List of Features Removed In Windows 7

[Gene E. Bloch]

Your data is organized?? How quaint!

No, no, no. I just *like* to organize my data. I don't actually *do*
it.

Why, you might ask? Obviously I don't want to be seen as quaint

Thanks for the help

 

[Char Jackson]

Does anyone actually use the Libraries?

I do. Here's my chronology: [snip]

You're just too sane and reasonable for Usenet!

;-o

Alrighty then, web forums here I come! ;-)

 

[Char Jackson]

The question I have, is, do you add a file to one of the
libraries.....or, are the libraries "read-only", and you add a
file to one of the folders the library represents?

Yes, you can add files to Libraries.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 11:11:47 -0600, DanS

Yes, you can add files to Libraries.

And also remove files, but the behavior is not intuitive. Enough so
that I won't try to explain it: I can't!

It is easy to remove directories from Libraries non-destructively, but
individual files seem to get deleted fromthe drive, not just removed
from the Library's list. OK, I said I wouldn't try, but I did anyway


This is one of the reasons I avoid Librairies.

 

[DanS]

And also remove files, but the behavior is not intuitive.
Enough so that I won't try to explain it: I can't!

It is easy to remove directories from Libraries
non-destructively, but individual files seem to get deleted
fromthe drive, not just removed from the Library's list.
OK, I said I wouldn't try, but I did anyway


This is one of the reasons I avoid Librairies.

I can really see it being an organizational nightmare.

There are some that dig those kinds of features though.

My beef isn't directly with all the shiny little gadgets and
new 'neat' little features, but rather with the

This particular method of turning off libraries is 10 or 12
registry edits, having virtually no meaning to anyone other
than like a bunch of bizarro hex strings.

There can't be checkbox in a dialog somewhere that's
captioned: Use 'Libraries' ?

 

[Paul]

My beef isn't directly with all the shiny little gadgets and
new 'neat' little features, but rather with the

This particular method of turning off libraries is 10 or 12
registry edits, having virtually no meaning to anyone other
than like a bunch of bizarro hex strings.

There can't be checkbox in a dialog somewhere that's
captioned: Use 'Libraries' ?

When you see bizarro hex strings, sometimes that's not hex.
It's actually text, where every second character is 0x00 hex,
and the other character next to it is ASCII. If I take a
bizarro hex string, edit out all the 0x00 things, then
load the string into my hex editor, it'll translate it
into text so I can read it.

The real question would be, what loaded that registry entry
in the first place. It probably wasn't done with regedit,
if the user had to add the string as hex. It was probably
done by some other registry adding tool, that supports
unicode translation as needed.

I have seen blocks of hex in the registry, where they appeared
to just be a binary dump. But I've noticed more recently, the
dumping of things like paths "C:\WINDOWS\blah" as a unicode string.

Where this is really a pain, is if someone asks "does the string
helloworld appear in Windows", at one time all you'd have to
do is search for "helloworld" with a text search. But now, you
also need to search for the unicode version " h e l l o w o r l d"
where the space is the 0x00 character, when it is actually being
stored as 16 bit unicode. It really depends on whether your tool
flow or tool choice, happens to properly support unicode or not.

Heaven help us, if more of the flavors of unicode are actively
promoted in Windows...

As it is, I've written a simple minded custom search tool,
when I actually need to find things like " h e l l o w o r l d"
somewhere on a Windows partition. Sometimes a person will
say, "I'm getting the error message 'Helloworld'" and the only
way to get a hint about the source, is to scan the entire partition.

Just a guess,
Paul

 

[Bob I]

Does anyone actually use the Libraries?
I do. Here's my chronology: [snip]

You're just too sane and reasonable for Usenet!

;-o

Alrighty then, web forums here I come! ;-)

Too late, they are now web fiveums!

 

[Char Jackson]

On 17/01/2012 12:38 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
Does anyone actually use the Libraries?
I do. Here's my chronology: [snip]


You're just too sane and reasonable for Usenet!

;-o

Alrighty then, web forums here I come! ;-)

Too late, they are now web fiveums!

That reminds me, I used to have a forehead, but looking in the mirror
the other day made me realize that I now have a fivehead!

 

[DanS]

When you see bizarro hex strings, sometimes that's not hex.
It's actually text, where every second character is 0x00
hex, and the other character next to it is ASCII. If I take
a bizarro hex string, edit out all the 0x00 things, then
load the string into my hex editor, it'll translate it
into text so I can read it.

The real question would be, what loaded that registry entry
in the first place. It probably wasn't done with regedit,
if the user had to add the string as hex. It was probably
done by some other registry adding tool, that supports
unicode translation as needed.

I have seen blocks of hex in the registry, where they
appeared to just be a binary dump. But I've noticed more
recently, the dumping of things like paths
"C:\WINDOWS\blah" as a unicode string.

Where this is really a pain, is if someone asks "does the
string helloworld appear in Windows", at one time all you'd
have to do is search for "helloworld" with a text search.
But now, you also need to search for the unicode version "
h e l l o w o r l d" where the space is the 0x00 character,
when it is actually being stored as 16 bit unicode. It
really depends on whether your tool flow or tool choice,
happens to properly support unicode or not.

Heaven help us, if more of the flavors of unicode are
actively promoted in Windows...

As it is, I've written a simple minded custom search tool,
when I actually need to find things like " h e l l o w o r
l d" somewhere on a Windows partition. Sometimes a person
will say, "I'm getting the error message 'Helloworld'" and
the only way to get a hint about the source, is to scan the
entire partition.

Just a guess,

In this particular case, they're CLSIDs that belong to the exe
or dll, or whatever module somewhere that provides the library
function. I haven't researched it, but Libraries are probably
implemented as a shell extension.

 

[Jeff Layman]

]
Does anyone actually use the Libraries?

Not me, and I really wish they were optional!

Same here.

Problem is that some software insists on using them. Eg, I just tried
out PaperPort, dumped it because it couldn't/wouldn't navigate to
anything outside Documents. Bizarre. Well, maybe there was a switch
somewhere to enable P/P to use other directories, but I didn't bother
looking fir it. Now I have to clean up the Libraries because P/P added a
bunch of folders in each one.

I don't use PaperPort, but wondered what it would do if you'd previously
used a registry hack to stop libraries appearing in Explorer. Would it
simply not run?

IMO, all built-in add-ons should be optional. And no program should
impose unchangeable defaults.

"built-in add-ons"? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?! But I know
what you mean.

And as for no program imposing unchangeable defaults, well, isn't that
what happens every time MS change a program version? ;-)

 

[Jeff Layman]

I do. Here's my chronology:

1. My introduction to Libraries was in this newsgroup, where I learned
that Libraries are evil and must be disabled, so I used a method I
found online to disable them. Time passed and I got tired of the side
effects, so I enabled them again.

2. I played around and discovered that Libraries work just fine, (it
turned out that they weren't evil at all!), but it helps to read the
documentation because some things aren't intuitive.

3. After getting over the excitement of "hey, this is a pretty cool
feature", I use them less now because the buzz has worn off, but I
still use them and have shown others in the house how to use them.

Having been on both sides of the fence, I have to say I don't see the
big deal or why they evoke such a visceral reaction. Use the feature
or not, it's no big deal either way.

Let's see. It's a busy day. You use a confidential file which is in a
library, then decide you no longer want that particular file which is in
that library. You will never need it there again, so bypass the recycle
bin for security when you delete it. As you are focussing on other
things, you forget what deleting that file actually means...

A few weeks later you need that file for a critical purpose. You go to
the original (non-library) folder to retrieve the file. It isn't there,
or course. It isn't in the recycle bin. And because you've gone through
a complete son-father-grandfather backup cycle, it is not longer
available as a backup. But you /know/ you never deleted it from the
original location

All because MS stupidly places one file in two or more places (if it
appears in more than one library), and deletion of any of those "files"
means you've lost it from all the other locations, too.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Jeff Layman wrote:

Let's see. It's a busy day. You use a confidential file which is in
a library, then decide you no longer want that particular file which
is in that library. You will never need it there again, so bypass
the recycle bin for security when you delete it. As you are
focussing on other things, you forget what deleting that file
actually means...

A few weeks later you need that file for a critical purpose. You go
to the original (non-library) folder to retrieve the file. It isn't
there, or course. It isn't in the recycle bin. And because you've
gone through a complete son-father-grandfather backup cycle, it is
not longer available as a backup. But you /know/ you never deleted
it from the original location

All because MS stupidly places one file in two or more places (if it
appears in more than one library), and deletion of any of those
"files" means you've lost it from all the other locations, too.

That's because it was never actually in the Library. It just looked like
it was in the Library. Library entries are like super shortcuts which
are inexorably linked to the target program. Deleting them deletes the
parent and any other pseudo program entries.

I hate it. That's why I have removed/disable Libraries on my system. I
only want the programs I want, as many copies as I want, wherever I want
them.

 

[Char Jackson]

Let's see. It's a busy day. You use a confidential file which is in a
library, then decide you no longer want that particular file which is in
that library. You will never need it there again, so bypass the recycle
bin for security when you delete it. As you are focussing on other
things, you forget what deleting that file actually means...

The concept of deleting a file has been around in Windows for over a
decade now. That part isn't new at all.

A few weeks later you need that file for a critical purpose. You go to
the original (non-library) folder to retrieve the file. It isn't there,
or course. It isn't in the recycle bin. And because you've gone through
a complete son-father-grandfather backup cycle, it is not longer
available as a backup. But you /know/ you never deleted it from the
original location

All because MS stupidly places one file in two or more places (if it
appears in more than one library), and deletion of any of those "files"
means you've lost it from all the other locations, too.

It's always a good idea to familiarize yourself with a new feature
before you start using it, especially with critical files.

 

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

Jeff Layman wrote:



That's because it was never actually in the Library. It just looked like
it was in the Library. Library entries are like super shortcuts which
are inexorably linked to the target program. Deleting them deletes the
parent and any other pseudo program entries.

I hate it. That's why I have removed/disable Libraries on my system. I
only want the programs I want, as many copies as I want, wherever I want
them.

Libraries can have multiple copies of the files and the files can have
duplicated and triplicated file space. That was common on the
mainframe operating system I worked yonks ago. Microsoft are
reinventing those methods of storage but are not quite there yet. With
distributed and duplicated (or triplicated) storage it is not
practical to leave it up most users to keep track of their data.
Libraries makes it so simple.

Steve

--
Neural network software applications, help and support.

Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

 

[Jeff Layman]

The concept of deleting a file has been around in Windows for over a
decade now. That part isn't new at all.

But it is. Anyone used to using a Microsoft OS and who has used
shortcuts would not unreasonably assume that what they are seeing in the
library folder is a special /shortcut/ to the original file, not the
original file itself. Whether or not you think of the library folder as
a real or virtual folder makes no difference - the file you see in that
library folder is real enough. It's not a shortcut - delete it in the
library folder and it's gone from the original folder as well.

It's always a good idea to familiarize yourself with a new feature
before you start using it, especially with critical files.

I don't disagree, but in Win7 "Help" MS do not make it crystal clear in
explaining what a library is. This is from the first FAQ ("What is a
library?"):

"...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 from the third FAQ ("What happens if I delete a library or the
items in a library"):

"If you delete a library, the library itself is moved to the Recycle
Bin. The files and folders that were accessible in the library are
stored elsewhere and therefore aren't deleted."

"If you delete files or folders from within a library, they're also
deleted from their original locations."

So you can delete libraries without deleting the items in them, but as
libraries don't actually store your items, if you delete those items in
the library "folder", why are the original files deleted! What kind of
confusing, inconsistent nonsense is that?

MS should either have used a special shortcut which could be safely
deleted without affecting the original file, or perhaps disabled the
ability to delete files within libraries. They just didn't think it
through properly.

 

[Char Jackson]

But it is. Anyone used to using a Microsoft OS and who has used
shortcuts would not unreasonably assume that what they are seeing in the
library folder is a special /shortcut/ to the original file, not the
original file itself. Whether or not you think of the library folder as
a real or virtual folder makes no difference - the file you see in that
library folder is real enough. It's not a shortcut - delete it in the
library folder and it's gone from the original folder as well.

I think we'll have to disagree here. I never automatically assumed a
library entry was a shortcut, and I don't think it's safe for anyone
to make that assumption. Why would you? This is a new-to-Windows
feature and it makes sense to skim the Help file on it rather than
just blaze ahead. A very minimum of reading will alert the user as to
how this behavior works.

I don't disagree, but in Win7 "Help" MS do not make it crystal clear in
explaining what a library is. This is from the first FAQ ("What is a
library?"):

"...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 from the third FAQ ("What happens if I delete a library or the
items in a library"):

"If you delete a library, the library itself is moved to the Recycle
Bin. The files and folders that were accessible in the library are
stored elsewhere and therefore aren't deleted."

"If you delete files or folders from within a library, they're also
deleted from their original locations."

So you can delete libraries without deleting the items in them, but as
libraries don't actually store your items, if you delete those items in
the library "folder", why are the original files deleted! What kind of
confusing, inconsistent nonsense is that?

MS should either have used a special shortcut which could be safely
deleted without affecting the original file, or perhaps disabled the
ability to delete files within libraries. They just didn't think it
through properly.

I agree that they didn't implement this feature the way you would
have, but I have no problem with the way they implemented it. It works
fine for me just the way it is.

There really isn't much to learn here: deleting a file from a Library
is the same as it has been for 15 years; i.e., the file is deleted.
"Deleting" a folder in a Library view simply removes the folder from
that Library view rather than deleting the folder. That part is new
behavior, but it's not earth shattering and it errs on the side of
safety, so again, I have no problem with it.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:41:50 +0000, Jeff Layman

I think we'll have to disagree here. I never automatically assumed a
library entry was a shortcut, and I don't think it's safe for anyone
to make that assumption. Why would you? This is a new-to-Windows
feature and it makes sense to skim the Help file on it rather than
just blaze ahead. A very minimum of reading will alert the user as to
how this behavior works.

I agree that they didn't implement this feature the way you would
have, but I have no problem with the way they implemented it. It works
fine for me just the way it is.

There really isn't much to learn here: deleting a file from a Library
is the same as it has been for 15 years; i.e., the file is deleted.
"Deleting" a folder in a Library view simply removes the folder from
that Library view rather than deleting the folder. That part is new
behavior, but it's not earth shattering and it errs on the side of
safety, so again, I have no problem with it.

My vote in this issue is with Jeff Layman - but it's only a vote

The only thing that keeps me from doing the registry hacks to kill
Libraries is that I have no clear idea what the side-effects are...

 

[Char Jackson]

My vote in this issue is with Jeff Layman - but it's only a vote

It's votes like that that make me think there's something bad lurking
around the corner, but so far the Libraries have worked just as I
expect them to. No issues whatsoever.

The only thing that keeps me from doing the registry hacks to kill
Libraries is that I have no clear idea what the side-effects are...

With the hack that I used for awhile, the only side effect was that
every time I wanted to copy or move a file from one location to
another, a window would come up, saying essentially that the file I
was trying to move or copy was no longer in that location. Selecting
Try Again was always successful. Undoing the hack resolved the bogus
error messages.

So at least in my case, doing the hack didn't cause any real damage
and was completely reversible.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:47:44 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

It's votes like that that make me think there's something bad lurking
around the corner, but so far the Libraries have worked just as I
expect them to. No issues whatsoever.

With the hack that I used for awhile, the only side effect was that
every time I wanted to copy or move a file from one location to
another, a window would come up, saying essentially that the file I
was trying to move or copy was no longer in that location. Selecting
Try Again was always successful. Undoing the hack resolved the bogus
error messages.

So at least in my case, doing the hack didn't cause any real damage
and was completely reversible.

Thanks. Besides not being scary, what you say is very clear, which
helps just a bit

 

[Stan Brown]

Not me, and I really wish they were optional!

This has been discussed here several times. Removing them is not
trivial, and IMHO it is better just to ignore them, or at least to
remove them from the display.

I think they can make sense for a computer with multiple users, or
one that is linked in a network where there is a lot of content
sharing.