ragmaniac said:
Well, I didn't expect to start a fight between F and A, or A and F,
Hi Hal,
You can safely ignore Frank and Alias. They are very high-volume posters
to this newsgroup; but neither of them has ever contributed anything
useful. It is some kind of private game, which they find amusing.
Did the OS designers realize how much error-prone typing is involved
to get at these deep directories the long way?
Another reply suggested that you can modify the Shell Folders values in
teh Registry. In a sense this is technically correct, but I'd discourage
that approach as a solution. I've actually used that myself, in the
past. However I found it is somewhat error-prone, since some apps will
still use hard-coded directory paths, and you end up with data scattered
between two places! It is also unsupported by Microsoft PSS and most
application vendors; which is probably not a big deal for a single user
at home, but usually kills the idea in any school or business setting.
And, yeah: I don't necessarily think the new layout is "good"; I'm just
saying, that's the way it is
I think the designers were assuming that users will navigate through the
directory structure using point-n-click in Explorer and the common
control dialogue boxes (File Open, File save, etc). The ideal solution
would be to have user-friendly organisation of data, at a layer which
was above, and abstracted from, the underlying physical file system.
That was one of the goals for the late, lamented WinFS ... a good idea
which just never got off the ground ...
Cheers
Andrew