Auto Arrange

[Boscoe]

Or have the recycle bin disabled like I do.

Whichever way you delete them, the actual files remain intact, though
the space that they occupy is marked as free and
eventually they will be overwritten.

 

[Roy Smith]

Actually, my desktop folders contain shortcuts. A for instance would be a
"security" folder which contain shortcuts to MBAM, SAS, Avira, HiJackThis,
and other such related items. I also have a folder with internet shortcuts
that I like to be able to group wich isn't possible with auto arrange.

I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move.

I use this program called Fences to arrange my desktop. The neat thing
is that you can double-click on the desktop itself and hide all of your
icons, and you could even exclude some from being hidden if desired.
You can find out more about it here:

http://www.stardock.com/products/fences/


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Thunderbird 6.0.2
Friday, September 23, 2011 9:18:18 AM

 

[Char Jackson]

Actually, my desktop folders contain shortcuts. A for instance would be a
"security" folder which contain shortcuts to MBAM, SAS, Avira, HiJackThis,
and other such related items. I also have a folder with internet shortcuts
that I like to be able to group wich isn't possible with auto arrange.

I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move.

The more I think about it, I'm really failing to see the logic in
warning against storing files on the desktop. I don't usually do it
myself, but not because I think it's dangerous, unsafe, or a no-no.

I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one
chooses to do so. Whatever 'dangers' exist on the desktop would seem
to be equally present in any other folder.

 

[Rob]

The more I think about it, I'm really failing to see the logic in
warning against storing files on the desktop. I don't usually do it
myself, but not because I think it's dangerous, unsafe, or a no-no.

I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one
chooses to do so. Whatever 'dangers' exist on the desktop would seem
to be equally present in any other folder.

As someone who supports users in a corporate environment which uses
Roaming Profiles, I always discourage users from saving anything to
the desktop.
The reason is (due to the way the systems work here) that the desktop is
included in the roaming profile and users have a very limited Profile
size. Our Profile servers are the most heavily loaded and so users
with large profiles have the longest login times.
There are also other effects: If a user fails to logout of their office
PC, but logs in to another PC (for example to do a presentation), any
changes they made to files on the desktop of their other PC won't appear
on the desktop of their 2nd login, as the profile (and hence changes on the
desktop) is only saved on logout.
While you may say 'configure your system differently', that is not an
option in this case. I know for a fact that many corporate systems
are set up this way, so anyone who is ever likely to use such a system
is well advised to *never* save anything to the desktop, especially as
old habits die hard!

HTH

 

[Char Jackson]

As someone who supports users in a corporate environment which uses
Roaming Profiles, I always discourage users from saving anything to
the desktop.
The reason is (due to the way the systems work here) that the desktop is
included in the roaming profile and users have a very limited Profile
size. Our Profile servers are the most heavily loaded and so users
with large profiles have the longest login times.
There are also other effects: If a user fails to logout of their office
PC, but logs in to another PC (for example to do a presentation), any
changes they made to files on the desktop of their other PC won't appear
on the desktop of their 2nd login, as the profile (and hence changes on the
desktop) is only saved on logout.
While you may say 'configure your system differently', that is not an
option in this case. I know for a fact that many corporate systems
are set up this way, so anyone who is ever likely to use such a system
is well advised to *never* save anything to the desktop, especially as
old habits die hard!

Thanks, but I'm going to discount your advice/experience because I
believe it applies to corporate environments. Non-corporate
environments don't typically make use of the roaming profiles
capability. Let me know if you disagree.

 

[Ken Blake]

Whichever way you delete them, the actual files remain intact, though
the space that they occupy is marked as free and
eventually they will be overwritten.

Yes, but please reread the comment I made on my earlier reply to you:

"Yes, that's also true. But the operative words are "fair chance."
Waiting too long can easily happen. My point was not that files other
than shortcuts on the desktop will always be lost forever if you
delete them, but that putting them there rather than elsewhere creates
a larger risk of losing them forever. Running that risk is foolhardy."

 

[KCB]

The more I think about it, I'm really failing to see the logic in
warning against storing files on the desktop. I don't usually do it
myself, but not because I think it's dangerous, unsafe, or a no-no.

I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one
chooses to do so. Whatever 'dangers' exist on the desktop would seem
to be equally present in any other folder.

I don't see any problem with storing files on the desktop, or inside folders
on the desktop. The only problem would be the clutter it can create. I
keep a few folders on the desktop with files in them that are frequently
swapped back-and-forth on various thumb drives. Having them on the desktop
gives me instant access, and ease of use. I know somebody will say that
shortcuts would do the same thing, but it works for me with no ill-effects,
so I see no reason to change. The accidental deletion theory hasn't come
true for me, ever, but I've only been using Windows since '93.

My wife, on the other hand, has dozens of loose files on the desktop, so I
can't stand even looking at her computer. I'm sure she would say she has no
problem storing files there.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I use this program called Fences to arrange my desktop. The neat thing
is that you can double-click on the desktop itself and hide all of your
icons, and you could even exclude some from being hidden if desired.
You can find out more about it here:

http://www.stardock.com/products/fences/

I've been using Fences for a year or two, and for the first time in my
history with Windows, I have a somewhat organized desktop.

I also recommend it - strongly.

 

[Char Jackson]

I don't see any problem with storing files on the desktop, or inside folders
on the desktop. The only problem would be the clutter it can create. I
keep a few folders on the desktop with files in them that are frequently
swapped back-and-forth on various thumb drives. Having them on the desktop
gives me instant access, and ease of use. I know somebody will say that
shortcuts would do the same thing, but it works for me with no ill-effects,
so I see no reason to change. The accidental deletion theory hasn't come
true for me, ever, but I've only been using Windows since '93.

My wife, on the other hand, has dozens of loose files on the desktop, so I
can't stand even looking at her computer. I'm sure she would say she has no
problem storing files there.

Thanks for the feedback. Finally, someone who agrees that the desktop
is simply another place to do as one wishes. There shouldn't be
anything scary or dangerous about storing files there.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]

I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move.

The more I think about it, I'm really failing to see the logic in
warning against storing files on the desktop. I don't usually do it
myself, but not because I think it's dangerous, unsafe, or a no-no.

I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one
chooses to do so. Whatever 'dangers' exist on the desktop would seem
to be equally present in any other folder.

Except that you don't have any other folder open all the time. Have you
never accidentally moved an icon (whether a file or a shortcut) on the
desktop with a careless mouse movement? Or deleted the wrong one? And
with today's complex (excessively so IMO but that's a matter of opinion)
folder structure, you could "lose" a file - or, as Retired says, even a
whole folder - by accidentally dragging it onto something.

Sure, all of these could be done with other folders. And, possibly, if
you always work full-screen such that you rarely expose the desktop, it
might be less of a problem.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

 

[Char Jackson]

[]

I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move.

The more I think about it, I'm really failing to see the logic in
warning against storing files on the desktop. I don't usually do it
myself, but not because I think it's dangerous, unsafe, or a no-no.

I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one
chooses to do so. Whatever 'dangers' exist on the desktop would seem
to be equally present in any other folder.

Except that you don't have any other folder open all the time.

Actually, I normally have a handful of non-desktop folders open, but I
rarely have the desktop visible.

Have you
never accidentally moved an icon (whether a file or a shortcut) on the
desktop with a careless mouse movement? Or deleted the wrong one? And

No and no.

with today's complex (excessively so IMO but that's a matter of opinion)
folder structure, you could "lose" a file - or, as Retired says, even a
whole folder - by accidentally dragging it onto something.

I haven't experienced that, either, but I acknowledge the risk. Then
again, the desktop does not have more of that risk than anywhere else.

Sure, all of these could be done with other folders. And, possibly, if
you always work full-screen such that you rarely expose the desktop, it
might be less of a problem.

That's me. I normally have a half dozen instances of Windows Explorer
open, but rarely have any part of the desktop visible. Even so, I'm
not quite understanding some of the comments I've seen in this thread,
with words like risky, foolhardy, and no-no. I guess I don't get it.

 

[Roy Smith]

I've been using Fences for a year or two, and for the first time in my
history with Windows, I have a somewhat organized desktop.

I also recommend it - strongly.

Are you using the free or pro version? I ponied up and got the pro
version, I like it that much. One of the things I like in the pro
version is if you set the opacity level of a fence to 0 then it only
shows up when your mouse is over it. Here's what my desktop looks like
when mu mouse is parked in either lower corner:

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/1443/20110924-wtgb-325kb

I love this 1600X900 wide screen monitor that I have now...


--

Roy Smith
Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit
Thunderbird 6.0.2
Saturday, September 24, 2011 12:13:23 AM

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

[]
I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move. []
I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one

There is the "roaming profiles" one (my employer has exactly as another
poster has described, with a limited - 20MB, even these days! - limit on
profile size), but I agree that's mostly irrelevant for the home user. I
think it will take a _little_ longer to draw - or redraw - the desktop
if what's there are real files rather than shortcuts, but I agree that
with today's machines that shouldn't be a problem.

Actually, I normally have a handful of non-desktop folders open, but I
rarely have the desktop visible.

OK, visible then.

No and no.

You are lucky (or unbelievably controlled). Out of curiosity, do you use
a mouse or a touchpad?

I haven't experienced that, either, but I acknowledge the risk. Then
again, the desktop does not have more of that risk than anywhere else.

See below.

That's me. I normally have a half dozen instances of Windows Explorer
open, but rarely have any part of the desktop visible. Even so, I'm

In that case, then yes, it's probably no more of a risk than other
folders, in fact probably less, if it's mostly not visible. (Though I'm
wondering why you keep so much on it if it isn't visible - surely you
have to minimise some windows to get at things on it? Or do you just use
it generally as a folder, rather than its unique viewableness? Maybe you
do and that would explain your view of its safety or otherwise.)

not quite understanding some of the comments I've seen in this thread,
with words like risky, foolhardy, and no-no. I guess I don't get it.

People do tend to go a bit overboard, granted. I think it's with the
best of intentions, though - they've had bad things happen to them (or
seen them happen), and genuinely don't want them to happen to others.
And in some cases it's a memory thing, they remember when lower-powered
machines did creak and groan (whenever they redrew the desktop, for
example) if there was a lot on it, and this is much less noticeable
nowadays.

Out of interest, I've just had a look at my desktop (1280 by 800), and I
have 53 things on it (round the edge - only 3 are more than 2 rows in):
7 are files, four are Recycle Bin, My BlueTooth Places, My Computer and
My Network Places (all of which are arguably shortcuts anyway), one is a
folder (containing shortcuts), and the rest are shortcuts. Of all of
them, I use about 6 regularly, with maybe 10 infrequently.

We're all different!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

 

[Ken Blake]

I don't see any problem with storing files on the desktop, or inside folders
on the desktop. The only problem would be the clutter it can create. I
keep a few folders on the desktop with files in them that are frequently
swapped back-and-forth on various thumb drives. Having them on the desktop
gives me instant access, and ease of use. I know somebody will say that
shortcuts would do the same thing, but it works for me with no ill-effects,
so I see no reason to change. The accidental deletion theory hasn't come
true for me, ever, but I've only been using Windows since '93.

Your choice of course, but to me, those last two sentences are
equivalent to saying "I've been driving a car since '93 and have never
used a seatbelt; I've had no ill effects and see no reason to change."

 

[Char Jackson]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson
[]
I have customers with Music and Picture folders on their desktops that
contain the actual files. That, of course is a big no no. They could lose
it all in one accidental move. []
I'd love to hear more opinions on why a few people have come to the
conclusion that desktop is not a suitable place to store files, if one

There is the "roaming profiles" one (my employer has exactly as another
poster has described, with a limited - 20MB, even these days! - limit on
profile size), but I agree that's mostly irrelevant for the home user. I
think it will take a _little_ longer to draw - or redraw - the desktop
if what's there are real files rather than shortcuts, but I agree that
with today's machines that shouldn't be a problem.

Someone else brought up roaming profiles, but yeah, it doesn't apply.
[]

You are lucky (or unbelievably controlled). Out of curiosity, do you use
a mouse or a touchpad?

I don't yet have any diseases that affect muscle control, if that's
what you mean, so it's probably nothing to do with luck. For some of
my older customers who do have such conditions, I always recommend the
two step cut-and-paste rather than drag and drop since it gives the
user more control. (I use a mouse on my own system, but also have
trackball experience from when I do on-site visits.)
[]

In that case, then yes, it's probably no more of a risk than other
folders, in fact probably less, if it's mostly not visible. (Though I'm
wondering why you keep so much on it if it isn't visible - surely you
have to minimise some windows to get at things on it? Or do you just use
it generally as a folder, rather than its unique viewableness? Maybe you
do and that would explain your view of its safety or otherwise.)

I'm on my XP system now and have five icons on my desktop: My
Computer, My Documents, My Network Places, Recycle Bin, and Internet
Explorer. Of those, I've only used three. My Documents and Internet
Explorer have never been touched and could be removed (hidden), but
I'm lazy like that. What this means is that I'm not questioning the
concept of risky desktop behavior on my own behalf, I'm questioning it
from the perspective of a third party. I really don't understand why
some people are afraid to use their computers the way they want to. If
someone prefers not to store files on their desktop it's perfectly
fine with me, but to call it risky, dangerous, foolhardy, and a no-no
are beyond comprehension.

People do tend to go a bit overboard, granted. I think it's with the
best of intentions, though - they've had bad things happen to them (or
seen them happen), and genuinely don't want them to happen to others.
And in some cases it's a memory thing, they remember when lower-powered
machines did creak and groan (whenever they redrew the desktop, for
example) if there was a lot on it, and this is much less noticeable
nowadays.

Much less noticeable implies that there's still a penalty, however
small, and it's been implied that files cost an even bigger penalty
than icons do. I'm disputing all of that, and I'm disputing the whole
"it's dangerous and risky" thing. It's not.

We're all different!

Roger that, but we shouldn't be spreading our own personal fears on
unsuspecting others, right?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson

Someone else brought up roaming profiles, but yeah, it doesn't apply.

Though for those who use computers at work and at home, habits tend to
bleed both ways.
[]

a mouse or a touchpad?

[]
user more control. (I use a mouse on my own system, but also have
trackball experience from when I do on-site visits.)

I take it you don't have a machine with a touchpad (or use a mouse with
it if you have).
[]

I'm on my XP system now and have five icons on my desktop: My
Computer, My Documents, My Network Places, Recycle Bin, and Internet
Explorer. Of those, I've only used three. My Documents and Internet
Explorer have never been touched and could be removed (hidden), but
I'm lazy like that. What this means is that I'm not questioning the

Me too.

Do you mean you have only five _things_ on your desktop? I'd expected
there to be lots of _files_, from the way you've been advocating that.
If there aren't lots of files, why not?

concept of risky desktop behavior on my own behalf, I'm questioning it
from the perspective of a third party. I really don't understand why
some people are afraid to use their computers the way they want to. If
someone prefers not to store files on their desktop it's perfectly
fine with me, but to call it risky, dangerous, foolhardy, and a no-no
are beyond comprehension.


Much less noticeable implies that there's still a penalty, however
small, and it's been implied that files cost an even bigger penalty
than icons do. I'm disputing all of that, and I'm disputing the whole

When you say icons, I think you mean shortcuts? Anyway, I'm on shaky
ground here, but I _think_ when you make a desktop shortcut (possibly
any shortcut), the system finds the necessary icon and makes a copy of
it with the shortcut, so that when it redraws the desktop, it doesn't
have to fetch much; if it's an actual large executable file, it has to
look at the whole file to find the icon (the icons in executables are
often near the end of the file). But (a) I might be wrong about that,
(b) with today's machines it's fairly academic anyway.

"it's dangerous and risky" thing. It's not.

If you are a person who works with some of the desktop exposed most of
the time, then it is more likely that a mistaken drag or delete will
move or delete a file if files are on the desktop, than if just
shortcuts are. As for keeping a whole actual folder (e. g. of pictures)
on the desktop rather than a shortcut to same, ...

Roger that, but we shouldn't be spreading our own personal fears on
unsuspecting others, right?

Nor our own personal dangerous practices! (And now you're making me
exaggerate.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Are you using the free or pro version? I ponied up and got the pro
version, I like it that much. One of the things I like in the pro
version is if you set the opacity level of a fence to 0 then it only
shows up when your mouse is over it. Here's what my desktop looks like
when mu mouse is parked in either lower corner:

http://my.jetscreenshot.com/1443/20110924-wtgb-325kb

I love this 1600X900 wide screen monitor that I have now...

Free version. But thanks for the remark & link. Maybe I'll rethink that.

I especially like your desktop background, obviously the Florida coast.
(Sorry - couldn't resist.)

 

[Char Jackson]

In message <[email protected]>, Char Jackson


Though for those who use computers at work and at home, habits tend to
bleed both ways.

Habits, yes, but habits don't equal risk in this case, so it still
doesn't apply.

[]

a mouse or a touchpad?

[]
user more control. (I use a mouse on my own system, but also have
trackball experience from when I do on-site visits.)

I take it you don't have a machine with a touchpad (or use a mouse with
it if you have).

The laptop has a touchpad, now that you mention it.

[]

I'm on my XP system now and have five icons on my desktop: My
Computer, My Documents, My Network Places, Recycle Bin, and Internet
Explorer. Of those, I've only used three. My Documents and Internet
Explorer have never been touched and could be removed (hidden), but
I'm lazy like that. What this means is that I'm not questioning the

Me too.

Do you mean you have only five _things_ on your desktop? I'd expected
there to be lots of _files_, from the way you've been advocating that.
If there aren't lots of files, why not?

I don't use the desktop for anything but displaying a pretty picture
that I only get to see for a few seconds when the computer boots. Once
I launch my first app, usually Outlook, the desktop is gone from view.
Like I said, while I don't use my desktop for much of anything, I
can't agree with the minority who said it was risky to do so. I simply
don't see the risk, over and above the risk that exists anywhere.

When you say icons, I think you mean shortcuts? Anyway, I'm on shaky
ground here, but I _think_ when you make a desktop shortcut (possibly
any shortcut), the system finds the necessary icon and makes a copy of
it with the shortcut, so that when it redraws the desktop, it doesn't
have to fetch much; if it's an actual large executable file, it has to
look at the whole file to find the icon (the icons in executables are
often near the end of the file). But (a) I might be wrong about that,
(b) with today's machines it's fairly academic anyway.

I suspect the iconcache comes into play here. There's no repeated
scanning, AFAIK.

If you are a person who works with some of the desktop exposed most of
the time, then it is more likely that a mistaken drag or delete will
move or delete a file if files are on the desktop, than if just
shortcuts are. As for keeping a whole actual folder (e. g. of pictures)
on the desktop rather than a shortcut to same, ...

How is that any different from anywhere else, though? That's the part
that I'm questioning.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Habits, yes, but habits don't equal risk in this case, so it still
doesn't apply.

I think we're getting to the point of diminishing results, as we clearly
have different and opposing views, but I'll try to carry on:

if someone is in the habit of keeping lots of actual files on their
desktop at home, they're somewhat likely to do so at work, where they'll
find it affects their profile loading and saving time.
[]

The laptop has a touchpad, now that you mention it.

Do you use it, or an attached mouse? Though if you rarely expose any of
your desktop, it's probably irrelevant.
[]

I don't use the desktop for anything but displaying a pretty picture
that I only get to see for a few seconds when the computer boots. Once
I launch my first app, usually Outlook, the desktop is gone from view.
Like I said, while I don't use my desktop for much of anything, I
can't agree with the minority who said it was risky to do so. I simply
don't see the risk, over and above the risk that exists anywhere.

"Minority" is provocative (-:. Anyway: for those who do work in a manner
that leaves at least a part of their desktop visible much of the time,
then purely by that fact - i. e. it's there and visible - the risks of
inadvertent deletion/moving are higher. For those that always maximise
at least one application, I'd agree the risk is probably no different
than for any other folder they might open.
[]

How is that any different from anywhere else, though? That's the part
that I'm questioning.

For those who actually see the desktop, their mouse cursor passes over
it - and they see icons on it - more of the time than is the case for
most other folders. I suppose if someone tended to keep any other
particular folder open and prominent most of the time, it would apply
there too, but IME most people don't do that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

 

[Char Jackson]

I think we're getting to the point of diminishing results, as we clearly
have different and opposing views, but I'll try to carry on:

<snip>

I agree, I think we've covered everything. I remain unconvinced that
storing files (versus storing shortcuts) on the desktop is in any way
risky or foolhardy, and the people who originally made those claims
have long since disappeared from the thread, so I think we're done.
Thanks for the discussion.