A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Explaining the file system hierarchy. (was: Positioning the Windows Explorer windows)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old March 8th 18, 06:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,152
Default 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!"
Ads
  #32  
Old March 8th 18, 08:12 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,937
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:27:00 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

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.




2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far from
being the smallest one available.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually small amount.
I use about 800GB, and I know many people who use substantially more.
Even my wife, who does next to nothing on her computer, uses about
70GB.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than one of
them? What is each one for, and how big is each one?



Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).



I have three physical drives: one 1GB SSD for Windows and installed
programs, one 2TB HD for data, one 2TB HD for data backup.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need. But I want substantial
extra space for growth. I don't want to have to buy more or larger
drives as my needs increase in the future, largely because I don't
want to have to argue with my wife about spending the money.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks of
backing up to an internal HD. That's why the second 2TB HD is not my
primary place for backup. I regularly backup to an external drive, and
use the internal one as another, more frequent, layer of backup. I
actually have five layers of backup.
  #33  
Old March 8th 18, 08:20 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,937
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
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).

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.


You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.




You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.


Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).


See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.




Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

  #34  
Old March 8th 18, 08:28 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 788
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

J. P.

You're going up; I want to go down.


I don't think so. I'm just building upon what they already know to larger
stuff. Working my way down from a building to a filing cabinet and its
contents won't go down that well (of you pardon me the pun here :-) ).

make folders within folders within folders ad infinitum


Personally I think you're making a mistake there (which will probably bite
you in the behind at some time): there *is* a limit to how many folders you
can make, and this limit is influenced by the contents of each folder.

Which, using my earlier suggested cardbord boxes analogy, is easy to explain
and understand: there are only so many boxes you can place in a van. Even
when you buy a bigger van - or even a transport truck (or cargo ship!) -
you're still going to get full at some point ...

But I think I know where your "ad infinitum" comes from. Thats, as I
mentioned, why I suggested the cardboard boxes-within-boxes-within-boxes
approach.

but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles the OS partition
to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one.


I'm not so worried about that scrambling (though it happened to me once,
using a cheap drive bay). I'm more worried about an easy restore process
being sabotaged because of the datafiles (on that same partition) that would
get lost by it (as mentioned, for the OS partition I always assume a full
partition backup/restore).

I _image_ my OS-and-software partition ... but just _sync_ my data
partition


Same here. The OS is a clusterf*uck of interconnected files, and being able
to restore them one-by-one makes little sense (could well make the problem
larger instead of smaller). The datafiles on the other hand ...

See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still safe


I'm sorry, but I don't see a difference between a single, multi-partition
setup, or a multi-drive one here. I also would not be too sure about
anything accidentally killing the OS (on its own drive) not as easily have
damaged (some of) the data (on another drive).

And in the case of *targetted* fauling up I would even say that the data is
much more interresting than the OS: If the backups are affected too the OS
can always be reinstalled. The data ? Well ...

In other words, my OS-seperate-from-the-data approach is because of the
difference in backup and retrieval methods, nothing more.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #35  
Old March 8th 18, 08:50 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,889
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

R.Wieser wrote:

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).


If all that extra space is bothering you, there are
120GB SSDs for $50.

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...82E16820242399

Then, you can use an external HDD (1TB) for backups.

Paul
  #36  
Old March 8th 18, 09:39 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 788
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.


:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.

And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.


Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?


You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?

Why do you have multiple folders on your data drive/partition ? I mean,
you *can* store everything in the root, can't you. :-p

What is each one for, and how big is each one?


#1 - OS partition. 50 G allocated, 6 used
#2 - "working" partition. 50 G allocated, 7 used
#3 - "documentation" and "temp" partition. 50 G allocated, 12 used
#4 - program origionals (ZIP or DVD image formats) backups. 50 G allocated,
14 used.

There is still about 270 G not assigned on that drive. I do not even
expect to ever use it.

Two points about why I have the disk configuration I have:

1. Yes, it's much more disk space than I need.


Same here, even though I've got just a single drive.

2. Yes, I often post messages warning people about the risks
of backing up to an internal HD.


Phew! I was already thinking of how I could rant about how ... unadvisable
that would be. :-)

By the way, the 2 TByte drive I spoke of earlier is actually an USB one
which I use for backups.

*edit*
Ackkk... I just realized that I forgot to tell something that *might* make
a difference: The 'puter I'm talking about in the above is my main, "work"
machine.

I do have another machine on which I also run games, but that one isn't that
big either: 230 GB used, including DVD copies (for backup of the
origionals). Not much of a gamer I'm afraid.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #37  
Old March 8th 18, 09:54 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,937
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 21:39:55 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

Ken,

2 Terabytes may be the smallest drive *you* have, but it's far
from being the smallest one available.


:-) That I have it is because that was the smallest one available in my
town. At the time I even informed about a much smaller, 500GB one, but they
doubted they even could still order them.



With sources like Amazon.com, and many others, almost everything is
available in every town.


And if you are using less than 50GB, that's an unusually
small amount.


Not to me. Than again, I'm not a run-of-the-mill computer user.

You say data *partitions* (plural). Why do you have more than
one of them?


You mean apart from the OS and data partition ?



No, you said "data partitions." I was asking why you had more than one
data partition.
  #38  
Old March 9th 18, 02:25 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,225
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

In message , Ken Blake
writes:
On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 17:03:22 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
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).

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.


You're going up; I want to go down. Explaining that you can make folders
within folders within folders ad infinitum is the other thing I want to
do.




You can certainly have multiple layers of folders within folders, but
definitely not ad infinitum.

True; there's a maximum path length for a start (though I think the old
subst command can circumvent that a little). But certainly for more
levels than a person struggling with the concepts is likely to go to.
And Microsoft themselves do rather love them ...
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application
Data\Microsoft\Assistance\Client\1.0\en-US
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Skype\Apps\login\js
C:\Documents and Settings\Toshiba\Local Settings\Application
Data\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Recovery\High\Last Active

Also, I'm not quite sure what nowerdays the benefits of having two physical
drives would be (for a single-OS configuration).


See above: if something kills your OS, your data is _probably_ still
safe, unless what killed it was ransomware or similar.




Certainly the risk to your data is lessened if it's on a separate
physical drive. But "_probably_" might be too strong a word. All the
drives in your computer are still at risk to simultaneous loss to user
error, severe power glitches, nearby lightning strikes, virus attacks,
even theft of the computer.


Yes; really only disk death, or certain kinds of catastrophic update
failure or similar software fault, will kill C: and not D:. Power
glitches/lightning _might_ just kill one drive, but it could equally be
either one. _Some_ viruses might only go for C:, but probably few these
days.

Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)[email protected]+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I love the way Microsoft follows standards. In much the same manner that fish
follow migrating caribou. - Paul Tomblin, cited by "The Real Bev", 2017-2-18.
  #39  
Old March 9th 18, 04:15 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,937
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018 01:25:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:


Many people think that having their data on a separate physical drive
removes the need for backup. As far as I'm concerned, they are
completely wrong; regular backup to an external drive should still be
done.

Definitely. I would never suggest otherwise! But just for data, it's
easier to argue it doesn't have to be an image, just some sort of copy
(ideally in a synching manner to make it a _lot_ faster), whereas - for
most of us with only moderate knowledge, anyway - imaging is required
for C:, if restoration of a working system (activation, all registry
settings, all software settings) is being prepared for.




Yes, I just do a simple copy.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.