Alternative to Win7 Explorer--Yet Again

[Bob I]

I use an underscore for files/folders that I want sorted on top. It
seems (to me) to be less obtrusive.

The "!" just happens to be the first/lowest allowed ASCII character for
naming.

 

[Art Todesco]

Years ago where I worked at the time, another engineer (who had
management aspirations) gave a lecture on using vi to some of the
non-programming staff. He also used commands that I was unfamiliar with,
and vice versa, much like your tale.

The big difference was when I mentioned that I didn't know his commands,
and that there were also a slew of commands he didn't know, he got very
angry at me

This guy I was talking about would never say that. He would use it to
learn new stuff. That's why he was .... well, like he was. He was a
sponge for knowledge.

 

[Char Jackson]

No, they are NOT virtual. And therein lies their biggest failing. If
you click on a file in a library and delete it, it's gone. It has been
deleted from its original folder, not just the library "folder". And if
you have chosen to bypass the recycle bin, you'll need an undelete
utility to get it back.

I can't tell if you're objecting to the use of the word 'virtual' or
if you're objecting to the behavior of the Libraries themselves. The
behavior you described is exactly what is provided in Win 7's Help &
Support, so I'm not sure what the complaint is.

When you delete a file from a Library, the file is deleted from the
disk. When you delete a folder from a Library, the folder is removed
from the Library but is not deleted from the disk. When you delete an
entire Library, the Library is deleted but all of its contents remain
on the disk in their original locations. This is all described in Help
& Support. I'm not trying to defend all of their design choices, but
at least they documented them, right? It's a new-for-7 feature and
just takes a bit of getting used to. The only inconsistency I see is
that removing a file from a Library actually deletes it, while the
other two operations don't delete anything. I can learn that behavior;
that's not a huge hill to climb.

I cannot understand why MS chose this rather than use a variation on a
shortcut to link to the file.

You'd like to be able to delete items from a Library without having
those items deleted from the disk? I admit, that would be strange
behavior and would take some getting used to, but no more so than the
choices MS made. Everything new takes some getting used to.

Well, how about nonsense instructions and poor coding for a start.
Let's say you've included a "My documents" folder called "Things" in a
library. You then decide you no longer want that folder and delete it
in "My documents". You'd expect that the library would automatically
know that "Things" had been deleted. But no, it's still there and if
you click on it you get an error message (X in red circle):

"Location is not available.

C:\Users\....\Things refers to a location that is unavailable. It could
be on a hard drive that is on this computer, or on a network. Check to
make sure that the disk is properly inserted, or that you are connected
to the Internet or your network, and then try again. If it still cannot
be located the information might have been moved to a different location."

You have to tell the library to remove the folder which doesn't exist!

Yes, but why the exclamation point? Just remove the folder from the
Library, right? I suppose an option to automatically mirror the
filesystem would be nice, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. Maybe
they'll add that later.

Now if you have the same folder, create a shortcut to it on the desktop,
and then delete the folder and click on the shortcut, you get a
different message (NB not an error message - no X in red circle):

"Problem with shortcut.

The item "Things" that this shortcut refers to has been deleted.
However, it can be restored from the Recycle Bin.

Do you want to restore this file, or delete this shortcut?

[Restore] [Delete it] [Cancel]"

You tell me which makes the most sense and is most helpful.
Libraries... :-(((

Sounds like growing pains, both on the MS side and the user side. Look
on the bright side, if you don't want to use the feature, you don't
have to. There are many other features that we're simply forced to
use, so the situation could be much worse.

 

[Ken Blake]

The "!" just happens to be the first/lowest allowed ASCII character for
naming.

Yes, but...

....everyone should realize that starting a file name with either an
underscore or an exclamation point only works if you sort by file
name. Files and folders don't have to be sorted by name; to change
what field you sort on, just click the header of that field, and click
it a second time to change the order from ascending to descending, or
vice-versa.

 

[Jeff Layman]

This thread is getting a bit long, so I'll leave the bits in I'll answer.

I originally thought they would be like a

I can't tell if you're objecting to the use of the word 'virtual' or
if you're objecting to the behavior of the Libraries themselves. The
behavior you described is exactly what is provided in Win 7's Help&
Support, so I'm not sure what the complaint is.

Effectively, both. In H&S they are not described as virtual (in fact
I've only seen that on internet pages). If you right-click on a folder
or file in Libraries you get what you would see if you did the same
thing on any other folder or file on the HD. Why, then, assume that they
are virtual? In effect, Library folders are "super-folders" gathering
in files from many locations. They are, if anything, more "real" than
an ordinary folder!

In H&S, Libraries: FAQs it states: "In some ways, a library is similar
to a folder. For example, when you open a library, you'll see one or
more files. However, unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations. This is a subtle, but important,
difference. Libraries don't actually store your items." This is totally
misleading, because the files are as "real" in those library folders as
they are in the original folders. If deleting a file in a library
folder deletes it from the original folder, where's the difference (or
does anything else to it, for that matter)?

When you delete a file from a Library, the file is deleted from the
disk. When you delete a folder from a Library, the folder is removed
from the Library but is not deleted from the disk. When you delete an
entire Library, the Library is deleted but all of its contents remain
on the disk in their original locations. This is all described in Help
& Support. I'm not trying to defend all of their design choices, but
at least they documented them, right? It's a new-for-7 feature and
just takes a bit of getting used to. The only inconsistency I see is
that removing a file from a Library actually deletes it, while the
other two operations don't delete anything. I can learn that behavior;
that's not a huge hill to climb.

That's one hell of an inconsistency, and completely at odds with what
any previous Windows user would expect. If you have a vast number of
files in a Library folder, and decide you don't want one there, it is
too easy to delete it, and forget that you should have removed the whole
folder instead. But what then? You have to create another folder with
everything from the original folder you included except the file you
wanted removed, and include that new folder in the library in place of
the original one.

You'd like to be able to delete items from a Library without having
those items deleted from the disk? I admit, that would be strange
behavior and would take some getting used to,

Why? It's standard Windows behaviour. It's exactly what would happen
if, for example, a shortcut was used as the link in the Libraries
folder. You could delete that without fear of the original file being
deleted, too. ?

See above concerning inconsistent behaviour.

Yes, but why the exclamation point? Just remove the folder from the
Library, right? I suppose an option to automatically mirror the
filesystem would be nice, but it doesn't seem like a big deal. Maybe
they'll add that later.

Heh. I don't have your faith in MS amending design errors if they don't
impact safety or sales. The exclamation point was there because this is
designed behaviour which makes no sense when it has been that way with
the file system since shortcuts were around (XP?).

Sounds like growing pains, both on the MS side and the user side. Look
on the bright side, if you don't want to use the feature, you don't
have to. There are many other features that we're simply forced to
use, so the situation could be much worse.

Well, I tend to agree with you. I don't use it. But you and I (despite
our differences over this) are fairly computer savvy. Many users of
Libraries won't be, and they may be wondering where all their damn files
have gone when they've been deleted from a Library folder, and they go
to use them in their original folder. Maybe they should carefully read
the H&S info, but if they've been expecting the file and folder
behaviour the same as they were used to in 95, 98, NT, XP and Vista,
they are in for a very unwanted surprise when they use Library folders.

 

[Char Jackson]

Yes, but...

...everyone should realize that starting a file name with either an
underscore or an exclamation point only works if you sort by file
name. Files and folders don't have to be sorted by name; to change
what field you sort on, just click the header of that field, and click
it a second time to change the order from ascending to descending, or
vice-versa.

I could be wrong, but I assume everyone does realize that.

 

[Char Jackson]

Effectively, both. In H&S they are not described as virtual (in fact
I've only seen that on internet pages). If you right-click on a folder
or file in Libraries you get what you would see if you did the same
thing on any other folder or file on the HD. Why, then, assume that they
are virtual?

That sounds virtual to me. It's a folder that represents one or more
other folders. (Or zero other folders, but see below.)

In effect, Library folders are "super-folders" gathering
in files from many locations.

Yes, from zero or more locations. Of course, a Library with no folders
assigned wouldn't be very practical, but a Library with a single
folder assigned makes sense.

They are, if anything, more "real" than an ordinary folder!

I don't follow.

In H&S, Libraries: FAQs it states: "In some ways, a library is similar
to a folder. For example, when you open a library, you'll see one or
more files. However, unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are
stored in several locations. This is a subtle, but important,
difference. Libraries don't actually store your items." This is totally
misleading, because the files are as "real" in those library folders as
they are in the original folders.

I don't find it misleading. As stated, Libraries don't store files,
they merely present an additional view of one or more folders. Those
folders can reside almost anywhere, making a Library view pretty
convenient.

If deleting a file in a library
folder deletes it from the original folder, where's the difference (or
does anything else to it, for that matter)?

The difference is that a Library can be used to provide a single view
into two or more folders, something a regular folder can't do.

That's one hell of an inconsistency, and completely at odds with what
any previous Windows user would expect.

I have to disagree regarding previous Windows behavior. When you
delete a file in any version of Windows, it's deleted. Libraries
retained this behavior.

If you have a vast number of
files in a Library folder, and decide you don't want one there, it is
too easy to delete it, and forget that you should have removed the whole
folder instead.

If you wanted to keep the file but remove it from the Library, I
suppose you should simply move the file out of the folder that's
included in the Library. OTOH, if you wanted to delete the file, you
could delete it directly from the Library view and the behavior would
be as expected.

But what then? You have to create another folder with
everything from the original folder you included except the file you
wanted removed, and include that new folder in the library in place of
the original one.

I think it would be easier to just move a single file than to go
through all of that, but either way would work.

Why? It's standard Windows behaviour. It's exactly what would happen
if, for example, a shortcut was used as the link in the Libraries
folder. You could delete that without fear of the original file being
deleted, too. ?

Do people use shortcuts much? For me, the only shortcuts I use are the
ones on the Start menu and Taskbar. I don't have any preconceived
notion that deleting something only removes a shortcut to it. I don't
really see the point in that.

To address your point another way, you could create a folder and
populate it with shortcuts, then add that folder to a Library. In that
case, you could delete anything you like from the Library and you'd
only be deleting shortcuts. Not my cup of tea, but certainly possible.

Well, I tend to agree with you. I don't use it. But you and I (despite
our differences over this) are fairly computer savvy. Many users of
Libraries won't be, and they may be wondering where all their damn files
have gone when they've been deleted from a Library folder, and they go
to use them in their original folder. Maybe they should carefully read
the H&S info, but if they've been expecting the file and folder
behaviour the same as they were used to in 95, 98, NT, XP and Vista,
they are in for a very unwanted surprise when they use Library folders.

I'm just the opposite on that last part. When I delete a file, I
expect it to be deleted. That includes deleting from Library views. In
addition, when I delete a folder, I expect it to be deleted along with
its contents, but deleting a folder from a Library view doesn't
actually delete it, so I've had to learn that bit of inconsistent
behavior. Still, I think it's a minor inconsistency and it errs on the
side of caution so I don't really have a complaint.

 

[Ken Blake]

I could be wrong, but I assume everyone does realize that.

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong, but I've run across *many*
people who don't realize it.

 

[XS11E]

I could be wrong, but I assume everyone does realize that.

You could be wrong! This thread shows some folks don't realize that or
don't know how to use Windows Explorer or don't know all the tricks it
can do.

I've learned a few thing from this thread and I expect others have too?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

You'll get used to self-defensive anger as you get older. It's very
common, especially when dealing with people who don't know much and
carry an ego too large for the job.

Who said:
1. I'm not older?
2. I'm not used to self-defensive anger?

I just told a story in response - and contrast - to the post by Art
Todesco's tale.

And note Art's response to my post - his friend has a great attitude!

 

[Char Jackson]

You could be wrong! This thread shows some folks don't realize that or
don't know how to use Windows Explorer or don't know all the tricks it
can do.

I didn't see anyone admitting they didn't know that Win Explorer
columns could be sorted (and reverse sorted) by clicking on the column
heading, but I'll concede that somewhere there is someone who probably
assumes that alpha sort is the only option, and heaven help him or her
if he/she accidentally clicks on a column header and 'screws up' the
sort. I guess they'd have no idea how to get it back to "normal".

 

[Char Jackson]

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong, but I've run across *many*
people who don't realize it.

I've run across none, but just because I said that I'm sure someone
will stumble into the shop any day now with exactly that problem.

 

[Ken Blake]

I didn't see anyone admitting they didn't know that Win Explorer
columns could be sorted (and reverse sorted) by clicking on the column
heading, but I'll concede that somewhere there is someone who probably
assumes that alpha sort is the only option, and heaven help him or her
if he/she accidentally clicks on a column header and 'screws up' the
sort. I guess they'd have no idea how to get it back to "normal".

It's a *lot* more than someone somewhere. As I said, I've run into
*many* such people, in person as well as in the newsgroups and forums.

 

[Leon Manfredi]

Since you hate and don't use Windows Explorer, which program are you
using when you "open 2 separate windows"?

Neither do I, since the beginning of time.... It's been either
Netscape, or Firefox for me!

 

[Ken Blake]

Neither do I, since the beginning of time.... It's been either
Netscape, or Firefox for me!

Neither of those is an alternative to Windows Explorer. Please do not
mix up Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. They are two very
different things.

 

[Leon Manfredi]

Neither of those is an alternative to Windows Explorer. Please do not
mix up Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer. They are two very
different things.

You're right! Sorry, lost my head! However I thought I read somewhere
that
Windows Explorer itself is the frame work for which Internet Explorer
sits on.

 

[XS11E]

I didn't see anyone admitting they didn't know that Win Explorer
columns could be sorted

But you have seen those who apparently didn't know you could open side
by side Windows Explorers and drag/drop between the two.

 

[Char Jackson]

But you have seen those who apparently didn't know you could open side
by side Windows Explorers and drag/drop between the two.

Yes, but that's completely different...

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 24/10/2011 21:09, Char Jackson wrote:
(snip all)

Well I think that you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree
on this.

But what I do think has merit is your lateral-thinking suggestion to use
shortcuts as the files in the library folders. That way there is no
chance of losing the original files, and you still have easy access to
all of them.

 

[WaIIy]

I'm just the opposite on that last part. When I delete a file, I
expect it to be deleted. That includes deleting from Library views. In
addition, when I delete a folder, I expect it to be deleted along with
its contents, but deleting a folder from a Library view doesn't
actually delete it, so I've had to learn that bit of inconsistent
behavior. Still, I think it's a minor inconsistency and it errs on the
side of caution so I don't really have a complaint.

That behavior (not yours) is beyond nuts and beyond logic.

Regarding shortcuts - of course a lot of people use shortcuts.