If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Explaining the file system hierarchy.
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!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|