Libraries vs. Folders

[Yousuf Khan]

Careful though, you CANNOT delete a file in the Library folder without
deleting the original too! I once had installed photographic software
from a particular camera brand name (it came with a Nikon camera, if my
memory serves me right) which created similar Libraries but where you
could work with or delete the copy in the library WITHOUT affecting the
original one bit. A bit of a problem with hard disk space at the time
but obviously no longer with cheap Terabyte hard disks for less that 100
dollars or Euros or GBPs (-- name your own currency so long as it is not
Yen otherwise double it and add two noughts at the end!).

That's because those libraries were not part of the operating system,
they were just internal constructs of some particular program. For that
reason, you could delete filelinks in those types of libraries, without
deleting the original files themselves, because they weren't real
libraries just virtual libraries.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Flint]

If a Library was created from a single folder, then nothing would be
gained, but a Library can be built from multiple folders, and those
folders can reside almost anywhere on the filesystem. So a Library is
the most effective when it's used as a means of providing a single
view into what would otherwise be multiple folders. In effect, it
combines multiple folders into a single virtual folder.

The problem with the way Libraries were implemented in Vista/Win 7 is
that it is quite confusing to many non-techie users, and is decidedly
_not_ intuitive. I suspect this is largely due to Libraries using
_folder icons_ as the chosen visual metaphor which can be confusing to
some folks. This is confusing because it is something of a quantum
leap metaphorically speaking. After conditioning users for 25+ years
to the file/folder metaphor, the concept itself is one still not fully
grasped by a lot of folks (just as drive letters assigned to disk
partitions/volumes are confusing to some), much less a 'library' of
such folders. It might have been better to use a different visual
metaphor, say, such as file or folder 'cabinets'. This might have
been more easily digested conceptually to end users.

The library metaphor is more than just a physical file/folder
location. It is also an attempt to slowly introduce a coarse level of
granularized relational database management originally
proposed/intended back during development of 'Longhorn' and the
planned WinFS. Essentially, it was a crude attempt at reproducing
BeOS datatypes management/functionality.

While I feel that Window's attempt at standardizing default
directories for various datatypes (ie: "Music" folder, "Downloads"
folder, etc.) is a good idea, it would have been better to use a
different iconic metaphor than a _folder_ for a library. While all
folders can possibly be 'mini' libraries, the reverse implication that
all libraries are folders is decidedly _not_ true.

Similarly, the drive letter convention for disk partitioning is rather
limiting as well as simple letters have little meaning to most at any
intuitive level. A better convention would have been implementing
drive/volume _labels_ AS device names, and using a different iconic
metaphor to visually represent such as an additional layer of
granularity to the partitioned volume concept (perhaps as 'Shelves' or
'aisles'?) instead of mixing partitions and disk device
representations with the same iconic metaphor. For example, back in
the AmigaDOS era, disks could be addressed on the command line by
logical device or label _names_ ("DH1:" as a device name, but
"Workdrawer:" as a _logical_ device _name_ for "DH1:")

The concept of 'virtualization' is an abstract concept that might have
been better implemented with a different visual metaphor such as a
"file cabinet", "shelf/bookshelf", or "aisle" rather than an illogical
quantum leap right to a 'Library'.