Now, in Win7, I bring up file explorer. Click on "Documents". It says at the top it is located in "Libraries -> Documents". But that isn't where it is. It's in c:\users\name\documents".
I never understood why there are two separate file systems mapping to the same files. It's madness.
The result you're after as an ordinary user is a container holding a group of files, not a "directory" that lets you look up a filename and be told where to go find it. As an implementation, of course, the latter is closer to what a file system "directory" really does, but that's not the most useful metaphor to present to the ordinary user.
And does a phone directory contain individual listings plus other phone directories? No, but that's what "directory" meant to most people back when the name was changed to "folder". And the name change happened when GUIs were first created and needed icons to represent a thing to drop files into. You don't drop files into directories, you drop them into folders or file drawers or something. (Of course, my father can't stop calling a folder a "file", because file folders were so often called "files" at the office way back when. Oh, well.)
I've called them "directories" since before the Mac existed, so the word was long ago defined in my head by the thing itself and could be called a watermelon for all the difference it would make to me, but if I look at it with a beginner's mind, "directory" doesn't seem like a very good name.
From an implementation perspective, you are correct. But that doesn't rebut what your parent comment is saying.
> On the web, any URI that ends with a "/" is specified to look first for an index file--such as index.html--which should contain a listing of links to files and other directories.
That is not my experience with most of the web. I've seen it, but not really that much in the past 6 years.
Which reminds me of iTunes, which I've used on Windows for years. It had an option to automatically consolidate files and store them in a sane location automatically when adding music. It was great.
Oh, and if you broke them it's not like Windows will fix them for you, no you need to head over to Super User and read some solutions.
I was just reading about that today. Alan Kay is to blame it seems, as for so much. :-)
"The desktop metaphor was first introduced by Alan Kay at Xerox PARC in 1970 and elaborated in a series of innovative software applications developed by PARC scientists throughout the ensuing decade. The first computer to use an early version of the desktop metaphor was the experimental Xerox Alto"[0]
For the wider context about desktop/folders etc see [1][2]
I found this [3] story linked to a while ago on here fascinating, about all the user testing done for Windows 95. They did a lot of watching people use the file/folder system, change things around etc, repeat etc. It's kind of funny, the problems people had.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_metaphor
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_user_interface
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_...
[3] https://socket3.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/designing-windows-9...
I think as time goes by we'll see which of the concepts of computing we grew up with end up being core to the usage of a computer and I'd be especially excited if we went in the direction of relational linkage of assets the computer has access to.
There is really no use to have all files and folders on your fs available for opening or saving in most apps. Often you just need the most recent modified file or only files of a certain type. And there are really not a lot of places it makes sense to save files to outside of your home folder and personal project layout.
Abstractions common to literally every home computer operating system from the last several decades.
But he didn't really offer an alternative (other than Xanadu). And a hierarchical system of storage is convenient for lots of people - once they understand what "hierarchy" means.
I think understanding hierarchy is one of those epiphanies that a new computer user can sometimes have. Others simply don't seem to be able to grok it.
I think that might be a bug. Windows 10 Photos app is surprisingly good about exposing your file system nicely, without the jank of a 'private proprietary hidden library' that other photo apps sometimes use.
Right click any photo to "Show in File Explorer" directly, or click Settings and it will show you a list of "Source Folders" it scans for pictures. Double click any "Source Folder" to jump straight into it.
At least, that's all present in the current version of Photos (2018 v18081.14710)
That's pretty much how I would expect an app like this to work on a Mac!
Really? What if you want to copy a group of images? If what you describe is correct, when you drag and drop a group of images, wouldn't you get copies of the thumbnails.
I'm pretty sure my GF did this. I asked her for full res copies of some images of us, and got resized low-res versions. She uses iPhoto said she just dragged them out of the app. I had to fuss around with it and finally got what I wanted by using an export feature.
Dragging and dropping each full-resolution images one by one sounds like a nightmare.
> That's pretty much how I would expect an app like this to work on a Mac!
If this is what's now expected from Macs, oh how Apple has fallen. I can think of zero use cases where you'd actually want to drag and drop the thumbnail out, but not the full resolution image.
Frustration.
That said the performance of the OS is pretty good. When I learned Powershell wasnt available at cmd things got a bit better.
Ended up with a Linux VM simply because I dont have time to figure out how to reproduce simple Linux CLI commands on windows.
A true "universal" application needs to flex its interface for people who understand files and folders, and those who don't. (Most applications don't need to be this flexible, though.)
I haven't used a file cabinet at work in over a decade. I still have a file drawer at my desk but there are no folders in it. So in that regard, familiarity with the concept is probably a lot lower than it used to be.
What probably makes more sense to users today would be tagging or labeling documents into categories. Could still be implemented as files, folders, and links, but the presentation might make more sense using other analogues.
I am not a programmer by any means and I know how important it is to create a filing system with directories. It is irritating how much time is lost while waiting for colleagues to locate a file hidden among the many on their desktop.
Edit: Sorry, I should have saved you the bother of clicking. It's a digital file management strategy loosely inspired (I assume) by library classification systems like Dewey's. I don't use it myself, but I admire the simplicity, clarity, and flexibility of the system.
However what's often missing is a class which teaches basic computing concepts. Files and directories are just some of them. The basic von Neumann architecture (a CPU changing ram), what a program is, how the internet protocol and the domain name system work, different parts of a URL, how a frame buffer determines what is shown on the screen, how colors are encoded with RGB values, etc. These are all very interesting concepts that could be taught at the high school level. There's a lot to be learned even without going into the technical details and I am confident that these students would then find (desktop) computers much more accessible. Smartphones and their touch interfaces have been a runaway success and I think this is in part because most people never got comfortable with traditional desktop computers (and their GUIs) due to decades of misguided computer classes.