Tech Off Thread

14 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Vista Comments

Back to Forum: Tech Off
  • User profile image
    Evilsushi

    I was reading that vista will still have real documents, video, music, and picture folders and also have virtual folders that contain viturally the same data.  I was thinking wouldn't just be simpler to create a real all documents folder to save all the data from that user then sort the data out to virtual music, photos, ect folders.  It just seems that it will confuse the end user if you present them with a real and virtual "music" folder, especially considering you wont be able to save a file to the virtual folder. 

  • User profile image
    nightski

    Who said you won't be able to save a file to a virtual folder?  Virtual folders are not "copies", nor are they shortcuts.  They are just that - virtual.  If you delete a file from a virtual folder it is gone forever.

    Think of it as a particular view of the data.  Its the real data, just presented differently.

  • User profile image
    MasterPi

    nightski wrote:
    Who said you won't be able to save a file to a virtual folder?  Virtual folders are not "copies", nor are they shortcuts.  They are just that - virtual.  If you delete a file from a virtual folder it is gone forever.

    Think of it as a particular view of the data.  Its the real data, just presented differently.


    Virtual Folders are objects that hold queries. When you open up a virtual folder, the system goes and searches for all files that match that query and simply lists them in the folder for them to be modified and viewed.

    Saving to a virtual folder? You can't save a physical object to a virtual container. How then will the virtual folder know the exact physical location to place the file? Unless there's something more to virtual folders that hasn't made it out yet, it's very unlikely that you can save files to virtual constructs. Virtual folders are virtual, and they only hold results of their associated queries.

    Their is a large distinction between the Documents (physical) folder, and the All Documents (virtual) folder. The All documents folder is able to aggregate documents from everywhere in your system (including desktop, program files subfolders, etc). The Documents folder just displays its own contents.


    mVPstar

  • User profile image
    brussell

    I'm using Windows Vista Beta 1 right now. I'm not so sure it is a clear distinction between All Documents and Documents. If I click the Start button, I see items such as Documents, Pictures, Music, etc. Clicking on them takes me to All Documents, All Pictures, All Music, etc. It takes me to the virtual folder that includes all the file of that type on my computer.
    Dragging files into these windows provides odd results.
    I drag a music file from the All Music virtual folder to the All Documents virtual folder. The music file now appears in both windows. In the Music folder, it shows the location of the file as D:/Users/Administration/Music. In the Documents folder, it is D:/Users/Administration/Documents. I then drag the copy that is in the All Documents folder back to the All Music folder and now I have a third copy and that one says its location is D:/Users/Administration/Sample Music

  • User profile image
    Evilsushi

    See people are already confused. How about a REAL "User Documents" folder that is pysical central repository for all the music, pictures, video, ect a user saves then divide them up using the "virtual" folders 

  • User profile image
    brussell

    Evilsushi wrote:
    See people are already confused. How about a REAL "User Documents" folder that is pysical central repository for all the music, pictures, video, ect a user saves then divide them up using the "virtual" folders 


    That sounds like it might be a good idea.
    Currently, you have a Documents, Music, Pictures, and Video folders that are real and contain files. Then under the start menu you have Documents, Pictures, and Music that are virtual and actually search the whole computer for any file of that type. It is kind of confusing the way it has been laid out.
    If I bring up the Documents, Music, Pictures, etc folders as I usually do, by using the Run command and type Documents (Well, it used to be My Documents when I used Windows XP) then I get the real Documents folder.

  • User profile image
    nightski

    Caught me there Smiley  Yeah you are right about the saving.  But the rest of what I said still applies.

  • User profile image
    nightski

    After thinking about this I do agree where the confusion would come in.  Its a good point and something Microsoft is going to have to think about.

    I think the ultimate goal would be to get rid of the file and folder system as we know it altogether and make everything virtual.

    So instead of storing a document to a location on the drive - it is just stored in an unknown location (determined by the OS).  The virtual folders are your only access to the data.

    This may be a ways off, but I hope its the direction we go.

  • User profile image
    Khamul

    I don't like the sound of Virtual folders. They sound destined to confuse people. To have them at all is OK, to have them in the place of an actual folder on the Start menu is ridiculously strange.

  • User profile image
    figuerres

    in a few ways this reminds me of when win 95 came out and had "Shortcuts"  -- aka .lnk files.


    in UNIX / Linux you have "Softlinks" and "Hardlinks"
    and "Mountpoints"  and a way that two mounts can show up in one filesystem with one shadowing the other.


    all of that can be *VERY* usefull in some cases....

    or very confusing in others....


    sounds like a kind of softlink with meta-data about the target object.

    I'd rather just have the windows file system hold the data in an extended data block -- then the object has it's properties and they stick with it.

    IMHO the real mess goes back to the "CP/M" roots of DOS

    8.3 filenames with the .3 as the DOS / CP/M "Magic"
    a better model was used on the Amiga and some apps.... and also I think on the mac OS.


    a "file" should be an object that has 2 or more "chunks" of data....

    one is the "file data" the other is the "MetaData"
    the MetaData would hold things like file-type,creator,owner,icon,create/mod dates, acl / perm data and so on....

    when you copy a file-object you always take all the chunks.

    when the OS or an app wants to show the file name/icon etc... it gets info from the metadata chunk.
    when you read/write the file you get the data chunk.

    that's IMHO what we need for the next-gen filesystem!
    PS:  no more .exe!!!  just "My Program" or "Microsoft WOrd 2006" or "My Web Page"

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    figuerres wrote:


    in a few ways this reminds me of when win 95 came out and had "Shortcuts"  -- aka .lnk files.

    in UNIX / Linux you have "Softlinks" and "Hardlinks"
    and "Mountpoints"  and a way that two mounts can show up in one filesystem with one shadowing the other.


    No, no, no. It's nothing like shortcuts, file system links or mountpoints.

    Rory has a good blog post about why Virtual Folders is a bad name and why comparing them to things like shortcuts is misleading.

    figuerres wrote:

    a "file" should be an object that has 2 or more "chunks" of data....

    one is the "file data" the other is the "MetaData"
    the MetaData would hold things like file-type,creator,owner,icon,create/mod dates, acl / perm data and so on....


    NTFS already does that. Only better. Smiley

  • User profile image
    figuerres

     
    AndyC wrote:


    NTFS already does that. Only better. Smiley


    ?

    really?  so you can rename your winword.exe to winword and it will run??

    I know that *some of* the meta-data is there but not the full set of things I have in mind.

    and as for the UNIX and symlinks -- "remind me of" not "Are the same as"  just a general thing....

    they are all ways of refering to a chunk of data and have some info about it.... I know the "Virtual folder" is not a symlink but there is a common thread in them...

    like the idea that you have two or more points of reference to one thing and that they are all like a C pointer... in that they are not the thing but mearly point to the thing.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    figuerres wrote:
     
    AndyC wrote:

    NTFS already does that. Only better. Smiley


    ?

    really?  so you can rename your winword.exe to winword and it will run??


    That's not a limitation of NTFS, but with the way Explorer and the Windows Kernel invokes programs. It just so happens that *.exe extensions are mapped to be executed, rather than be handled by another executable.

  • User profile image
    Sven Groot

    W3bbo wrote:
    Explorer and the Windows Kernel

    No, only the shell (explorer and cmd.exe alike, in fact, anything that uses ShellExecute to launch applications). You can pass anything you want to CreateProcess, regardless of extension, if it is a valid executable PE file it will execute it.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.