moving files in Win7 pro

In message <jabhli$1uc$>, "P.N," <>
writes
>
>"Bruce Hagen" <> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:jabb0p$lom$...
>>
>> "P.N," <> wrote in message
>> news:jab7dc$2jm$...
>>> Have this problem, my C drive is full and I have an empty D drive. Is
>>> there a program that can move my C files to drive D.
>>
>>
>> Drag & drop?
>> --
>>
>
>Not possible
>
Slip & slide?
--
Ian

On 11/27/2011, Ian Jackson posted:
> In message <h->, Andy Burns
> <> writes
>>Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> In message <jabhdo$16g$>, "P.N," <>
>>> writes
>>>>
>>>> "Antares 531" <> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It might be a good idea to do a copy/paste first, then verify that all
>>>>> the relocated files are serviceable after being copy/pasted onto Drive
>>>>> D? Then, if all goes well, you can delete the files from drive C: that
>>>>> you've successfully copy/pasted onto drive D:
>>>>>
>>>>> A cut/paste will delete the files from drive C:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry not possible
>>>>
>>> I really do need a better computer, but I'm rather put off by what I've
>>> seen of Windows 7. If W7 really WON'T allow you to carry out a simple
>>> 'cut/copy and paste' function, I definitely don't want it!!
>>
>>I think the O/P was discussing cutting the contents of "C:\Program Files"
>> and "C:\Windows" then pasting to "D:\" and expecting to still have a
>> functioning operating system!
>>
> Phew! That's a relief. [But I still don't like W7.]

Now be nice, now that your favorite reason was refuted.

Actually (to be serious for no more than half a second!), I pretty much
like Windows 7, but there are a few characteristics that I definitely
don't like, such as the dangerous unpredictability I have experienced
with the Library, and the way items in Windows Explorer jump around
when you click on them.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 28/11/2011 21:20, Gene E. Bloch wrote:
> On 11/27/2011, Ian Jackson posted:
>> In message <h->, Andy Burns <> writes
>>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <jabhdo$16g$>, "P.N," <> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "Antares 531" <> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be a good idea to do a copy/paste first, then verify that all
>>>>>> the relocated files are serviceable after being copy/pasted onto Drive
>>>>>> D? Then, if all goes well, you can delete the files from drive C: that
>>>>>> you've successfully copy/pasted onto drive D:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A cut/paste will delete the files from drive C:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry not possible
>>>>>
>>>> I really do need a better computer, but I'm rather put off by what I've
>>>> seen of Windows 7. If W7 really WON'T allow you to carry out a simple
>>>> 'cut/copy and paste' function, I definitely don't want it!!
>>>
>>> I think the O/P was discussing cutting the contents of "C:\Program Files" and "C:\Windows" then pasting to "D:\" and expecting to still have a functioning operating system!
>>>
>> Phew! That's a relief. [But I still don't like W7.]
>
> Now be nice, now that your favorite reason was refuted.
>
> Actually (to be serious for no more than half a second!), I pretty much like Windows 7, but there are a few characteristics that I definitely don't like, such as the dangerous unpredictability I have experienced with the Library, and the way items in Windows Explorer jump around when you click on them.

I simply ignore the library and also use Classic Shell.
I've used every version of Windows ever released and never use
the default data locations etc. All my files go into my own
folders, usually located on a separate partition/drive/network
location.
If you drive Windows this way, you avoid the 'dumbed-down'
automatic data handling that successive versions seem to want to
force you into, so using several different Windows versions every
day (as I have to) becomes simply a matter of minor differences.
Keeping your files far away from the 'user' folders also makes
backup rather trivial and reduces the chances of data-loss when
the system drive inevitably get screwed-up at some point (usually
by someone else!) or via malware/hardware/software failure etc.
I'm finding Windows 7x64 MUCH less of a hassle than I originally
thought it might be. Rather nice in fact.
--
Rob

On 27/11/2011 5:16 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <h->, Andy
> Burns <> writes
>> Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> In message <jabhdo$16g$>, "P.N," <>
>>> writes
>>>>
>>>> "Antares 531" <> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:...
>>>>>>
>>>>> It might be a good idea to do a copy/paste first, then verify that all
>>>>> the relocated files are serviceable after being copy/pasted onto Drive
>>>>> D? Then, if all goes well, you can delete the files from drive C: that
>>>>> you've successfully copy/pasted onto drive D:
>>>>>
>>>>> A cut/paste will delete the files from drive C:
>>>>
>>>> Sorry not possible
>>>>
>>> I really do need a better computer, but I'm rather put off by what I've
>>> seen of Windows 7. If W7 really WON'T allow you to carry out a simple
>>> 'cut/copy and paste' function, I definitely don't want it!!
>>
>> I think the O/P was discussing cutting the contents of "C:\Program
>> Files" and "C:\Windows" then pasting to "D:\" and expecting to still
>> have a functioning operating system!
>>
> Phew! That's a relief. [But I still don't like W7.]

IMO, the only serious flaws in W7 are a) the "Aero" GUI, which appears
to be MS's attempt to make a PC look like a Mac, but you can chnage
that; and b) the control panel has been replaced with a "wizard" that
does almost nothing useful. Classic Shell (free) will give you back the
control panel. Recommended. (You can also invoke the control panel via
the command line or Run).

O'wise, it's an improvement IMO: faster, more secure, and less resource
hungry than Vista. It has better control over users. It defaults to
requiring log-in passwords for all users; you can turn this off if your
household doesn't need this. During install, it found (updated) drivers
for all my peripherals save one (and ancient but extremely reliable b/w
laser printer, which I'll keep till it dies). In general, it will find
and self-configure for just about anything you plug in. It found and
self-configured for the wi-fi router: for XP I had to load a driver for
the USB dongle.

IOW, from my POV, all the Mac-like ease-of-use that matters, plus deep
down control if you want/need it. It can stand further improvement, of
course. Nothing's perfect. It's not IMO secure enough for public wi-fi,
so I keep a Linux laptop for travel.

HTH
Wolf K.

On 11/29/2011, Rob posted:
>> Actually (to be serious for no more than half a second!), I pretty much
>> like Windows 7, but there are a few characteristics that I definitely don't
>> like, such as the dangerous unpredictability I have experienced with the
>> Library, and the way items in Windows Explorer jump around when you click
>> on them.

> I simply ignore the library and also use Classic Shell.
> I've used every version of Windows ever released and never use
> the default data locations etc. All my files go into my own
> folders, usually located on a separate partition/drive/network
> location.
> If you drive Windows this way, you avoid the 'dumbed-down'
> automatic data handling that successive versions seem to want to
> force you into, so using several different Windows versions every
> day (as I have to) becomes simply a matter of minor differences.
> Keeping your files far away from the 'user' folders also makes
> backup rather trivial and reduces the chances of data-loss when
> the system drive inevitably get screwed-up at some point (usually
> by someone else!) or via malware/hardware/software failure etc.
> I'm finding Windows 7x64 MUCH less of a hassle than I originally
> thought it might be. Rather nice in fact.

In this house we only have Windows 7, and not everyone would customize
the same way, so staying close to the standard is a better idea.

Possibly relevant anecdote:
In the late 80s I customized the Emacs on my work computer very
heavily. The result: whenever I tried to use Emacs on another computer,
I was totally baffled, since I didn't know the standard keystrokes at
all.

So, on my next job, I stayed with and learned the standard Emacs
commands. The result: no one else could use my Emacs because there was
a standard set of macros most of the others used. Oddly, although I
volunteered to install that on my computer, they demurred. And
complained the next time, and the next time, and ...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

I am with you on this point Gene.
I am running out of complaints!

I think The Library part will be better if & when I can predict what
it does reliably.

IE9 even is working out for me. The relocation of the Favorites ICON
has me putting everything in the Favorites Bar but that does not take
long to set right.

As you mention in another post Customizing your system can result in
you not being able to adapt to another system in a timely fashion.

Early in the game a DOS GURU warned me about relying on fancy editors
to get the job done. She pointed out that the cryptic DOS line editor
was always available, best to learn how to make use of it!



>Actually (to be serious for no more than half a second!), I pretty much
>like Windows 7, but there are a few characteristics that I definitely
>don't like, such as the dangerous unpredictability I have experienced
>with the Library, and the way items in Windows Explorer jump around
>when you click on them.
John Ferrell W8CCW

On 30/11/2011 6:48 PM, John Ferrell wrote:
> I think The Library part will be better if& when I can predict what
> it does reliably.

The "libraries" are the default dumps for data. IMO they are less than
worthless, but they will persist as long as developers are willing to
accept MS's API defaults.

To have a single humongous pile of pictures (for example) is crazy. So
far this year I've taken over 3,000 pictures. Last year we went on a
three-day excursion to see Chihuly's glass sculptures in Grand Rapids
and came home with over 1,000 images each. Copying pictures into a
folder tree organised by category, date, and subject has enabled me to
find anything I want in 30 seconds or less, and that without having to
spend time tagging each picture. "Tagging" is IME one of those
"practical" ideas that are considerably less than practical when you
actually use them. Like folding kayaks: My dad bought one of those. It
was in the water exactly twice, and he had a waterfront property.

Wolf K.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:03:17 -0500, Wolf K <>
wrote:

>On 30/11/2011 6:48 PM, John Ferrell wrote:
>> I think The Library part will be better if& when I can predict what
>> it does reliably.
>
>The "libraries" are the default dumps for data. IMO they are less than
>worthless, but they will persist as long as developers are willing to
>accept MS's API defaults.
>
>To have a single humongous pile of pictures (for example) is crazy. So
>far this year I've taken over 3,000 pictures. Last year we went on a
>three-day excursion to see Chihuly's glass sculptures in Grand Rapids
>and came home with over 1,000 images each. Copying pictures into a
>folder tree organised by category, date, and subject has enabled me to
>find anything I want in 30 seconds or less, and that without having to
>spend time tagging each picture. "Tagging" is IME one of those
>"practical" ideas that are considerably less than practical when you
>actually use them. Like folding kayaks: My dad bought one of those. It
>was in the water exactly twice, and he had a waterfront property.

In my limited experience, Libraries don't work the way you suggest.
For me, if a folder containing subfolders is added to a Library, then
the Library will retain the existing folder structure, meaning the
parent and its subfolders. It doesn't just dump all of the contents
into a single folder.

--

Char Jackson

On 30/11/2011 8:56 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 19:03:17 -0500, Wolf K<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 30/11/2011 6:48 PM, John Ferrell wrote:
>>> I think The Library part will be better if& when I can predict what
>>> it does reliably.
>>
>> The "libraries" are the default dumps for data. IMO they are less than
>> worthless, but they will persist as long as developers are willing to
>> accept MS's API defaults.
>>
>> To have a single humongous pile of pictures (for example) is crazy. So
>> far this year I've taken over 3,000 pictures. Last year we went on a
>> three-day excursion to see Chihuly's glass sculptures in Grand Rapids
>> and came home with over 1,000 images each. Copying pictures into a
>> folder tree organised by category, date, and subject has enabled me to
>> find anything I want in 30 seconds or less, and that without having to
>> spend time tagging each picture. "Tagging" is IME one of those
>> "practical" ideas that are considerably less than practical when you
>> actually use them. Like folding kayaks: My dad bought one of those. It
>> was in the water exactly twice, and he had a waterfront property.
>
> In my limited experience, Libraries don't work the way you suggest.

No, but people do. ;-0

> For me, if a folder containing subfolders is added to a Library, then
> the Library will retain the existing folder structure, meaning the
> parent and its subfolders. It doesn't just dump all of the contents
> into a single folder.

Your comment assumes that someone has already created folders or folder
trees. But what incentive do they have for doing so? Many (most, IME)
applications just dump stuff into the library (some do create a folder
first, but IME that's the exception).

I'm aware that subfolders can be created in or moved to the libraries.
My point is that there is no, um, nudge to do so. The result is that
people "lose" their data. Many people have a pile of data in their
libraries, and have a heck of a time finding what they want. Really.
I've seen it happen.

For example, if libraries were programmed to create a new subfolder
every time someone connected their camera to the computer, with a
request to approve or change the folder name, or direct the data
transfer to another folder, that would, eventually, lead to something
resembling a folder tree whose names would help people find what they're
looking for, and better yet, remind them of what they have.

You can give people all kinds of advice, but if the system doesn't offer
or require choices, the advice is unlikely to be acted on. A
well-designed system will guide people to make the best choices for
using the system. The more flexible a system is, the more difficult it
becomes to design the interface and interactions so that people will
make better choices, but it's not impossible.

HTH
Wolf K.