List of Features Removed In Windows 7

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:48:59 -0500, Stan Brown

I'm under the impression that the primary use case is for people who
forget where things are stored. A Library can pull together all of the
folders where things get stored and present them in a single view. To
the user, then, the answer to "where is my file" is "it's in the
library". To them, the actual folder is irrelevant and useless
information.

Sort of like a return to the old flat-file system. Instead of a folder
for vacation pictures and another for theater pictures and another for
family pictures, each with 273 entries, I have a Library with 819
entries.

That can be ugly.

OTOH, after a moment's thought, I realize that I could certainly add
each *folder* to the one Library, keeping the original organization
without having to know that the first folder is in My Pictures, the
second in My Documents, etc.

It's the unexpected disappearance of files that stops me, and some of
that is *not* related to the "delete = delete" phenomenon, as I've
posted in ancient times. There's a way in Libraries that the file you
think you've selected is not the one that the Library thinks you've
selected...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

That's why there are quotes around "store" above.

But surely one wants the option to remove a file from a library
without disturbing other libaries that might link to the file?

That's certainly what I want.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gack! Believe it or not, I actually proofread before posting.

You mean "I acutally prrofread before psoting", don't you?

Here's what I do: I use a spell checker, then I proofread, then I send
a post with errors that I missed.

I would call your typo a minor gack, not a major gack...

 

[Char Jackson]

That's certainly what I want.

You can do that, but it's not very granular. To remove a file from a
Library without deleting that file or disturbing its other Library
views, you have to identify the folder that hosts that file, then
remove that folder from that Library view. Other Libraries won't be
affected and will continue to include that file.

While that doesn't disturb any other Libraries and achieves that part
of what you want, it's not granular in that removing a folder from a
Library removes ALL of the files from the Library view that are in
that folder, and that may not be what you want.

If you don't have other Libraries defined to include that folder, then
it's faster and simpler to just move the offending file out of the
folder it's currently in and place it in another folder that isn't
part of that Library view.

 

[Char Jackson]

It's the unexpected disappearance of files that stops me, and some of
that is *not* related to the "delete = delete" phenomenon, as I've
posted in ancient times. There's a way in Libraries that the file you
think you've selected is not the one that the Library thinks you've
selected...

I remember asking you about that before and getting what sounded like
a reasonable explanation, but to date I haven't been able to duplicate
it. Not that I'm trying, mind you, but it is something I'm watching
for.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:50:15 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

I remember asking you about that before and getting what sounded like
a reasonable explanation, but to date I haven't been able to duplicate
it. Not that I'm trying, mind you, but it is something I'm watching
for.

On my part, I'm trying hard not to duplicate it

Honestly, I never figured out how I made it happen, but absent a test
folder or two of sample stuff, I don't want to risk the attempt. And by
now it's been long enough that I've lost track of the few details I
knew back then.

But as you might be implying there's always a possibility of
PEBKAC.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:51:44 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

You can do that, but it's not very granular. To remove a file from a
Library without deleting that file or disturbing its other Library
views, you have to identify the folder that hosts that file, then
remove that folder from that Library view. Other Libraries won't be
affected and will continue to include that file.

While that doesn't disturb any other Libraries and achieves that part
of what you want, it's not granular in that removing a folder from a
Library removes ALL of the files from the Library view that are in
that folder, and that may not be what you want.

If you don't have other Libraries defined to include that folder, then
it's faster and simpler to just move the offending file out of the
folder it's currently in and place it in another folder that isn't
part of that Library view.

IMO, the first method above would be undesirable in most situations,
and the second method in some. Still, both are correct (and creative).

I might yet play with Libraries again, but I will first get someone to
tie one of my hands behind my back so that I don't make any untoward
moves.

 

[Char Jackson]

On my part, I'm trying hard not to duplicate it

Honestly, I never figured out how I made it happen, but absent a test
folder or two of sample stuff, I don't want to risk the attempt. And by
now it's been long enough that I've lost track of the few details I
knew back then.

But as you might be implying there's always a possibility of
PEBKAC.

I didn't mean to imply that, but it's always a possibility.
(I'm not immune, BTW.)

 

[Char Jackson]

I might yet play with Libraries again, but I will first get someone to
tie one of my hands behind my back so that I don't make any untoward
moves.

You don't have to use it just because it's there, you know.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:16:45 -0800, Gene E. Bloch

You don't have to use it just because it's there, you know.

Who says?

All joking aside, some of the discussion in this thread has reminded me
of a few possible advantages of Libraries, and also, it's still a bit
of a puzzle or challenge that I might enjoy looking into. I might even
discover that there really was a user error on my part that made it
look bad to me.

 

[Bob I]

IMO, the first method above would be undesirable in most situations, and
the second method in some. Still, both are correct (and creative).

I might yet play with Libraries again, but I will first get someone to
tie one of my hands behind my back so that I don't make any untoward moves.

In reality "libraries" are not different from the Start menu. That
"displays" items from "All Users" and also "Current user". Deleting
something from the Start menu removes it from the source folder.

 

[Stan Brown]

I'm looking forward to "Windows 7 Annoyances". The whole
Annoyances series has been great.

Looking forward? It's been out for more than a year.

I own a copy, in fact, and I find it significantly less useful than I
did /Windows XP Annoyances/.

 

[Stan Brown]

In reality "libraries" are not different from the Start menu. That
"displays" items from "All Users" and also "Current user". Deleting
something from the Start menu removes it from the source folder.

That's a good analogy, I think. To the limited extent that I
understand them, I think of libraries as analogous to a view or query
in a database system. When I edit something in the view, it gets
edited in the underlying tables; when I add or delete something, it
gets added or deleted in the underlying tables. I don't understand
why anyone would be surprised that when they delete a file in a
library they have deleted a file.

Those of us who like looking under the hood would probably be happier
if there were an easy way to expose the links that are driving all of
this. I read about soft links and hard links, a UNIX concept added
to Windows 7 (maybe Vista also?), but I didn't understand it clearly
enough to use, nor do I have a pressing need.

 

[mechanic]

In reality "libraries" are not different from the Start menu. That
"displays" items from "All Users" and also "Current user".
Deleting something from the Start menu removes it from the source
folder.

Eh? The Start menu is a list of shortcuts.

 

[mechanic]

I own a copy, in fact, and I find it significantly less useful
than I did /Windows XP Annoyances/.

Is that because XP is more annoying than W7?

 

[Wolf K]

I don't understand
why anyone would be surprised that when they delete a file in a
library they have deleted a file.

Because I see the value of a "library" as an organised listing of
items, not as a collection of items. If it is truly just a collection of
items, it's useless. I already have a collection of items, organised the
way I like it. "Libraries" have to add something to that.

However, I'd happily use "libraries" if they were the front end of a
database program which would store information about items according to
how I've tagged/classified them. This is how "bookmarks" are done in
browsers. You can create as many "folders" and subfolders to your
bookmarks as you want. Deleting a bookmark does not of course delete
what it points to: it would be bizarre if deleting a bookmark would
delete a website. ;-)

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

Is that because XP is more annoying than W7?

;-)

Actually, it's because W7 is better designed than XP.

Wolf K.

 

[Stan Brown]

Is that because XP is more annoying than W7?

I don't know, honestly. I understand Windows 7 less than I did
Windows XP, but it seemed like time after time I tried to find a
particular annoyance in /Windows 7 Annoyances/ and it wasn't there.
It's been the better part of a year since I last opened the book, so
I don't remember specifically what I was seeking unsuccessfully.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I don't understand
why anyone would be surprised that when they delete a file in a
library they have deleted a file.

Maybe because you can delete a folder from the library without deleting
it from the file system...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Eh? The Start menu is a list of shortcuts.

I thought so, and I looked, and it isn't quite so.

There are folders and files therein, at least here.