can I load Office 2003?

My understanding so far:

- Officially, MS does not support Office 2003
under 8.x

- Plenty of people have posted that they are using
Office 2003 under 8.x with no or minimal problems.

- There's something about "Libraries" (whatever *they*
are...) that seems to be the center of why MS
disowns 2003 under 8.x.


Technically, the library is a list of pointers to the items. It's an
attempt to make it easy for users to find stuff without having to
navigate through layers of subfolders, etc.

However, you can also create folders within libraries, or move or copy
folders into a library. This creates an inconsistency: an item deleted
at the root level still exists, since all you've deleted is the pointer.
An item deleted from a folder is deleted, since the pointer is to the
folder, not the items inside it. This has casued some grief. There have
been rather heated discussions about libraries.

AIUI, Office 2003's method of storing documents conflicts with
libraries, but since I use neither, I can't be sure. Nor can you. ;-)

I suspect that successful use of O-2003 entails avoidance of libraries.

Hi, Wolf,

For my own clarification would you further explain what you mean when
you say
"'Libraries' are automatically generated lists of items such as
pictures." and also define "root level" as you've used it. Whenever I
read/hear "root" I think of the root directory, C:\, D:\, etc.

Thanks.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0

On 3/11/14 8:38 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2014-03-11 4:16 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

Hi, Wolf,

For my own clarification would you further explain what you mean when
you say
"'Libraries' are automatically generated lists of items such as
pictures." and also define "root level" as you've used it. Whenever I
read/hear "root" I think of the root directory, C:\, D:\, etc.

Thanks.

I've had to revise my understanding of libraries. They include only
folders, it seems. FWIW, on this Surface tablet, there are no
"libraries", but there are the auto-created folders Documents, Music,
etc. These do contain individual items, and unless told otherwise,
programs save data in them.
So, once again, "It's all rather confusing, really".

Hi, Wolf,

Thanks for the reply. Your comment that you're revising your
understanding shines a light on my questions. Reading the original
post, it just didn't sound like you had a full understanding of libraries.

There are a lot of articles out there where the author doesn't
understand them either. :-( The authors frequently confuse the
libraries of Documents, Pictures, etc. with the actual Documents,
Pictures, etc. folders found in your User folder. I found this to be
especially true when trying to find out how to relocate My Documents,
etc. in Win7.

All libraries really do is allow you to view the contents of multiple
folders scattered about your computer's hard drives in a single window.
What people didn't realize, because there appears to be no warning, is
when you selected an individual file in the library window, selected
delete, you didn't delete the file from the library view, you deleted
the original file.

The actual library does indeed just contain a list of pointers to the
real files. But, you cannot view those files as a list of filenames of
the original files in Windows. As soon as you click on the library
filename, it will open the regular library view. (Hope that made sense,
as I'm half asleep writing this.) You'll have to use a Linux Live CD to
do that. I don't think you can even use a different installation of 7
or 8 to show the list.

I was disappointed in libraries, as provided by MS. I expected to be
able to use that view and mimic the old 3X5 file card system you used to
find in the library. You can't, and apparently other users expected the
same thing.

But I found a way to do it, and discovered the same workaround can be
done in any version of Windows. So, I don't consider libraries to be
much of an improvement. Libraries certainly do not help with hard drive
organization.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0

Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-11 2:13 AM, "...winston‫" wrote:
Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-10 9:36 PM, OldGuy wrote:
Windows tablets.
Do the tablets run any Windows application or are they limited to what
MS store provides? e.g. can I load Office 2003?

Surface RT is limited, but I don't know how much.

Surface Win8/8.1 is not. If Office 2003 runs on your Win7/8 desktop, it
will run on the tablet.


Well...kind of...technically no such thing as Surface 8.0/8.1
All Surface products run Windows 8x.

Which is why I wrote Surface Win8/8.1.

To be accurate it would be more correct to say:
Surface RT and Surface 2 are limited....
'Surface Pro and Surface Pro 2 is not'

--
....winston
msft mvp consumer apps

On 3/12/14 12:23 PM, John wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:36:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/11/14 8:38 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2014-03-11 4:16 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

snipped


I was disappointed in libraries, as provided by MS. I expected to be
able to use that view and mimic the old 3X5 file card system you used to
find in the library. You can't, and apparently other users expected the
same thing.

But I found a way to do it, and discovered the same workaround can be
done in any version of Windows.

How?

Very carefully!!!!!!! LOL

OK, so much for the smarta$$ answer.

Of course, it depends on what you want to do with Libraries. As stated,
I wanted it to work like the old fashioned library card file.

Here's a synopsis of what I wanted to do.

But first, a favorite soapbox of mine. People don't take the time to
learn and understand the operating system and what it can really do for
you. Everything I'm about to write uses only the OS, and creates what
amounts to a very simple relational database.

You go to the local city library, and look up a subject in the card
file. Let's say you're looking for photos of railroad depots. Under
Depots, you find a bunch of cards listing books in all parts of the
library. Some may be in reference, some may be in a section on
architecture, some may be in the railroads section, whatever. But, each
section also contains books that are not depot related in any way.
These other books are not listed in the depot category of the card file.

Unfortunately, Windows Libraries reference the categories in the city
library, and you cannot display only the chosen books. You see all of
the books. Including those that do *not* have anything to do with depots.

I don't want to see all the books in the category, just those books with
or about depots. No can do as explained by MS and countless articles I
read before actually thinking outside the box. ----- REF: my sandbox
comment above.

Example: (This applies to Windows 7, I am assuming it will work the
same when using the desktop in Windows 8.x)

On my hard drive, I have 10 folders of photos from 10 different
railroads in the country. In each folder, some of the photos include a
depot. In Windows Libraries, I want a library called Depots that will
show all of the photos that include depots from all 10 folders. As it's
always explained, you cannot do this, when you open that library, and
list the folders you want included, you get all photos, not just photos
with depots.

What's a fella to do?...

Off topic, for a moment... I absolutely never recommend keeping your
data on the same drive/partition as the OS. Get that data somewhere
else, relocating the "real" files I mentioned to WolkK.

Somewhere on your hard drive(s), create a folder, give it whatever name
you wish. For this example, I'll call it "Libraries". In this folder,
create a subfolder called "Depots".

In Windows Explorer, under Libraries, create a custom library called
"Depots".

You can, of course, create pretty much any folder structure that fits
your needs.

Open the first of the 10 folders of railroad photos. Set the view to
thumbnails of a size where you can tell what the contents of the photo
is. Also set the view so all shortcuts are grouped together. Scroll
through the photos in that folder, and CTRL-Click each one that has a
depot as part of the photo. When finished, right-click on the photos
and "Create Shortcut". You will now have a shortcut for each photo
listed in in the shortcut section of the window's view. Move, by
whatever method you prefer, I use two windows, *all* of the shortcuts
you created to the subfolder "Depots" you created earlier. You do *not*
need the shortcuts in the original folder, unless you know you will
reuse that shortcut elsewhere. For those, copy the shortcut.

Repeat for the remaining 9 folders of railroad photos.

Open the Depots Library. Right-click the Depots Library in the
Navigation Pane, and select Properties. Select "Include a folder", then
locate the "Depots" subfolder you created for the shortcuts. Your
Depots Library will now display *only* the photos of depots that are in
the original 10 folders of railroads.

Here is something I have not tested... As I warned WolfK, if you delete
a file while in Library view, the original file is deleted from the
"real" files. When using shortcuts in this way, I think if you delete
the file in the library view, you will only delete the shortcut, since
the shortcut is the original file in the library. But I truly don't
know. I need to get around to testing this, just haven't gotten there yet.

How's that? Is it useful to you?

As a follow-up... Remember WolfK's comment about the library simply
being a list of pointers? He's correct, and those files are located
with the operating system files. Depending on whether you back up the
OS and how you backup software does it's job, it's possible to lose all
these custom libraries should you reinstall the OS. And, as I think I
mentioned, those files are hidden, and can't be displayed in Windows.
At least, I've not discovered a way.

There is a utility, I don't remember the name, that will backup those
library files for you. I do not know how well it works, as I've not
used it yet. But I certainly suggest you check it out. :-)


I've never found a use for them and I've never yet been narked off
enough with them hanging around to bother getting rid of them. If
"libraries" can actually be useful, I'd like to know how, please.
Thanks.
J.

So, I don't consider libraries to be
much of an improvement. Libraries certainly do not help with hard drive
organization.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 3/13/14 6:08 AM, Wolf K wrote:
On 2014-03-11 11:36 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 3/11/14 8:38 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2014-03-11 4:16 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

Hi, Wolf,

For my own clarification would you further explain what you mean when
you say
"'Libraries' are automatically generated lists of items such as
pictures." and also define "root level" as you've used it. Whenever I
read/hear "root" I think of the root directory, C:\, D:\, etc.

Thanks.

I've had to revise my understanding of libraries. They include only
folders, it seems. FWIW, on this Surface tablet, there are no
"libraries", but there are the auto-created folders Documents, Music,
etc. These do contain individual items, and unless told otherwise,
programs save data in them.
So, once again, "It's all rather confusing, really".

Hi, Wolf,

Thanks for the reply. Your comment that you're revising your
understanding shines a light on my questions. Reading the original
post, it just didn't sound like you had a full understanding of libraries. [...]

Addendum:
On this desktop, I had set Hide Libraries. When I unhid Libraries and
looked inside them, there were a bunch of folders with program names.
Looks like some programs create folders in Libraries. Weird.

I noticed this too, when writing my reply to John about making libraries
worth something.

Oddly enough, this may have happened only in the Win8 install, I never
noticed it in Wind7, and I've far more software installed there.

OK... I just went and did some checking. I've got Softmaker Free
Office installed in Win 7 and Win 8. In Win 7, there are no Softmaker
files in the libraries, but there is in Win 8. I'm going to have to
remember to try and see what's going on here.

Maybe those folders created by a software install is why Office 2003
supposedly will not run under Win 8. I think I read that somewhere.

I'll check whether the libraries are hidden on the Surface.

HTH



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 3/13/14 10:03 PM, John wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:23:26 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/12/14 12:23 PM, John wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:36:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/11/14 8:38 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2014-03-11 4:16 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

snipped

more snipping

In a word, and putting it as succinctly as I can: no. Otherwise known
as "****ing Hell, what a palaver!".

It does depend on what you want to do with the library.

Okay, I see your technique. You are trying to use MS Library
technology as a sort of symbolic link, alias or metaphor for the
original file and not allow any destruction of the link/alias/metaphor
to destroy the original.

Actually... No. Keep reading for further explanation. :-)

[Isn't that how MacOS X "aliasing" works?]

Possibly, if you get into the Unix style command lines, which I don't
do. In the OS, and the usual user level, and alias is the same as a
Windows shortcut, AFAIK.

As
an approach it's very clever, and I am in considerable awe of your
convoluted thought processes.

Convoluted or not, I know of no one else that has been able to do what I
want to do, using Windows Libraries.

I don't know if it's what MS intended Library tech for but it fits
*my* idea of it being essentially (as you've described it) an
innocuous card file system that operates like hyperlinking in that the
same file cam be linked to from multiple libraries and (?) the same
library link can point to multiple files.

The first half of your statement is correct, but I don't understand the
second half, but I'm thinking no.

I can give you a practical/actual example of what I'm doing if you like.
At least I will do once the hard drive is better organized than it is now.

But MS-Library technology
does not operate that way so you have cleverly circumvented their
idiotic system's restrictions and dangers to create something useful.
It's clever, it's interesting and it's not the way *I* would have
done it (I don't think it is, but I am unsure as I've never even tried
to use the Library systems) but it does seem like an awful lot of work
if you are "Librarying" images of Saturn, images from Cassini, images
from space probes, images of Greek Gods, text files with "Saturn" in
the title or contents and several thousand other variations.

"Work" it may be, but I have something functional that gives me what I
want to do. If you have any other suggestions... :-)

The sort of innocuous hyperlinked cardfile system I thought Library
tech was supposed to be would do all the indexing for us automatically
when a file was created and use the Library metadata to track it from
creation to archiving. I'm not sure even your clever workaround can do
that without a lot of manual intervention.

But only if the metadata (Gawd, I hate that word!) includes the
information needed to give the desired results.

I'm impressed and thank you for explaining but I suspect I am not
entirely convinced. I'll need to think about your methods a lot before
I am sure they would work for me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I simply had a need,
thought libraries would work, they didn't as designed, but I found a way
to do it. Then realized the same basic process has been there, in
Windows and Macs too, all along.



As a follow-up... Remember WolfK's comment about the library simply
being a list of pointers? He's correct, and those files are located

They don't *work* like a set of pointers. They *work* as though they
are the actual files themselves, just indexed differently. But they
only work that way sometimes.

AFAIK, when you click the file in a library window, you open the actual
file. So to this brain, the file displayed in the library window is
just a "pointer" or shortcut to the actual file. I don't know of a
situation where anything else happens when the entry is clicked on.
Unless you are referring to file management commands, such as copy,
move, etc. and things get a bit strange there, but I've not worked with
that aspect at all.

There have been discussions in the alt...windows7 newsgroup about
Library technology. Much of the stuff said therein was entirely
nonsense but a lot of it was very useful.
It could be worth having a look if you can find an archive.

I follow that newsgroup, probably read it hoping to find an answer
before I stumbled on mine.

with the operating system files. Depending on whether you back up the
OS and how you backup software does it's job, it's possible to lose all
these custom libraries should you reinstall the OS. And, as I think I
mentioned, those files are hidden, and can't be displayed in Windows.
At least, I've not discovered a way.

See above comment. There are ways and they were discussed sometime
late last year or earlier this year. Sorry, but I didn't keep copies.
Maybe some others did?

I used to keep copies of things that interested me, but now I'm buried
in so many "copies" they are useless to me.



There is a utility, I don't remember the name, that will backup those
library files for you. I do not know how well it works, as I've not
used it yet. But I certainly suggest you check it out. :-)

Surely any backup tool that essentially clones the disc will back
them up for us?

It will. But let me ask, are you going to clone/image your hard disk
with every single change, or a few changes, in the contents of your
libraries?


Anyway, thank you very much for the interesting ideas. It's been an
education.

You're welcome. You're also the first person to ever ask what I'd done,
so thank you for that.
J.
snip


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 3/14/14 4:39 PM, John wrote:
On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:49:26 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/13/14 10:03 PM, John wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2014 16:23:26 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/12/14 12:23 PM, John wrote:
On Tue, 11 Mar 2014 21:36:57 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 3/11/14 8:38 PM, Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:
On 2014-03-11 4:16 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

snipped

more snipping

still more snipping

Convoluted or not, I know of no one else that has been able to do what I
want to do, using Windows Libraries.

No. That's probably true. No we have to ask ourselves, would anyone
want to?

That depends on the individual. Obviously, I'm going to, otherwise I
wouldn't have bothered to figure it out. G

snip

I can give you a practical/actual example of what I'm doing if you like.
At least I will do once the hard drive is better organized than it is now.

Aha, a comedian. Hard drives are *never* "better organised than it is
now". I think it's a law of thermodynamics. Something to do with
entropy and the fact that "C:\Photos\Misc" inevitably ends up with
more in it than every other folder.

"Misc" folders only exist because the user doesn't finds it tough to
categorize the data. While some is inevitably unable to be categorized,
a lot is simply not wishing to take the time.

For the subject matter at hand, it will be better organized, out of
almost sheer necessity.



But MS-Library technology
does not operate that way so you have cleverly circumvented their
idiotic system's restrictions and dangers to create something useful.
It's clever, it's interesting and it's not the way *I* would have
done it (I don't think it is, but I am unsure as I've never even tried
to use the Library systems) but it does seem like an awful lot of work
if you are "Librarying" images of Saturn, images from Cassini, images
from space probes, images of Greek Gods, text files with "Saturn" in
the title or contents and several thousand other variations.

"Work" it may be, but I have something functional that gives me what I
want to do. If you have any other suggestions... :-)

Sorry, no. I like the way you do it. It's interesting. Had I
something "better" [for my personal value of "better"] I would have
mentioned it.
My hard drives are a mess. I just remember where I put everything so
the computers don't have to. Saves effort.

After awhile, I forget where I put things!



The sort of innocuous hyperlinked cardfile system I thought Library
tech was supposed to be would do all the indexing for us automatically
when a file was created and use the Library metadata to track it from
creation to archiving. I'm not sure even your clever workaround can do
that without a lot of manual intervention.

But only if the metadata (Gawd, I hate that word!) includes the
information needed to give the desired results.

Truth. And I *love* "metadata" as a word. I also love the idea of
"metalaw".
I suppose one needs to *put* the necessary metadata into the file. Or
have an OS that's intelligent enough to figure it out.

In the scenario of photographs, I doubt there will ever be software that
could automatically add the correct data an individual is interested in.

snip

There is a utility, I don't remember the name, that will backup those
library files for you. I do not know how well it works, as I've not
used it yet. But I certainly suggest you check it out. :-)

Surely any backup tool that essentially clones the disc will back
them up for us?

It will. But let me ask, are you going to clone/image your hard disk
with every single change, or a few changes, in the contents of your
libraries?

It's a method. It would work. It would take some huge amount of
storage but that's dirt cheap [as I always knew it would be]. That
it's damned inefficient isn't really a point against the method; many,
many things are damned inefficient. The only important questions are
whether it works 100% of the time or close enough, whether it can help
users find stuff and whether it's cheap and fast enough to hide in the
background.

But, eventually, you still run out of space on whatever backup medium
you are using. Then what?

Do you want to waste the storage space for an image backup for just a
couple of MB of data changes to libraries on a daily basis? I think I
would get the smallest HD I could find, even a couple old IDE drives,
put them in enclosures, and incrementally back up just the library
files. (Since those files are the subject of this discussion.)

One practical issue with using system image files only is, what if you
have to go back 4 or 5 image files to correct a problem that cropped up?
Now, your library data is also 4 or 5 versions old. Can you remember
everything you changed in those libraries over the time frame covered by
those images?

Incremental backups are only done because legacy backup systems were
small and cramped and slow and expensive. If we could do full dumps of
the entire system state every processor cycle, fully indexed of
course, and store them forever we probably would.
And therein lies the index to the indices to the... again.

Then again, you are still paying for the hardware. :-) I don't know
about you, but if I can spend $20 instead of $100 to get the exact same
results, I'll spend the $20.

snip

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.3.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"