Nikon FDUtility

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

There are literally dozens of ways to reconcile heterogeneous data.
Let's take the latest fad: XML for starters!

XML is no better or worse than .ini files or Registry entries (well, maybe
a little better in some respects, and owrse in others ) - what matters
is *semantics* of the data. XML doesn't solve anything in that respect.
The problem with standardizing is in the kinds and types of data
necessary: semantics. This is a BIG problem.

And once you have (theoretically only, since it's not even feasible)
standardized the types of data needed for all existing apps, a new one
comes along that needs different data yet again. What do we need: a world-
wide repository of user settings semantics? Accessible over the Internet?
What if a computer user doesn't have Internet access?

What does a user want from an (un)installer?

1. Easy installation with enough choices to let an installation adapt to
*my* system rather than adapt my system to an installer (that means both a
"standard" instaland a "custom" install, at least.
2. Uninstallation of everything that was *installed*
3. Tell me about any user data left in directories create by the installer
or subdirectories of that

Given that, it's
1) The application's responsibility to store any settings that are not
directly editable by the user in the Registry *below* a branch that was
created by the installer - so an uninstaller is able to remove those
2) The application's responsibility to store any settings that *are*
directly editable by the user in the file system *in* or *below* the
application's installation directory, or in a standard "Application data"
subdirectory - so the installer can warn the user not all data have been
removed (OR use a single .ini file in the %windows% directory created at
install time so the uninstaller can find it - but this is deprecated, not
least because it doen't handle different settings for different users)
3) The *users* resposibility to take care of any user data stored in a
location *they* decided in the first place - no uninstaller can know about
those and no installer should touch them anyway

BUT that ignores the multi-user situation - which makes the simplified 1-
2-3 lists above a whole lot more complicated.

The answer is, an automatic install so the user doesn't have to copy
any files manually or twiddle any OS settings (e.g. add registry
entries by hand).

Then, when the time comes to uninstall, automatic removal of all
files *including* any files the program has generated because it needs
them to operate! That does not include user *data*, of course, but it
does include user *settings*, temp files, OS settings, etc.

A user may *want* that - but I've already explained that it's just not
possible. Maybe I should say, only naive users want that - users who
understand a little how applications and the OS they're running on work
will not wish for the impossible - and will not be prepared to pay the
price of a dedicated uninstaller which duplicates half the program's
logic.

Conceptually and physically those settings are a part of the program
and you don't want them lingering on after uninstalling. What good are
those settings or temp files (the preview) etc. after you uninstall
the program? You want them gone!

They're NOT part of the program. Very often, I *don't* want them
uninstalled, so a newer version of the software can use them (directly, or
by importing them). Temporary files are the user's responsibility anyway -
who decides *how long* they should be kept? Only the user.

In short, an uninstaller should *fully* restore to "status quo ante",
(not a *partial* restore with bits left all over the place).

It should bloody NOT! An uninstaller that does that to me will mean I will
never, ever even consider another version of that software, unless I'm
reassured it's bettered its life. An uninstaller should NOT touch *my*
data (or at most ask me friendly whether to remove what it knows how to
find). Anything else is just not well-behaved.

Sure, remove the *program* and anything it needs to start up. But do NOT
touch ANY data.

By contrast, removing all program related files (whether they existed
at the time of initial installation or not) is meaningful

No, it's impolite, to say the least. Hands off MY data! And not feasible
anyway. Your "just standardize" completely misses the reality of an
infinite set of semantics to describe all those data. See above.

And, to get specific again, NikonScan sprinkles them all over the
place.

Such as where?

Not necessary Nikon's fault, it's just the way Windows works. Which
gets us back to poor MS programming!

No, it's not "just the way windows works". Where data are stored depends
on two things: the application (its own data) and the user's choice (user
data). An application that deosn't allow a user to choose where to store
their data is badly programmed. Nothing to do with how Windows works,
Windows makes these choices possible for responsible programmers.

Which is why I said at the beginning that (at the very least) an
uninstaller should be able to delete any settings in the program's
default location and the last user-selected location.

Of course, we only need to "just standardize" how the last user-selected
location of all the possible somethings for all possible users are
recorded. For all possible applications used anywhere on the world.

Standardization means: Instead of a free for all, both the
program and the OS agree to observe certain established rules so they
can work together.

And don't forget those semantics. ;-) They come before establishing rules.
See above.

Windows has traditionally had very little discipline.

In the sense that Windows is an application, yes; it's a tad sloppy - but
that is mostly because of backwards-compatibility with original bad
choices.
In the sense that Windows does not *enforce* any specific locations for
anything, true as well.

Both of these apply equally to *nix though. Mac OS is only partly an
exception in that OS X is built on top of *nix and you can do all *nix
things in it, as well. (Conveniently ignoring other OSs for a moment.)

That's why there are so many problems even when MS tries to retrofit
discipline.

Do they try that? Try to retrofit dicsipline?
Only in the sense that some deprecated (and insecure) approaches are no
longer possible (such as direct access to hardware). Otherwise backwards
compatibility rules, which has its disadvantages but huge advantages as
well.

The real responsibility is with application programmers; an OS only
provides a framework to make responsible applications happen.

And also why MS programmers are anything but good.

Some MS programmers are *very* good. I've said it before: MS is BIG. Then
again, some MS programmers are indeed bad.

The fact that there are so many *uncontrolled* places to store all
those settings is a prime example of all of that.

It's a result of flexibility.

It's also a prime example of sloppy OS design.

No - where settings and user data are stored is not a result of whatever
kind of OS design, merely of programmer and user choice.

I intensily dislike any application that *doesn't* give me a choice where
to store my data (including my settings). Most programs that don't won't
ever make it past trial install and are quickly removed. Especially a
program that insists on storing user data (as opposed to settings here)
below the installation directory: I keep a strict separation between
programs and my data, they go on different physical drives.

It's MY system, after all. *I* decide what goes where. A program that
doesn't respect that doesn't deserve my respect.

....

Enough of that, I've explained enough now. If you still don't get it, I
give up.

So, tell me: what are all those places where Nikon Scan stores data during
operation (i.e., after installation)? Places that weren't set or accepted
by you in the first place?

 

[Don]

And once you have (theoretically only, since it's not even feasible)
standardized the types of data needed for all existing apps, a new one
comes along that needs different data yet again. What do we need: a world-
wide repository of user settings semantics? Accessible over the Internet?
What if a computer user doesn't have Internet access?

All that's a distraction... The point is *everything* can be
standardized. This ranges from no standards (a free for all) to
stifling overstandardization i.e. the point of diminishing returns.
Reasonable standards sit somewhere around the middle.

....
2. Uninstallation of everything that was *installed*

And here's where your requirements are far too modest! That's just not
enough!

BUT that ignores the multi-user situation - which makes the simplified 1-
2-3 lists above a whole lot more complicated.

Not really. Any multi-user OS handles that out of the box. It if
doesn't, it's a bad OS i.e. we're back to sloppy programming i.e.
what's easiest for programmers to do. Enter MS!

A user may *want* that - but I've already explained that it's just not
possible.

No, you have not explained it and, of course, it's possible.! All
along you're talking about user data.

Temporary files are the user's responsibility anyway -
who decides *how long* they should be kept? Only the user.

You're missing the point. The user is often not even aware that they
exist! That's the problem! If an application "pollutes" my system with
temporary files I expect - no, *demand*! - it cleans up after itself
instead of leaving "droppings" behind! Not only when I uninstall the
application, but every time such files are created and are no longer
needed. Only sloppy and buggy applications leave such files behind.

It should bloody NOT! An uninstaller that does that to me will mean I will
never, ever even consider another version of that software, unless I'm
reassured it's bettered its life. An uninstaller should NOT touch *my*
data (or at most ask me friendly whether to remove what it knows how to
find). Anything else is just not well-behaved.

Again, this has nothing to do with user data.

Sure, remove the *program* and anything it needs to start up. But do NOT
touch ANY data.

See above.

No, it's impolite, to say the least. Hands off MY data! And not feasible
anyway. Your "just standardize" completely misses the reality of an
infinite set of semantics to describe all those data. See above.

What you're saying is analogous to this:

You buy a new shelf and hire a company to install it. In the process
they drill holes in your walls in order to mount the shelf. Later on
you decide you don't want it! The company comes back removes the shelf
and just when they are about to fill in the holes in the walls and
paint them over, you scream:'

"NO! Those are *my* holes! Don't touch them!"

I don't know about you, but most people would say to the company: Not
only you make sure you fill in the holes but make sure I don't see the
difference!

Note: This has nothing to do with stuff you put on those shelfs (i.e.
your data). But those holes in the wall were not there before the
shelf came in, and they shouldn't be there after the shelf is removed.

It's that simple!

shelf = application
holes (made by shelf!) = settings/tmp/etc. (made by application!)
junk on shelves (put by user) = user data (put by users)

Do they try that? Try to retrofit dicsipline?

Of course they do! You need look no further than the installation
drive. For years Windows assumed the drive will be C:. It wasn't until
W2K, I believe, that they finally abstracted the installation drive.

Some MS programmers are *very* good. I've said it before: MS is BIG. Then
again, some MS programmers are indeed bad.

It makes no difference how big MS is. IBM (with about 575,000
employees at its peak) was several times bigger than MS and it didn't
make any difference back then either.

The problem in both cases is that "the fish stinks from the head".
Decisions made up the food chain filter down as appalling programming.

I intensily dislike any application that *doesn't* give me a choice where
to store my data (including my settings).

Once again, there's a difference between data and settings.

Enough of that, I've explained enough now. If you still don't get it, I
give up.

There is nothing to get. The only thing we can conclude is that you
like holes in the walls, and I don't! ;o)

So, tell me: what are all those places where Nikon Scan stores data during
operation (i.e., after installation)? Places that weren't set or accepted
by you in the first place?

But all this time you keep saying you want to keep them! Why the
sudden concern where they are? That's inconsistent!

Anyway, I not gonna tell you now! ;o) Ha! So there! ;o)

Seriously though, I really don't know (that's exactly the problem).
Also, I wrestled with all that a couple of years ago. I do know they
showed up in a few unexpected places. I guess it also depends on the
OS. I do remember doing a global directory search for "Nikon" and
other such similar strings. In my case there was a problem because I
also have a Nikon digital camera which complicated things because in
some instances I didn't know if the found places/files were relevant
to the scanner.

Another problem is that I now actually have two installations, version
3 on my W98 drive (to be used with LS-30) and version 4 on my W2K
drive (to be used with LS-50). However, I now use my own scanner
program which runs on W98. Confused? Well, sometimes I am! ;o) Oh yes,
all this is on a notebook. I've got two internal drives.

Anyway, I've basically given up on trying to keep the installation
totally clean because it's a waste of time since Windows is so sloppy.
I just try to minimize the damage but don't agonize over it too much.
I'm more concerned that an install doesn't brake subsequent (or
previous) applications so I usually "quarantine" any new application
i.e. dump the registry before and after the install as well as do a
full recursive directory dump again, before and after. That way I can
backtrack a little. But if things run fine after a while I just purge
the dumps.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

And here's where your requirements are far too modest! That's just not
enough!

Not only is it enough - more is not acceptable! At least not without
asking. I'm in the habit of copying a whole installation tree before
uninstalling just because too many uninstallers are so impolite ;-)

You're missing the point. The user is often not even aware that they
exist! That's the problem! If an application "pollutes" my system with
temporary files I expect - no, *demand*! - it cleans up after itself
instead of leaving "droppings" behind! Not only when I uninstall the
application, but every time such files are created and are no longer
needed. Only sloppy and buggy applications leave such files behind.

The user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge of how to use his
tools. And besides, even the simplest of simplest computer mags explain
about temporary files.

Just *how* and *when* would you want them to be cleaned up? "Temporary"
is a fluid concept. There is a reason why some temporary are kept for
longer than a few reboots - competing installations, or repair installs,
for instance. It's up to *you*, the user, to decide exactly what and
when can be cleaned up. Of course you're free to use a utility to do
that - but it's still you taking the decisions.

Again, this has nothing to do with user data.

Yes it has - settings *are* user data.

"NO! Those are *my* holes! Don't touch them!"

No, I don't ;-) I might want to reuse them, and if I decide I don't, I
can always fill them myself.

Of course they do! You need look no further than the installation
drive. For years Windows assumed the drive will be C:. It wasn't until
W2K, I believe, that they finally abstracted the installation drive.

And how is that "retrofitting disciplinbe"?

It makes no difference how big MS is. IBM (with about 575,000
employees at its peak) was several times bigger than MS and it didn't
make any difference back then either.

Oh, yes, it did. Same difference. Different departments, different
goals, different cultures. In all really big companies, in fact.

Once again, there's a difference between data and settings.

Settings *are* data.

There is nothing to get.

OK, end of story then. (But there is, and you clearly don't. )

But all this time you keep saying you want to keep them! Why the
sudden concern where they are? That's inconsistent!

*I* want to keep them!
But I'm asking *you* what it is you don't want to keep, and where it
is/was.

And if you don't even know - then what are we really talking about here?
;-)

Another problem is that I now actually have two installations, version
3 on my W98 drive (to be used with LS-30) and version 4 on my W2K
drive (to be used with LS-50). However, I now use my own scanner
program which runs on W98. Confused? Well, sometimes I am! ;o) Oh yes,
all this is on a notebook. I've got two internal drives.

How is that a problem? It's an advantage - you get to choose what to use
when.

Anyway, I've basically given up on trying to keep the installation
totally clean because it's a waste of time since Windows is so sloppy.

*Applications* are sloppy, true. But don't blame it won Windows. It's
not Windows that puts your application data in a particular place, or
several places - it's your application that does that - by itself, or on
behalf of you when you get to decide what to put where. Windows only
provides the tools to do that but doesn't make any of the decisions of
what goes where.

 

[Don]

The user is expected to have a reasonable knowledge of how to use his
tools. And besides, even the simplest of simplest computer mags explain
about temporary files.

That's because OSes and applications are so appalling! Temporary file
management is *internal* no different to, say, memory management. It
has nothing to do with the user.

Just *how* and *when* would you want them to be cleaned up? "Temporary"
is a fluid concept. There is a reason why some temporary are kept for
longer than a few reboots - competing installations, or repair installs,
for instance. It's up to *you*, the user, to decide exactly what and
when can be cleaned up. Of course you're free to use a utility to do
that - but it's still you taking the decisions.

Again, all that is the job of the application. If the application is
poorly written so that it needs convoluted temporary file management,
that's the application's (i.e. programmer's) fault! Nothing to do with
the user.

You can't use programmer's incompetence - and any subsequent problems
this causes - as an excuse!

Yes it has - settings *are* user data.


No, I don't ;-) I might want to reuse them, and if I decide I don't, I
can always fill them myself.

Oh, come on, would you really insists the holes are left in? It's just
not common sense.

And at least you know where the holes are so you can fill them in
yourself. In case of temporary files you have no idea where the
application has put them!

And how is that "retrofitting disciplinbe"?

Because until that point programmers always assumed "C:" and
*hardcoded* it instead of abstracting it! Conceptually, the install
drive is between a *global variable* and a *constant* (so you only
need to change one location) but it certainly is not a *literal*
sprinkled uncontrollably all over the place!

That's elementary programming and yet it took MS over a decade to
"discover" it!

So, now MS demands that properly written programs make no such
assumptions but obtain the install drive information from the system.
That's retrofitting discipline!

Oh, yes, it did. Same difference. Different departments, different
goals, different cultures. In all really big companies, in fact.


Settings *are* data.

In the generic sense (which means you're changing the subject).

The context/subject here is user vs application/OS/system.

And a program's settings are *not* user data, they are system data!

Here's a simple proof: Where are those settings stored? It's either
Programs or Windows directories. And neither of those two places is an
appropriate place for *user* data.

Yes, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of applications which
store user data there but that falls under "programmer's incompetence
is no excuse".

*I* want to keep them!

And you will because Windows installers are poorly written and leave
them behind. If you can't find them, then blame the installers for not
telling you!

But I'm asking *you* what it is you don't want to keep, and where it
is/was.

And I already told you: Anything the application created *for its own
use* i.e. things which will just sit there *unused* by anything else
after the application is removed.

How is that a problem? It's an advantage - you get to choose what to use
when.

Yes, but it complicates the answer to your question because each OS
handles it differently.

*Applications* are sloppy, true. But don't blame it on Windows. It's
not Windows that puts your application data in a particular place, or
several places - it's your application that does that - by itself, or on
behalf of you when you get to decide what to put where. Windows only
provides the tools to do that but doesn't make any of the decisions of
what goes where.

No, Windows does *not* provide the environment and that's exactly the
problem. You can't excuse Windows so easily.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

So, now MS demands that properly written programs make no such
assumptions but obtain the install drive information from the system.
That's retrofitting discipline!

If only... far too many applications still asssume C: is where my system
resides (it's on R.

And a program's settings are *not* user data, they are system data!

Here's a simple proof: Where are those settings stored? It's either
Programs or Windows directories. And neither of those two places is an
appropriate place for *user* data.

No proof at all since for many programs different users can have their
*own* settings; they need to be kept separate, of course. Which is proof
settings *are* user data. ;-)

No, Windows does *not* provide the environment and that's exactly the
problem. You can't excuse Windows so easily.

I'm not excusing Windows - it's just not determining where user data are
stored, the application does that.

 

[Don]

If only... far too many applications still asssume C: is where my system
resides (it's on R.

Sure, but such applications no longer get the MS seal of approval.

No proof at all since for many programs different users can have their
*own* settings; they need to be kept separate, of course. Which is proof
settings *are* user data. ;-)

No, that's a proof of undisciplined and incompetent so-called
"programmers". And I anticipated that, of course, which is why I wrote
in the very next paragraph (which you didn't quote):

Yes, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of applications
which store user data there but that falls under "programmer's
incompetence is no excuse".

I'm not excusing Windows - it's just not determining where user data are
stored, the application does that.

Yes it is from W2K onwards because there is a Documents and Settings
directory where such user data belongs. But that's too little too
late. Of course applications i.e. programmers can still be
undisciplined but that's no excuse.

The bottom line is that when it comes to Windows:

Shoot first, don't bother asking questions later! ;o)

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Sure, but such applications no longer get the MS seal of approval.

Most applications don't, or don't even bother to get one - surely that
seal doesn't come free? I don't give a d*** about MS's seal of approval;
what counts for me is functionality and a well-behaved program, with
good support, preferably at a reasonable price.

No, that's a proof of undisciplined and incompetent so-called
"programmers". And I anticipated that, of course, which is why I wrote
in the very next paragraph (which you didn't quote):

Yes, I'm sure you'll come up with many examples of applications
which store user data there but that falls under "programmer's
incompetence is no excuse".

Huh? How is storing different user's settings in different locations
"undiciplined and incompetent"? You have a better proposal for how to do
that?

Yes it is from W2K onwards because there is a Documents and Settings
directory where such user data belongs.

Unless it belongs in the Registry, of course. Or the user is given a
choice (which I prefer).

 

[Don]

Most applications don't, or don't even bother to get one - surely that
seal doesn't come free?

Indeed it doesn't which is all a part of MS "world domination" i.e.,
randomly change paradigm, require re-certification, go back to step 1.

I don't give a d*** about MS's seal of approval;
what counts for me is functionality and a well-behaved program, with
good support, preferably at a reasonable price.

Absolutely, which then goes back to incompetent programmers.

Huh? How is storing different user's settings in different locations
"undiciplined and incompetent"?

Read that again! That's a definition of "undisciplined and
incompetent"!

You have a better proposal for how to do
that?

Yes, and I already mention it several times: abstraction, system-wide
standards, even using the registry, etc.

Unless it belongs in the Registry, of course. Or the user is given a
choice (which I prefer).

Which shows why Windows is so messy. I mean just look at the naming
alone: "Documents and Settings". The word "documents" does not belong
here because it confuses some users... ;o)

What MS meant was "system documents" but some users understand that to
mean "user documents". Of course that's wrong, because user documents
belong in "My Documents".

But whether you use the registry or the "Settings" directory it
doesn't really matter in this context. As long as it's documented and
standardized, as opposed to "undisciplined and incompetent".

Don.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Don

Which shows why Windows is so messy. I mean just look at the naming
alone: "Documents and Settings". The word "documents" does not belong
here because it confuses some users... ;o)

What MS meant was "system documents" but some users understand that to
mean "user documents". Of course that's wrong, because user documents
belong in "My Documents".

<Snip>

You realise that the default location for 'my documents' for an XP user
is in their folder in 'documents and settings'?

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

Read that again! That's a definition of "undisciplined and
incompetent"!


Yes, and I already mention it several times: abstraction, system-wide
standards, even using the registry, etc.

In the *same* location for *different* users?

I'm not getting what you're proposing - can you give a concrete example
how you'd do that?

What MS meant was "system documents" but some users understand that to
mean "user documents". Of course that's wrong, because user documents
belong in "My Documents".

Now that "My Documents" *is* a prime example of MS stupidity! They're
not the files of the computer. And whose files are they anyway? Even if
you accept that "my" really means "yours" - how does that handle
multiple users (again)?

I always rename everything "my whatever" to "whatever".

And anyway, I do not store all my "documents" in anything called
"documents" any more than I am storing my images in (my) Pictures.
Anything that still ends up there is hard to find - anything else is
easy to find because I build my directory trees carefully - and on
different drives.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:

You realise that the default location for 'my documents' for an XP user
is in their folder in 'documents and settings'?

It probably is in Win2000, too - but I always forget that because I change
such things: "My Documents" goes to a data drive, is renamed to
"Documents" and then seldom used because I organize my stuff by subject,
not the nature or format of the files.

 

[Surfer!]

In message <[email protected]>, Marjolein Katsma

Now that "My Documents" *is* a prime example of MS stupidity! They're
not the files of the computer. And whose files are they anyway? Even if
you accept that "my" really means "yours" - how does that handle
multiple users (again)?

If you check C:\Documents and Settings, it contains a sub-directory for
each user (login name). In there is all the user-specific stuff -
desktop, start menu, favourites for IE, loads of other stuff and yes, My
Documents. I'm sure it's possible to get My Documents somewhere else
via the various policies, but as only I use my computer all I've done is
move it to E:.

Win2K/XP does have all the stuff to control who can see what of other
people's work though again I've never really investigated it as I don't
have that need.

I always rename everything "my whatever" to "whatever".

Apparently this is happening in the next windows, Vista...

However think how powerful it was as a brand - for example, we have 'My
Travel' in the UK, and probably quite a few other businesses who thought
it cute/smart to follow the MS branding style.
<Snip>

 

[Don]

<Snip>

You realise that the default location for 'my documents' for an XP user
is in their folder in 'documents and settings'?

Really? I still run W98 (and W2K) and have intentionally kept away
from the XP.

Well, then the plot thickens as they say, or as I like to put it "the
thick plotten"... ;o)

Seriously though, that would just confirm how confused MS is.

Don.

 

[Don]

In the *same* location for *different* users?

Think about it. How are different desktop settings saved for different
users? You save user data the same way.

I'm not getting what you're proposing - can you give a concrete example
how you'd do that?

Yes, each user has a separate directory for their system settings
(e.g. desktop, etc) usually called the same as their login name.
That's for system settings as they relate to each user. You can do
exactly the same thing for user data.

I think another confusion is the inexactness of natural languages.

"User data" can mean two different things depending of current point
of view (POV). From the system's POV "user data" is data *about* the
user (such as desktop settings). From the user's POV "user data" are
personal documents (such as pics you took on your latest trip).

Now that "My Documents" *is* a prime example of MS stupidity! They're
not the files of the computer. And whose files are they anyway? Even if
you accept that "my" really means "yours" - how does that handle
multiple users (again)?

Each user has their own "my" directory.

I always rename everything "my whatever" to "whatever".

My data is in a directory called "D-A-T-A". That's for historical
(read "hysterical" ;-)) reasons because I always called it that. In
the olden days that stood out, and actually it still does.

BTW, "My" directory names are indirect, so you can change them and the
system will still know where they are. In my case above (with D-A-T-A)
I did *not* do that intentionally! In other words the system doesn't
know about it! That way I can monitor what various programs
automatically put in "My Documents" which I then delete. Anything I
want to keep I manually store in D-A-T-A.

And anyway, I do not store all my "documents" in anything called
"documents" any more than I am storing my images in (my) Pictures.
Anything that still ends up there is hard to find - anything else is
easy to find because I build my directory trees carefully - and on
different drives.

Exactly!

Don.

 

[Don]

However think how powerful it was as a brand - for example, we have 'My
Travel' in the UK, and probably quite a few other businesses who thought
it cute/smart to follow the MS branding style.

Indeed! Although, from the computer science point of view, it's the
absolutely worst name imaginable!

As Marjolein points out who's files are they anyway? "My" means
different things to each person. It's that ambiguity which makes it
totally unsuitable.

But, you're absolutely right, it has a certain ring to it and has
spread like wild fire.

Don.

 

[Surfer!]

Indeed! Although, from the computer science point of view, it's the
absolutely worst name imaginable!

Really? Why so? It's where Word etc. put documents by default. Seems
OK to me. The 'My' means 'mine' rather than 'Freds'. I cannot see
'Freds' unless I am an administrator and I go looking for them. If I
know where to look I will know whose they are.

As Marjolein points out who's files are they anyway? "My" means
different things to each person. It's that ambiguity which makes it
totally unsuitable.

Somehow I feel you are being deliberately obtuse - unless it's that
you've never, ever been anywhere near anything after Win98 in which case
you are talking from a somewhat ill-educated stance, in terms of Win2K &
WinXP.

If you look at what the folder that the 'my documents' desktop icon
corresponds to, it becomes obvious who the documents belong to. If you
log out and log in as a different user, clicking on it now takes you to
the new user's files, even on a PC like mine where the one for my usual
login has been moved.

Even in large commercial organisations where there are hundreds of users
with their documents on some great big server, it still appears as 'my
documents' on the desktop, the users still get their own documents and
no-one else's.

Ditto everything else in 'documents and settings'.

 

[Don]

Really? Why so? It's where Word etc. put documents by default. Seems
OK to me. The 'My' means 'mine' rather than 'Freds'. I cannot see
'Freds' unless I am an administrator and I go looking for them. If I
know where to look I will know whose they are.

It's bad on several counts but, of course, everything depends on the
context. Nominally, it's not a very good name. However, as you point
out, it is very appealing to plain-vanilla users and has spread.

Somehow I feel you are being deliberately obtuse - unless it's that
you've never, ever been anywhere near anything after Win98 in which case
you are talking from a somewhat ill-educated stance, in terms of Win2K &
WinXP.

No, I'm not being obtuse at all. Formal methodologies consider names
such as "My Documents" to be bad. Even if we take (various!) MS' own
naming conventions it would be questionable.

For what it's worth (to put things in context) I've got some 27 years
of professional computer experience ranging from IBM mainframes to
4-bit microcontrollers and lots in between, programming them all from
assembly to 4th generation languages some quite obscure, although the
last few years I've been working as a project leader/manager,
programming only in my spare time.

Be that as it may, if the users like it (and it seems they do!) then
that's that and we computer pros can huff and puff all we want!

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:

If you check C:\Documents and Settings, it contains a sub-directory
for each user (login name).

Of course - each user their own branch (no matter what it's under,
really): their data goes in *separate* locations.

I said before:

Me > No proof at all since for many programs different users can have
Me > their *own* settings; they need to be kept separate, of course.
Me > Which is proof settings *are* user data. ;-)

To which Don replied:

Don > No, that's a proof of undisciplined and incompetent so-called
Don > "programmers".

I fail to see how keeping different user's data separate is
"undiciplined" or "incompetent" - NOT keeping them separate would be!

Win2K/XP does have all the stuff to control who can see what of other
people's work though again I've never really investigated it as I
don't have that need.

Exactly. Quite competent, in fact. ;-)

Apparently this is happening in the next windows, Vista...

Gosh - that's promising!

However think how powerful it was as a brand - for example, we have
'My Travel' in the UK, and probably quite a few other businesses who
thought it cute/smart to follow the MS branding style.

All such firms have no chance with me - I consider them equally
childish. http://yourdictionary.com now, that's a clever site! (It
really is, too)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

But, you're absolutely right, it has a certain ring to it and has
spread like wild fire.

The ring of "dumbed down to stupidity". Maybe appeals to people who like
to be pampered.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Surfer! ([email protected]) wrote in view.co.uk:

Really? Why so? It's where Word etc. put documents by default. Seems
OK to me. The 'My' means 'mine' rather than 'Freds'.

No, the computer is talkig *to* me - not *as* me. "My" on the computer is
"the computer's" - NOT mine!

I have never, ever accepted all this "my" silliness.