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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| I want at the top of the folder, I can just name it AA*. | | And that is why I'll have a filenames _1AA*. | ?? Underscore sorts after characters. But did I say AA*? No. I meant I name them !"#$%AAAAAA*. Can't be too careful. | Yep. | _A_ problem with naming files "Jan1" is that then next two files | are Jan11 and Jan15, not Jan2 and Jan3, And of course, the months | sort April, August, December, February, January, July, June, etc. So | we're back to the use of two digits for months. | Yes. If I had a lot of date-specific files I guess that would be a problem. But I don't think I have any other than my stats, which are just stored in case sometime I want to look something up. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Everything doesn't actually _do_ searches: what it actually does when | you type in what you're looking for is filter. It has already _done_ the | search, and found everything I understood that. To my mind it's wasteful. If I can find a file in less than a second I don't need a program storing and updating a database to do the same thing. if you can find relevant files in under a second out of many hundreds of thousands of files, then you have superpowers nobody else has. | What I in my previous post referred to as librarian's dilemma is | particularly prevalent with photos. Let's say you have a folder for the | Smith family, and one for Fido Jones your dog; where do you file a photo | of Fido with the Smiths? You can't make Fido a sub-folder of Smiths if | he isn't part of that family. A lot of photo software gets round this by | making "albums", and any single photo may be in more than one album; it | doesn't (except for the crassest of such software) create multiple | copies, it does it by using "tags", which are in the "albums" which are | lists maintained by the software. I don't like this because I like to | know where my files really are, and don't use such software; however, I | do acknowledge the problem. (Another problem with the album approach is | that the list formats are probably proprietary to each software, and | maybe even to a limited range of versions of that software.) And the biggest problem: You need to do something like add EXIF tags so that the software knows the photo is of Fido Jones. If a person knows how to use a file system they can do much better organizing with a lot less work. not with the number of files people have, and you can't do complex queries either. It's similar with Adobe subscription. People are paying through the nose for creative suite, which is now only available by subscription. If you don't understand the file system and don't make local copies of photos then you won't know that your photos are *only* online at Adobe's site. If you end your subscription you lose your photos. That kind of scam is feasible precisely because people don't understand their computers and can't be bothered. Tech companies take advantage of that. you still don't understand how adobe creative suite works. everything is local and *nothing* is lost if the user ends their subscription. users can even disconnect from the internet and continue using the software and all of their files without issue. users have the *choice* to store copies of their photos in the cloud (not just adobe's cloud either), but that's not required. one reason would be to share photos with friends and family rather than emailing them. the originals are still on their local system as well as whatever backups they have. this has been explained to you many times in the photo newsgroups by numerous people. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
On Sat, 5 Oct 2019 15:13:46 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , Mayayana writes: "mick" wrote | Interesting. I guess it never occurred to me to name | a file or folder starting with a number. I can't imagine why I would | want to. | | I do it all the time both for files and folders when sorting photos. | e.g. yearly folder named 2019, then sub folders 01 January, 02 | February. 03 March, etc. | But that's backward, unless you live in Europe. If No, the US way is backward, or at least illogical (-: I had such a folder I'd probably call it Jan-1-19. I also I don't think Mick meant he had a folder for 01 January, just that he had one for January, which he _named_ 01 January to make it (and the other similarly-named month folders) appear in order. (The names of the months aren't in alphabetical order.) don't sort photos by date but by topic. Naming a photo 010120191 is not any better than the camera naming it P10533492. Certainly no _worse_, though, and I'd submit it is better in that it conveys more information than the P format does. (Though in that format, with the digits all run together, I'd have to know the format before I could discern the information.) So I'd never have a folder named Jan-1-19. I _do_ have folders named something like 2019\10\5, though not in my images area. I have folders on my Graphics drive, in the Photos folder, with names like Personal, Work, NASA pics, Roses, etc. The image files in those folders, if I decided they were things I wanted to keep, were also renamed with meaningful names, like "NYC 3". If I name that for a date that I went to NYC I'll have no idea what it means. No, but "2018 NYC" wouldn't _hurt_. But each to his own! [] I actually do name my website server logs. Tue10-1. Wed10-2. Etc. Those then go into a folder named stats Oct 2019. I guess I do that because the date is always a secondary qualifier. The main point is that the folder contains web server logs. Stats. However, if you named them "10-1Tue", they would by default list in order, at no extra effort. For months and days you still need the 2 digit notation to get them to sort right. (01 for Jan, 10 for Oct. Likewise 01 for the first of the month) Otherwise all of the ones sort together and October ends up with January. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
In message , mick
writes: On 05/10/2019 15:13:46, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Mayayana writes: [] But that's backward, unless you live in Europe. If No, the US way is backward, or at least illogical (-: Yes to both. They will eventually catch up and adopt the metric system one day. :-) I was taught the english system at school, but once I started work in engineering and began to use the metric system is was so obvious it was a more rational system to use. So easy to learn as well. 50 plus years on I still occasionally compare imperial weights and measures, but metric is always first choice. I was only referring to the date format (-:! (Of which the US one is neither large-medium-small nor small-medium-large.) As for the weights and measures, they're not exclusive to the US: although legally we're metric here in the UK, there are plenty who are militantly attached to the imperial measures. (Some of which are different to the US ones, confusingly having the same name - the gallon being the one that springs to mind, but I think there are others. Or are used in different ways, such as the inclusion of stones.) Personally, having been brought up after the metric system was nominally brought into schools but also in Germany, I'm more metric than many of my generation, but I still find the inch more suitable for a range of measurements, think of people's height in feet and inches, people's weight in stones and pounds (just in pounds is as meaningless to me as in kilogrammes), and fuel consumption in miles per gallon. (My last car returned 62 mpg on the last tankful before it went to the scrappie. I liked that car!) I had such a folder I'd probably call it Jan-1-19. I also I don't think Mick meant he had a folder for 01 January, just that he had one for January, which he _named_ 01 January to make it (and the other similarly-named month folders) appear in order. (The names of the months aren't in alphabetical order.) Yes, that is what I meant. [] I _do_ have folders named something like 2019\10\5, though not in my images area. All my image file names are named by 'year - number' e.g. this year they start at 2019 - 00001 as of today the last image filed is 2019 - 8861 Categorising, naming, tagging, sorting, keywords or whatever is all done in ACDsee Ultimate Pro. Presumably that keeps "albums" (alba?), as files in a proprietary format, that's not readable by competing similar software? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
In message , pyotr
filipivich writes: [] Date conventions are one of those things which have lots of "installed user base" and what works in the written world doesn't work as well in computers. Humans can sort out that "the 3rd of June" comes out after "January 2nd" and both are before 1 July. Yes, humans are a lot better at handling multiple _different_ formats. _A_ problem with naming files "Jan1" is that then next two files are Jan11 and Jan15, not Jan2 and Jan3, And of course, the months I think the "smart" ordering (which is the default), since XP (or possibly '9x) _will_ sort x1, x2, ... x10, x11, ... x20. sort April, August, December, February, January, July, June, etc. So we're back to the use of two digits for months. Or, again, one digit with smart ordering. Though the algorithm needs _some_ separator. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | I'm not aware of anything else (I was going to say any other | software, but actually _anything_) called "Everything". Everything is called everything. Considering you Brits invented the language, you sure do seem to have trouble with it. Don't try with me on language - you'll lose (-:. No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything. That reminds me of the misuse I often heard at primary school: "What's his name called?", or similar, when the questioner really meant "what's his name?". It's difficult to give a meaning to what you _call_ a name (other than synonyms for the word itself). I'd have taken your first sentence as just humour (or humor), if you hadn't added the second one, but since you did: I repeat my assertion that I can't actually think of _anything_ that's actually _called_ Everything, with the possible half exception of a telecomms company. And when I say "called", I mean with everything _as part of its name_. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
In message , Mayayana
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote | Everything doesn't actually _do_ searches: what it actually does when | you type in what you're looking for is filter. It has already _done_ the | search, and found everything I understood that. To my mind it's wasteful. If I can find a file in less than a second I don't need a program storing and updating a database to do the same thing. Fairy nuff. We're all different. | (-: [My C: partition (this is W7) has 40.1G used, and that's almost | entirely Windows itself, installed software, and the software's own | housekeeping (configuration files etc.); I never _save_ anything to C:.] A lot of that is bloat junk. A new install is typically 7-9 GB. I make disk images for that reason. Win7 will grab a copy of any old thing it comes across and stash it in winsxs. I haven't even tried to track down all the wasteful bloat of Win7. But I've heard people complain about 80+ GB. So I keep disk images in case it gets too big, so I can just dump it and start over. I agree. I just can't be bothered keeping on top of it to the extent you do, though do do so to a lesser extent. (FWIW, my winsxs - based on its properties in Windows Explorer, so that may be wrong from what people have said about hard and soft links, junctions, and other arcanery - is 8.94 GB [50,630 files, 11,533 folders], 9.04 GB on disk. So rather more than a quarter of the 40G.) [] And the biggest problem: You need to do something like add EXIF tags so that the software knows the photo is of Fido Jones. If a person knows how to use a file system they can do much better organizing with a lot less work. Agreed, EXIF tags are good, as they're part of the file, not some external software. I avoid the "librarian" problem by not having a dog. But I'm also not so finicky about my system. I'm not trying for librarian accuracy. I want to be able to find the photo later. That's all. I didn't mean accuracy when I referred to the librarian problem - I meant their dilemma; any classification system (such as the Dewey and more recent ones, for books) suffers the problem of when you have an item which it is reasonable to file under disparate sections. So in your example I might have a folder named Personal with a subfolder named Family. That would cover the dog and the That's getting round the problem by just broadening the categories until you make just one that includes both. neighbors. I also don't take a lot of photos. And of the ones I In which case the above is reasonable. I'm also not keen on having folders with only one file in them. do take, I go through them before storing them. I don't just download the whole camera storage into a folder. Me neither. Well, I _do_ tend to download the lot, as they're easier to view on the PC than the camera, but I do then go through them. | Playing devil's advocate here (I'm more like you), I could argue that | that's still "using their computer". (I could also say that it's a | matter of degree: _you_ [and I] are happy with the "conceptual model" | the OS presents us with of our files and folders, rather than keeping | track of where the individual data clusters are on the "drive".) | It is using their computer, of course, but they're not using the tool itself. They're using a series of wrappers. Again, why does it _matter_, except to purists like us? The file system was created as an abstraction layer to store and access data. To use a file organizer that shows you a folder containing all JPGs on the system that have "Fido Jones" in the EXIF data is a further abstraction. It's not understanding the basic end-user functionaly of the computer. To me, that example _is_ using an ability of the computer, that it's better at than a human with a stack of photo prints. If the EXIF tags have been done well (and that _does_ need a human), being able to at will see all Fido photos (whether the Smiths are in them or not), and in the next breath see all Smith photos (whether ...), is a _good_ use of one of the abilities of a computer. | When you ask these people where their tax records are they | say, "I don't know but Word knows". Their photos of last | Summer at the lake? Who knows?! "Photoshop knows where | they are. That's all that matters.". Backup? Who knows. | "Aconite handles that." Or, increasingly, it's | | I was going to say (playing DA again) why should it actually _matter_ [backup] | but then you mentioned Aconite (which I presume is some sort | of backup software); if that works with Word, Photoshop etcetera and | actually does backup properly, then perhaps they really _don't_ need to | know where their files really "are". | Aconite is popular with "tech support" people. someone pays a tech support person, who in turns makes them pay for an Aconite subscription and sets them up with a gmail account. Aconite syncs to cloud storage. So if the computer has problems, the tech support person can just refresh it with Aconite. and since the person has been set up with things like gmail, they didn't have any local files to lose, anyway. Very convenient for tech support. But the person with the computer is paying a lot in terms of money and privacy for the luxury of not understanding how to use their computer. I'm with you. They're with the IT guy. It's a bit like paying someone who knows how to fix your car _and likes doing so_. These people are happy to pay the IT guy, because they aren't _interested_ in those matters, and consider dealing with them a _chore_, which perhaps you (and to a lesser extent I) don't. It's similar with Adobe subscription. People are paying through the nose for creative suite, which is now only available by subscription. If you don't understand the file system and don't make local copies of photos then you won't know that your photos are *only* online at Adobe's site. If you end your subscription you lose your photos. That kind of scam is feasible precisely because people don't understand their computers and can't be bothered. Tech companies take advantage of that. Scammers have always been with us and always will be. There was a recent discussion about whether Microsoft was eliminating local accounts in Win10. I don't know the upshot of that but I expect that's on its way. They're training people From what I've been reading local accounts are still there, but semi-hidden (a small print, unemphasised option during Windows setup), and you're probably right they'll disappear altogether soon. to use an adware/spyware consumer services kiosk. And most people prefer that because it's easy. Most young people don't even understand the idea of owning their data. They've grown up with the likes of Facebook. And lack of privacy. 2 -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
In article , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: The file system was created as an abstraction layer to store and access data. To use a file organizer that shows you a folder containing all JPGs on the system that have "Fido Jones" in the EXIF data is a further abstraction. It's not understanding the basic end-user functionaly of the computer. To me, that example _is_ using an ability of the computer, that it's better at than a human with a stack of photo prints. If the EXIF tags have been done well (and that _does_ need a human), being able to at will see all Fido photos (whether the Smiths are in them or not), and in the next breath see all Smith photos (whether ...), is a _good_ use of one of the abilities of a computer. it's a very good use of the computer, particularly with scene and face recognition. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything. It's a program called Everything, is it not? I don't know why a program that finds only filenames would be considered useful. I use an ancient one (1996) called "Search and Replace" from Funduc Software. It can find (and optionally replace) any text string or binary byte sequence in any file. Usually Windows search is good enough for W2k & XP. "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. I know but it still sounds like a fart in a bath. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
In message , Apd writes:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything. It's a program called Everything, is it not? Yes, but nothing else has "Everything" as its name; whoever you've snipped said "Agent Ransack" was a unique name - I was saying, so is "Everything". I don't know why a program that finds only filenames would be considered useful. Well, lots of us do find it useful; see posts in the last year or so (at least), at least in the 7 and XP 'groups (I haven't been in the 10 one for long so can't say for there). I use an ancient one (1996) called "Search and Replace" from Funduc Software. It can find (and optionally replace) any text string or binary byte sequence in any file. Is it fast? Most people like Agent Ransack for content search. The replace feature sounds useful - and potentially very dangerous! Usually Windows search is good enough for W2k & XP. I think AR and E's enthusiasts would probably differ. "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. I know but it still sounds like a fart in a bath. LOL! [That was below my .sig separator.] A sort of underwater Trump, would that be? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf At the age of 7, Julia Elizabeth Wells could sing notes only dogs could hear. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
"Mayayana" on Sat, 5 Oct 2019 12:01:35 -0400
typed in alt.windows7.general the following: "pyotr filipivich" wrote | I want at the top of the folder, I can just name it AA*. | | And that is why I'll have a filenames _1AA*. | ?? Underscore sorts after characters. But did I say AA*? It may have. I know that Win 7 underscore comes before numbers, which come before letters. No. I meant I name them !"#$%AAAAAA*. Can't be too careful. | Yep. | _A_ problem with naming files "Jan1" is that then next two files | are Jan11 and Jan15, not Jan2 and Jan3, And of course, the months | sort April, August, December, February, January, July, June, etc. So | we're back to the use of two digits for months. | Yes. If I had a lot of date-specific files I guess that would be a problem. But I don't think I have any other than my stats, which are just stored in case sometime I want to look something up. Once upon a time, I was hashing files with a two char date code, six chars of "filename" and a three char "group" Then Microsoft improved the computer experience, and everything had to have one of their Canonical Extensions. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Apd writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: No, Everything isn't _called_ everything; it _is_ everything. It's a program called Everything, is it not? Yes, but nothing else has "Everything" as its name; whoever you've snipped said "Agent Ransack" was a unique name - I was saying, so is "Everything". It's a rather inappropriate name for a prog that finds only filenames. I don't know why a program that finds only filenames would be considered useful. Well, lots of us do find it useful; Most other search software finds files and content so why would you not choose one of those instead? see posts in the last year or so (at least), at least in the 7 and XP 'groups (I haven't been in the 10 one for long so can't say for there). I follow all 3 but skim read or skip many posts. There's just too much waffle, not enough getting-to-the-point (answering unasked questions and speculation when an OP gives insufficient info), poor snipping/ trimming and much is of little interest to me. Not to mention the pantomime: "Oh no, it isn't - oh yes it is" that gets us nowhere. I use an ancient one (1996) called "Search and Replace" from Funduc Software. It can find (and optionally replace) any text string or binary byte sequence in any file. Is it fast? It's fast enough for me. I don't often search (I know where stuff is) and I don't keep thousands of files. Most people like Agent Ransack for content search. I might check that out one day since mine only sees the short directory entry name. The replace feature sounds useful - and potentially very dangerous! Yes. Useful progs are often dangerous (I've never used the replace option). I particularly like the binary search option. "Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle. I know but it still sounds like a fart in a bath. LOL! [That was below my .sig separator.] It was the main reason I replied to your post! A sort of underwater Trump, would that be? Heh! |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
An update to File Explorer is long past due.
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| ?? Underscore sorts after characters. But did I say AA*? | | It may have. I know that Win 7 underscore comes before numbers, | which come before letters. | I see you're right. I'd assumed it was done in sort order, which is numeric (ASCII/ANSI). In that system _ comes after capital letters and before lowercase. But { comes after all characters and still sorts ahead of them in Explorer. So I guess they just made up their own system for Explorer. Maybe they had to do that to accommodate you old-timers who were used to an 8.3 system and had to use _ if they wanted a space. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Omega ( U+03A9 ) is sorted "last" ( after 'z' ).
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| It's a program called Everything, is it not? | | Yes, but nothing else has "Everything" as its name; Everything does. Which reminds me of another unique word: "arguing until the cows come home" | Usually Windows search is good enough for W2k & XP. | | I think AR and E's enthusiasts would probably differ. I certainly would. After that obnoxious puppy cartoon, though, I didn't give it much of a chance. Then there was the inability to look inside CABs. And I seem to remember it also being undependable about finding files. The trouble with Windows GUI is that it's designed to second guess you. That can be seen even with programming. If you use system functions to list files in a folder you'll get a file list that includes all files. If you use the Shell object or the API from shell32.dll you get a different list on every system! One Windows version doesn't include so-called hidden files, even if they're set to not be hidden. . Another doesn't include *.drv files. It's nuts. But it's designed to be "civilian-friendly". |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|