Universal Folder Access?

"Mayayana" on Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:23:48
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following:
"pyotr filipivich" wrote

| A couple batchfiles got rebuilt - as in "why try to change all the
| code in this batchfile, when the only difference is the final command?
| cut forty plus lines and replace with
| Call _1load.bat
| SHUTDOWN /s /t 5 /c "Shutdown in five, four, three - run for your
| life!"
|

You sure do seem to have fun.

Might as well. Back in college, I wanted to make a stub procedure
return "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that." (Yep, the prof's name was
Dave.)

It being my own machine, I can do "stupid" stuff that wouldn't be
acceptable in a "professional" environment.


--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?

In message , Mayayana
writes:
"Java Jive" wrote

|Every piece of
| software that I actually use stores it's data on the data drive. This
| means I can back up the system drive using disk imaging software - I
| use Ghost because I like being able to use Ghost Explorer to extract
| just a few files to restore from a backup, but many seem to like others

(I believe Macrium can access the images _it_ makes in a similar way.)

| such as Clonezilla or Macrium - and then if something happens to f*k
| the system disk, I can restore that partition without losing any data in
| the data partition.

I do something similar, using BootIt. But I only
keep a couple of fresh installs as disk images, with
software already installed, and then back up app

I too image my system partition (and whatever hidden partitions it
wants) with software installed; the avoidance of the hassle of
reinstalling every piece of software ever - _and_ then tweaking it (and
the OS) to how I like (including remembering how to _do_ such tweaks) -
being one of the main reasons I do images. (The others being to protect
against something breaking the system, hard disc failure, and
ransomware.)
data and a few other things periodically. For that,
app data doesn't need to be on another partition,
which carries its own risks.

(What are those?)
[]
Or? I'll be put in the town stocks and have
rotten fruit thrown at me?
Sometimes one is reminded that living
in a relative democracy, where one is free
to hold an opinion, is actually a profound
luxury.

Indeed. Though a Mayayana rant - though I agree with a lot of it - does
give him some ammunition (-:

This is why I posted the reminder to Bill,
below, to take advice with a grain of salt and
decide for himself. He's repeatedly stressed that
he's on a computer by himself, in his own house,
and that convenience is paramount. But you
don't hear that.

Indeed.
[snip]
You might take the same approach with a
basement workshop or even your kitchen: All
tools must stay locked. All saws must have
blade guards. All stove burners must be protected
by a combination lock. Only approved people
may access the tools or the pans. Those are
good ideas.... if you have young kids. But you're
applying these rules with no context. If your
wife needs to remember a combination to cook
her breakfast then you'll need extra money for
couples' therapy. Yet it won't help protect her
from injury. And if you need to enter a combination
every time you make a cut on your table saw then
you might just get impatient and cut off a finger.

All good analogies, but moderate a bit (-: - you're preaching to the
converted in my case, and will never convince your "opponent" (-:
[LOTS deleted]
Sorry, the password cannot contain punctuation.

*USER:*


Really****edOff50DamnBoiledCabbagesShovedUpYourAs sIfYouDontGiveMeAccessN
ow

*WINDOWS:*

Sorry, that password is already in use


If we're doing password jokes:

computer: please enter a password.

Husband, grinning at wife, types: P E N I S.

computer: too short.

(Wife walks off, chuckling.)


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

Just as many people feel Christmas hasn't begun until they've heard the carols
at King's, or that the election campaign hasn't begun until some politician
lambasts the BBC ... - Eddie Mair, Radio Times 2013/11/16-22

In message , Java Jive
writes:
[]
We've been through all this before. You always go into these anti-IT
professional rants when someone takes you to task for giving bad

His rants may make it easy (or easier) to mock him, but his point is not
always wrong - especially for EVERYBODY.

advice. You were wrong then and are still wrong now.

Not for all users in all situations. Possibly for all YOUR customers.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Capital flows toward lower costs like a river to lowest ground.
"MJ", 2015-12-05

"Java Jive" wrote

| You appliance of the analogy of the front door is mistaken. The front
| door is not equivalent to the firewall, because the network carries
| through to the PC - as do floppies, CDs, DVDs, and USB sticks coming
| in by foot-ware -

Fair enough. I'm using the front door analogy
specifically to mean the network connection.
In other words, for a home computer, the street
outside is on the Internet. For a work computer,
the street outside is on the intranet.

The front door is the access point. The firewall
is security around that access point on a home
system.

Capiche?

Very simple. They're two very different setups.
If you're on a SOHo machine, connected to the
Internet, allowing script in the browser and call
from outside for things like file sharing and remote
desktop than you're going to need a lot more than
NTFS to have reasonable security.


I didn't think this was really such a difficult
analogy, but I see it's subject to misinterpretation.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| His rants may make it easy (or easier) to mock him, but his point is not
| always wrong - especially for EVERYBODY.
|

I like to think of it as an in-depth, well rounded
presentation designed to be as understandable as
possible by whatever people in the future happen
across this thread.

I always write with that in mind. It's a discussion
with one person about one thing, but it's public.

And despite the length of my last "rant", Java
Jive still misinterpreted get my point. Which isn't
necessarily a problem. It gives me an opportunity
to put it in a different way that others might
find useful.

But communicating can certainly be a tricky thing.
And peoples' minds work differently. I'm impressed
when I go to great lengths to clearly say something,
and then see someone else do it better in 2 sentences.
And that happens a lot.

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

| His rants may make it easy (or easier) to mock him, but his point is not
| always wrong - especially for EVERYBODY.
|

I like to think of it as an in-depth, well rounded
presentation designed to be as understandable as
possible by whatever people in the future happen
across this thread.

If it gets _too_ long, though, it can be counterproductive - people can
think "methinks the lady doth protest too much", and they actually start
to skip large parts.

I always write with that in mind. It's a discussion
with one person about one thing, but it's public.

And despite the length of my last "rant", Java
Jive still misinterpreted get my point. Which isn't
necessarily a problem. It gives me an opportunity
to put it in a different way that others might
find useful.

Probably worth giving it a rest, at least for a while: despite what both
of you say, I think you both have some points, and I also think you both
agree with that, though don't want to admit it. We're all on different
parts of the various axes - convenience/security being one of them.

But communicating can certainly be a tricky thing.
And peoples' minds work differently. I'm impressed
when I go to great lengths to clearly say something,
and then see someone else do it better in 2 sentences.
And that happens a lot.


I know what you mean, and am also guilty of it - in my case usually
wanting to cover all bases. But such an attempt is often pointless, as
the reader glazes over. (I find this in particular when emailing - or,
more frequently and infuriatingly, webforming - corporations; if I raise
several points, then only address one, usually the first.)



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

Everything will be all right in the end. And if everything isn't all right,
then it isn't the end. - The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2011)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I too image my system partition (and whatever hidden partitions it
| wants) with software installed; the avoidance of the hassle of
| reinstalling every piece of software ever - _and_ then tweaking it (and
| the OS) to how I like (including remembering how to _do_ such tweaks) -
| being one of the main reasons I do images. (The others being to protect
| against something breaking the system, hard disc failure, and
| ransomware.)

And to avoid having to install drivers again.
Especially with newer systems that get bloated.
I like to image that moment when it's all ready
to go -- software, drivers, config -- so that it
can just be popped back in later. Then I keep
all data on at least one non-C partition, whether
there's a copy on C or not.

Of course, that gets into another potential
hothead issue: data partitions. Opinions about
those can be surprisingly intense.

| data and a few other things periodically. For that,
| app data doesn't need to be on another partition,
| which carries its own risks.
|
| (What are those?)

What are the risks of app data on another
partition? Java Jive was talking about it in
a corporate workstation scenario where he
might go through and pop in a fresh Windows
copy without disturbing app data. But for
the average person I don't see the sense.
What if you lose D drive? And where do you
draw the line? You'll need to get all software to
use D:\AppData if it's going to be worth doing
at all. All users app data will also need to be
there. That gets sticky. Software is supposed
to ask the system the path to App Data and
not hardcode or guess, but not all of it behaves
as it should.

Like putting programs on D, it creates a
new complication of the OS being split between
partitions. Because app data functions as
part of the OS. Firefox app data has my
bookmarks. PSP all users app data has
PSP plugins. PSP personal app data has
my personal PSP settings. So I back all of
that up but I don't like to separate it. And
unless Java Jive makes me, I probably won't.

| Indeed. Though a Mayayana rant - though I agree with a lot of it - does
| give him some ammunition (-:

Interesting point. I guess it's just as well I
didn't go to law school.

| All good analogies, but moderate a bit (-: - you're preaching to the
| converted in my case, and will never convince your "opponent" (-:

I'm not so much concerned with that. Debates rage
and people get entrenched. But the discussion can
often air out issues. A lot of the things I take on are
because the party line is too well represented. So I'm
just trying to make sure that people who have heard
the party line a lot can also have a chance to hear
other views, and so that they can remember that 3
people saying the same thing doesn't make it a fact.

And probably as often as not those 3 people are shills
for some tech company... like when they claim Windows
Last is a security disaster while Windows Next [so often
referred to as "the latest and greatest" by the lapdog
media] is the best thing since sliced bread and the only
way to safely go online.
For us that's marketing but for people not familiar
with tech it might seem like facts. Then they'll end up
wasting their money trying to follow the experts.

I do the same thing in other settings. Recently I
was in the supermarket and saw a young couple
looking at the peaches. I happened to know that
this particular batch was extremely good. And you
can't be too careful. The stores will often put out
peaches that have been in cold storage too long
and never ripen, just turning to dry mush. So I
told them all that, enthusiasticly delighted that I
could be of help... They backed away slowly.

But the next person might make use of that info.

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

| I too image my system partition (and whatever hidden partitions it
| wants) with software installed; the avoidance of the hassle of
| reinstalling every piece of software ever - _and_ then tweaking it (and
| the OS) to how I like (including remembering how to _do_ such tweaks) -
| being one of the main reasons I do images. (The others being to protect
| against something breaking the system, hard disc failure, and
| ransomware.)

And to avoid having to install drivers again.

Oops, yes, forgot that important point.

Especially with newer systems that get bloated.
I like to image that moment when it's all ready
to go -- software, drivers, config -- so that it
can just be popped back in later. Then I keep

Exactly.

all data on at least one non-C partition, whether
there's a copy on C or not.

I'm not quite as organised, or knowledgeable about what's happening, as
you, but I certainly have all my downloads, audio, video, images
(pictures I mean), and genealogy stuff on D:. Some software - in
particular Firefox and Chrome - I think keep stuff on C:.

Of course, that gets into another potential
hothead issue: data partitions. Opinions about
those can be surprisingly intense.

So I've noticed (-:. [I think the balance, at least on the XP and 7
newsgroups, is with us though, at the moment.]

| data and a few other things periodically. For that,
| app data doesn't need to be on another partition,
| which carries its own risks.
|
| (What are those?)

What are the risks of app data on another
partition? Java Jive was talking about it in
a corporate workstation scenario where he
might go through and pop in a fresh Windows
copy without disturbing app data. But for
the average person I don't see the sense.

For me, it means C: is kept smaller and thus easier to image.

What if you lose D drive? And where do you

I do back up D:, just by a different method (SyncToy - so basically just
a copy - rather than a Macrium image).

draw the line? You'll need to get all software to
use D:\AppData if it's going to be worth doing
at all. All users app data will also need to be
there. That gets sticky. Software is supposed

I have something like "Program Data" on C:, which thus gets imaged with
C:; I don't know what gets put there - settings? (If so, I want those
imaged anyway - the "restore and go" idea we both like.) Any data I
explicitly save from any software - documents, pictures/sounds/videos,
genealogy database - is on D.

to ask the system the path to App Data and
not hardcode or guess, but not all of it behaves
as it should.

Very little seems to be set up to, at least easily, change the default
storage location )-:.

Like putting programs on D, it creates a

Agreed: AFAIAC, most prog.s become part of the OS, in effect. (At one
point I could see the advantage of OS on C, progs on another, and data
on a third, and admired people disciplined enough to do that; but now,
since I consider prog.s - and their configuration - to be part of the
"system" I want to be able to restore after any disaster, I'd see that
as an unnecessary extra complication.)

new complication of the OS being split between
partitions. Because app data functions as
part of the OS. Firefox app data has my
bookmarks. PSP all users app data has
PSP plugins. PSP personal app data has
my personal PSP settings. So I back all of
that up but I don't like to separate it. And
unless Java Jive makes me, I probably won't.

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

Odds are, the phrase "It's none of my business" will be followed by "but".

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

I too image my system partition (and whatever hidden partitions it
wants) with software installed; the avoidance of the hassle of
reinstalling every piece of software ever - _and_ then tweaking it (and
the OS) to how I like (including remembering how to _do_ such tweaks) -
being one of the main reasons I do images. (The others being to protect
against something breaking the system, hard disc failure, and
ransomware.)

And to avoid having to install drivers again.

Oops, yes, forgot that important point.

Especially with newer systems that get bloated.
I like to image that moment when it's all ready
to go -- software, drivers, config -- so that it
can just be popped back in later. Then I keep

Exactly.

all data on at least one non-C partition, whether
there's a copy on C or not.

I'm not quite as organised, or knowledgeable about what's happening, as
you, but I certainly have all my downloads, audio, video, images
(pictures I mean), and genealogy stuff on D:. Some software - in
particular Firefox and Chrome - I think keep stuff on C:.

Of course, that gets into another potential
hothead issue: data partitions. Opinions about
those can be surprisingly intense.

So I've noticed (-:. [I think the balance, at least on the XP and 7
newsgroups, is with us though, at the moment.]

data and a few other things periodically. For that,
app data doesn't need to be on another partition,
which carries its own risks.

(What are those?)

What are the risks of app data on another
partition? Java Jive was talking about it in
a corporate workstation scenario where he
might go through and pop in a fresh Windows
copy without disturbing app data. But for
the average person I don't see the sense.

For me, it means C: is kept smaller and thus easier to image.

What if you lose D drive? And where do you

I do back up D:, just by a different method (SyncToy - so basically just
a copy - rather than a Macrium image).

draw the line? You'll need to get all software to
use D:\AppData if it's going to be worth doing
at all. All users app data will also need to be
there. That gets sticky. Software is supposed

I have something like "Program Data" on C:, which thus gets imaged with
C:; I don't know what gets put there - settings? (If so, I want those
imaged anyway - the "restore and go" idea we both like.) Any data I
explicitly save from any software - documents, pictures/sounds/videos,
genealogy database - is on D.

to ask the system the path to App Data and
not hardcode or guess, but not all of it behaves
as it should.

Very little seems to be set up to, at least easily, change the default
storage location )-:.

Like putting programs on D, it creates a

Agreed: AFAIAC, most prog.s become part of the OS, in effect. (At one
point I could see the advantage of OS on C, progs on another, and data
on a third, and admired people disciplined enough to do that; but now,
since I consider prog.s - and their configuration - to be part of the
"system" I want to be able to restore after any disaster, I'd see that
as an unnecessary extra complication.)

new complication of the OS being split between
partitions. Because app data functions as
part of the OS. Firefox app data has my
bookmarks. PSP all users app data has
PSP plugins. PSP personal app data has
my personal PSP settings. So I back all of
that up but I don't like to separate it. And
unless Java Jive makes me, I probably won't.

Same here. Anything to do with the programs and their configuration is on
my C: partition, and that's the partition I routinely image (using ATI),
and, when necessary restore, to get back everything in perfect shape. (I
say when necessary, because I'm sometimes trying out software or some system
tweaks, so I definitely need the backup policy of using partition imaging
(or very rarely, cloning). My working data type stuff is stored on other
partitions, along with music and video files, etc.

One disadvantage of this approach is that since it's ALL together, it takes
longer to image and restore, but at least anything program or system related
is together, in one piece. And with SATA drives, it doesn't take very long
to backup or restore. And that's for about 50 GB of programs (and their
configuration files) plus some other software that I've kept on C:
throughout all the years, whether it's installed or not. I don't know if 50
GB is a typical size for most folks or not (again, that excludes things like
music and video files and my desk work, all of which are stored on other
partitions).

On 27/08/2018 22:55, Mayayana wrote:

I didn't think this was really such a difficult
analogy, but I see it's subject to misinterpretation.

You're the one misinterpreting it.

"Java Jive" wrote
| On 27/08/2018 22:55, Mayayana wrote:
|
| I didn't think this was really such a difficult
| analogy, but I see it's subject to misinterpretation.
|
| You're the one misinterpreting it.

I'm misinterpreting my own statements? I don't
think that's ever happened before. On the other
hand, I'm not getting any younger. I guess
anything's possible. Then again, how do I know
what I was thinking when I just wrote that?
Oh, dear.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote

| I do back up D:, just by a different method (SyncToy - so basically just
| a copy - rather than a Macrium image).

That's what I do, too, but not in any organized
way. I just copy things like the graphics partition
to a spare drive and/or USB occasionally. Most of it
doesn't change.

But I did something dumb last week. After reading
a discussion about cleaning out duplicates I decided
that was a good idea. I got Duplicate Cleaner Free.
It listed 10s of 1000s of duplicates. At some point
I gave up trying to oversee it, assuming that duplicates
it found on F:\ would be lower priority than those
found on C:\. But noooooooo. It deleted my current
browser history in favor of a copy that I'd put on
F:\ 3 years ago, as part of a general backup before
swapping out a disk or some such.

On 28/08/2018 14:00, Mayayana wrote:
"Java Jive" wrote
| On 27/08/2018 22:55, Mayayana wrote:
|
| I didn't think this was really such a difficult
| analogy, but I see it's subject to misinterpretation.
|
| You're the one misinterpreting it.

I'm misinterpreting my own statements?

Look back up thread. The analogy was begun by myself.

"Java Jive" wrote

| I'm misinterpreting my own statements?
|
| Look back up thread. The analogy was begun by myself.

Yes. Sorry for the confusion. I've often used that
analogy and find it the most accurate I can think of.
You were using a basic simile: It's like leaving your
front door open. We were both using the image of
a front door, but in different ways.

I should have clarified that I was
using the idea of:

house/street/front door/inner rooms and cabinets

as an analogous illustration for (respectively):

computer/internet/network connection/local files and folders

I'll try to resist launching into a third expatiation.

I think if you re-read my regrettably voluminous
descriptions you'll be able to see what I was talking
about.

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 05:27:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Agreed: AFAIAC, most prog.s become part of the OS, in effect. (At one
point I could see the advantage of OS on C, progs on another, and data
on a third, and admired people disciplined enough to do that; but now,
since I consider prog.s - and their configuration - to be part of the
"system" I want to be able to restore after any disaster, I'd see that
as an unnecessary extra complication.)



Yes, but It's not just a matter of what you consider. Since almost all
programs have components within Windows, in the registry and
elsewhere, keeping them on a separate drive or partition is useless.
If you lose Windows, you lose the programs too. If you reinstall
Windows, you have to reinstall the programs too, so the benefit that
many people imagine of having them on a separate drive or partition
doesn't exist.


I think many people overpartition because they use partitions as an
organizational structure. They have a strong sense of order and want
to separate apples from oranges on their drives.

Yes, separating different kinds of files on partitions is an
organizational technique, but so is separating different kinds of
files in folders. The difference is that partitions are static and
fixed in size, while folders are dynamic, changing size automatically
as necessary to meet your changing needs. That generally makes folders
a much better way to organize, in my view.

True, partitions can be resized when necessary, but except for newer
versions of Windows, doing so requires third-party software (and the
ability to do it in Windows is primitive, compared to the third-party
solutions). Such third-party software normally costs money, and, no
matter how good and how stable it is, affects the entire drive,
entailing a risk of losing everything. Plan your partitions well in
the first place, and no repartitioning should be necessary. The need
to repartition usually comes about as a result of overpartitioning in
the first place.

What frequently happens when people organize with partitions instead
of folders is that they miscalculate how much room they need on each
such partition, and then when they run out of room on the partition
where a file logically belongs, while still having lots of space left
on the other, they simply store the file in the "wrong" partition.
Paradoxically, therefore, that kind of partition structure results in
less organization rather than more.