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
  #16  
Old March 5th 18, 11:22 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

In message , Ron C
writes:
[]
How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large
empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes
are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes.

Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging.


But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the
one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.
Ads
  #17  
Old March 6th 18, 12:43 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ron C[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On 3/5/2018 5:22 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ron C
writes:
[]
How about a building analogy? The hard drive starts out as a large
empty building, rooms are partitioned off, cabinets are added, boxes
are put in the cabinets, stuff is put in the boxes.

Heck, that analogy could also be useful in explaining defragging.


But that encourages the thought that each level is _different_ to the
one above. Which I fear a lot of newbies think anyway.

Label your rooms properly/logically and what goes in that room
should follow. You don't put your car in the bathroom .. etc.
Then too, my "logical" hierarchy may seem totally illogical to you.
[YMMV]
--
==
Later...
Ron C
==

  #18  
Old March 6th 18, 09:54 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.


Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL


I would too (-:

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:

[]
Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.


Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and
would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory
as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd
appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any.


Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in
conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level,
which you say is what you were trying to convey.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.



  #19  
Old March 6th 18, 03:48 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.


Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.

[]
Not a bad analogy. I might use it. Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away
from the idea of size altogether - but there's nothing in the real world
that does. Mandelbrot graphics, perhaps, but they're not a common
concept either.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I am entitled to my own opinion."
"Yes, but it's your constant assumption that everyone else is also that's so
annoying." - Vila & Avon
  #20  
Old March 6th 18, 05:09 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

J. P. ,

Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether -
but there's nothing in the real world that does.


Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested
cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of
sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even
size wise).

Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes):
when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a
"child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in
a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times.


But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave
the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch
exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the
folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go
down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some
(deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you
use it).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #21  
Old March 6th 18, 05:25 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

In message , R.Wieser
writes:
J. P. ,

Though _ideally_ I'd like to get away from the idea of size altogether -
but there's nothing in the real world that does.


Yes, that was something going thru my mind too. Thats why I suggested
cardboard boxes, as they are quite common, already come in all kinds of
sizes, and are regarded as "just boxes" (read: fully interchangable, even
size wise).

Also, the "plain" was intentional (even if you're not using physical boxes):
when you cannot distinguish the "parent" box from the current one or from a
"child" box (other than by size perhaps) than they tend to blend together in
a persons mind as a single thing, just present multiple times.


But if you want to circumvent the size problem altogether*, why not leave
the real world and enter a magical one ? One where a "bottomless" pouch
exists in which you can put gems (the files) and other pouches (the
folders) - which themselves are ofcourse bottomles too. Will probably go
down well with *at least* the harry potter crowd. :-) (might kick some
(deeply) religious ones against the shins though, so be carefull where you
use it).


More good thoughts! And pouches within pouches is just as graspable.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After I'm dead I'd rather have people ask why I have no monument than why I
have one. -Cato the Elder, statesman, soldier, and writer (234-149 BCE)
  #22  
Old March 7th 18, 08:51 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

J.P. ,

Did the * after "altogether" link to something you forgot to add (-:?


More likely it got removed when I rewrote that sentence ... but forgot to
also remove the marker. :-(

Ah, now I remember. It was about needing to be carefull about your "no size
constraints" request, as most of the this-world storage media are in fact
really quite limited. :-p The cardboard boxes and a transport truck
analogy popped into my mind.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #23  
Old March 7th 18, 11:10 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On 3/6/18 1:54 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
J. P.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.


Would equating folders to plain cardboard boxes be something ? Those come
in all sizes and can be put inside each other, and binders* can be put
inside as well as next to them (folders containing files as well as other
folders).

*binders equating files, as they can contain any number of sheets - which
equate to sectors.


GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer,
and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this. But I'll just use
loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal with the bulk of
binders.


Regards,
Rudy Wieser



"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
Sorry for the late replies to everyone. I use Albasani.net, and they've
been down for like 3 days.

Had withdrawal symptoms! LOL


I would too (-:

On 3/2/18 5:34 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:

[]
Explaining things like this can be hard when the user is fixated on
doing a, b, c, d and has no interest in learning something else. The
Don't I know it! I have a (possibly similar) elderly friend who doesn't
grasp the concept of folders within folders. He's more than once asked
me to go through downloading from his camera card - and he writes down
each stage/step. He just doesn't grasp the _concept_.

Exactly, grasping the concept is hard, and, IMO, none of the MS file
managers windows adequately as they don't display the very top level
correctly. That's why I created my own charts to show the very basic
hierarchy of the filesystem. I've done one for both Windows and Mac, and
would like to do one for Linux someday.

You can see the charts he
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1lrrman43ubk5m6/AAA-p4e6O7vkDo5akEaOcINFa?dl=0

For any reader that looks at the charts, feel free to download for your
own personal use. The goal was to make it as simple and self explanatory
as possible, and still be able to print on letter sized paper. I'd
appreciate comments and improvement suggestions if anyone has any.


Thanks. There are obviously lots of concepts we have difficulty in
conveying; your charts are (perhaps) good at conveying the top level,
which you say is what you were trying to convey.

My problem - I think! - is conveying the concept of files and folders
within folders, especially the concept that *each level is the same*.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.





--
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!"
  #24  
Old March 8th 18, 08:52 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

Ken,

GMTA!!! I do a little tutoring on learning the basics of the computer,
and am putting together a "visual aid" for just this.


Pretty much the same here, though directed at kids wanting to write
programs. I've never actually made something like that to actually *look*
at though, mostly trying to get them to visualize it was enough.

But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather than having to deal
with the bulk of binders.


I myself like the concept of binders: You identify the containing papers by
the name on the front of the binder, and (normally) can replace that name
without messing with the contents. It also allows you to easily replace a
sheet anywhere you like. The binder itself also represents the sector
linkage list as present in the FAT. When you lose it the sheets are still
there, but will be hard to find back and handle.

.... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"


"I'm aging like fine wine: I'm getting fruitier and more complex"


  #25  
Old March 8th 18, 10:47 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

Rudy,

On 3/8/18 12:52 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
... than again, I tended to explain the whole drive format structure.:-)


Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?

--
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!"
  #26  
Old March 8th 18, 11:42 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

Ken,

Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?


Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to)
have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather
than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ...

But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the
functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the
advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives").
Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a
bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss
of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick
format).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #27  
Old March 8th 18, 03:40 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

Wolf,

Nice analogy. Mind if I steal it? :-)


.... Damn! I know I forgot something: To copyright it so noone can use it
in my lifetime +70 years (IIRC).

But go ahead ofcourse. Thank you for mentioning you find it good enough to
use. Always nice to hear. :-)

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #28  
Old March 8th 18, 03:56 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,817
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

On 3/8/18 3:42 AM, R.Wieser wrote:
Ken,

Similar to what I drew out in the link I provided in another message, or
even more in depth?


Well, I've got little to go on to be certain about that. All you (seem to)
have said about it is "But I'll just use loose, stapled docs as files rather
than having to deal with the bulk of binders." ...


A cardboard box, trimmed in height to let the file folders stick out the
top. 3 file folders standing in the box, A, B, and C. Inside folder A,
more folders, say A1, A2, and A3. In folder A1 is A1a, A1b, A1c.

Inside folder A will be some paper stapled together to represent a
single file/document, but it is not inside folder A1. Or, 3 or 4
bunches of paper, each representing a file/document. And so on.

Does that make more sense?
But there certainly is a possibility. At some point I often explained the
functioning of the BR, partitions and the MBR too (mostly as a result of the
advice to keep the OS and the users own data on seperate "drives").
Sometimes the act of data recovery (undeleting files) also came in to take a
bow, and with it how you can have all the data/sectors, but due to the loss
of the "binders" cannot access it in any meaningfull way anymore (quick
format).


Binders=boot record??? When I read binders, my mind with straight to 3
ring binders. That was making no sense. LOL

That's a bit more detailed than I usually go, unless it seems the
individual will easily grasp it at that point. But I also recommend the
user have their data on different partitions/drives. with drives being
the preferred route. But with 1TB drives, and laptops usually only
having 1 drive bay, another drive is usually not a viable solution for
laptop owners. They don't want to drag that crap around! LOL

Ken Blake and I disagree on the idea of partitioning of the same drive,
but you can only work with what you have and what the owner is willing
to do.


--
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!"
  #29  
Old March 8th 18, 05:27 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
R.Wieser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,302
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

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.

Does that make more sense?


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. :-\ )

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).

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).

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


  #30  
Old March 8th 18, 06:03 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,679
Default Explaining the file system hierarchy.

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.
[]
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.


I think this is for a whole different level of user to the ones we're
discussing above as far as understanding the basic file/older concepts
is concerned, but I will still always keep OS-and-software on a
different partition (or drive) to my data, but nowadays not mostly for
size reasons, but instead because I don't want anything which scrambles
the OS partition to (have _too_ much chance to) scramble the data one.
(There is still _some_ size aspect, in that I _image_ my OS-and-software
partition [and any hidden ones], so I can restore them in the event of
disaster [disc failure, ransomware, or some "update" or similar
rendering the system unbootable], but just _sync_ my data partition -
and keeping them separate makes the imaging process faster, so I'm more
likely to do it more often.)

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. In the event of
anything other than ransomware (such as disc death), restoring the OS
alone from image will restore access to the data without having to
restore _that_.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser


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

We shall never - never! - allow foreigners to run our economy. They might cure
it. (George Mikes, "How to be Decadent" [1977].)
 




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 10:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.