List of Features Removed In Windows 7

[Stan Brown]

http://www.askvg.com/how-to-disable-libraries-feature-in-
windows-7/


The question I have, is, do you add a file to one of the
libraries.....or, are the libraries "read-only", and you add a
file to one of the folders the library represents?

I don't use them, but my understanding is that you can do either.
Each library had a default folder-where-new-things-go, which you can
specify, so dropping something in a library is effectively dropping
it in that folder.

 

[Stan Brown]

it helps to read the
documentation because some things aren't intuitive.

Indeed, that's generally good advice.

But which documentation did you find helpful? /Windows 7 Inside Put/
(recommended to me in this newsgroup) is generally good, but its
chapter on libraries didn't help me at all. And Microsoft's feature
page on libraries (sorry, can't remember URL) was equally useless.

 

[Stan Brown]

Let's see. It's a busy day. You use a confidential file which is in a
library, then decide you no longer want that particular file which is in
that library. You will never need it there again, so bypass the recycle
bin for security when you delete it. As you are focussing on other
things, you forget what deleting that file actually means...

I'm not a fan of Microsoft at all, but even I would never blame
Microsoft if I deleted a file and later decided I needed it. That's
what backups are for.

 

[mechanic]

There really isn't much to learn here: deleting a file from a
Library is the same as it has been for 15 years; i.e., the file
is deleted.

But can't you 'store' the file in more than one library?

 

[mechanic]

I don't disagree, but in Win7 "Help" MS do not make it crystal
clear in explaining what a library is.

It's all very new. They'll probably get it right by Windows 10.

 

[Char Jackson]

Indeed, that's generally good advice.

But which documentation did you find helpful?

Just the blurbs in Windows Help were enough for me. If you ask me,
there's nothing complicated about them whatsoever.

/Windows 7 Inside Put/

I think that's "Windows 7 Inside Out", in case anyone wants a good
recommendation.

(recommended to me in this newsgroup) is generally good, but its
chapter on libraries didn't help me at all. And Microsoft's feature
page on libraries (sorry, can't remember URL) was equally useless.

The last 3rd party 'computer' book I bought was on programming the
6502 & 6510 CPUs in assembly language. I think that was in about 1983,
so you guys who are still buying books are a bit ahead of me. I
haven't seen the need, personally, but for some they can be a good
reference. Maybe the Library function needs a book all by itself?

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

This has been discussed here several times. Removing them is not
trivial, and IMHO it is better just to ignore them, or at least to
remove them from the display.

I think they can make sense for a computer with multiple users, or
one that is linked in a network where there is a lot of content
sharing.

I can see - if I've understood how they work correctly, that is - that
they have application in the librarian's perennial problem of things
that can go under two or more headings. If I had a folder for guitar
music and another for classical music, and I have some classical guitar
music, then without libraries I'd either have to decide which one to put
it in, or store two copies. Similarly with pictures - if I have a
picture containing several people, and folders for each of those people
(more so if I also have a folder for the place it was taken, ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You realise, Fraser, that what happened between us can never repeat itself.
Unless, of course, the exact same circumstances were to repeat themselves." "By
exact same circumstances, sir, you mean: we would have to be aboard a train
loaded with unconscious Mounties, that had been taken over by terrorists, and
were heading for a nuclear catastrophe?" "Exactly." "Understood."


 

[Char Jackson]

But can't you 'store' the file in more than one library?

Files are never stored in a Library; they are only viewed there.

So if I understand your question, I believe the answer is yes, you can
include the same folder in more than one Library, and therefore
deleting a file would naturally remove it from each of its Library
views, (since deleting a file actually deletes the file).

I haven't used that scenario, though. I don't have any folders
assigned to more than one Library.

 

[Char Jackson]

This has been discussed here several times. Removing them is not
trivial, and IMHO it is better just to ignore them, or at least to
remove them from the display.

I think they can make sense for a computer with multiple users, or
one that is linked in a network where there is a lot of content
sharing.

I'm under the impression that the primary use case is for people who
forget where things are stored. A Library can pull together all of the
folders where things get stored and present them in a single view. To
the user, then, the answer to "where is my file" is "it's in the
library". To them, the actual folder is irrelevant and useless
information.

 

[Wolf K]

I don't use them, but my understanding is that you can do either.
Each library had a default folder-where-new-things-go, which you can
specify, so dropping something in a library is effectively dropping
it in that folder.

If you're really into Libraries, you can create new ones, and new
folders inside any library. So people like me, who like to organise
things their way, could use Libraries if they wanted to. From my POV
however, I don't have the same control over Libraries as over plain
ordinary folders and folder tree.

As for sharing over a network: you can designate any folder as
accessible to other network users, with permission set as you wish. The
pre-configured Libraries all contain such a folder, is all. You could
also set up NAS....

HTH
Wolf K.

 

[Wolf K]

I can see - if I've understood how they work correctly, that is - that
they have application in the librarian's perennial problem of things
that can go under two or more headings. If I had a folder for guitar
music and another for classical music, and I have some classical guitar
music, then without libraries I'd either have to decide which one to put
it in, or store two copies. Similarly with pictures - if I have a
picture containing several people, and folders for each of those people
(more so if I also have a folder for the place it was taken, ...)

Your description implies a rather nice scheme for organising shortcuts
(pointers) as a quick'n'dirty database which can be accessed from any
program that's aware of Libraries. Yes, that is how Libraries should
work IMO. But apparently, if you delete the file from "classical
guitar", then it's deleted from the other folders, too. And from your
HDD. That's what the anti-Libraries people claim. If they're right,
Libraries are dangerous.

Wolf K..

 

[Stan Brown]

I think that's "Windows 7 Inside Out", in case anyone wants a good
recommendation.

Gack! Believe it or not, I actually proofread before posting.

 

[Char Jackson]

I can see - if I've understood how they work correctly, that is - that
they have application in the librarian's perennial problem of things
that can go under two or more headings. If I had a folder for guitar
music and another for classical music, and I have some classical guitar
music, then without libraries I'd either have to decide which one to put
it in, or store two copies. Similarly with pictures - if I have a
picture containing several people, and folders for each of those people
(more so if I also have a folder for the place it was taken, ...)

Keep in mind that you can't put -items- (files) into Libraries. You
can only put folders into Libraries. In your scenario, you'd still
have to have a folder for guitar music, a folder for classical music,
and a third folder for classical guitar music, so I'm not sure if any
of the Library objectives (or organizational objectives) would be met.

I think Libraries are more for people who don't know and don't care
where their files are stored within the filesystem. They just want
easy access.

 

[Char Jackson]

Your description implies a rather nice scheme for organising shortcuts
(pointers) as a quick'n'dirty database which can be accessed from any
program that's aware of Libraries. Yes, that is how Libraries should
work IMO. But apparently, if you delete the file from "classical
guitar", then it's deleted from the other folders, too. And from your
HDD. That's what the anti-Libraries people claim. If they're right,
Libraries are dangerous.

It's always dangerous to delete things...

To borrow a phrase from my High School woodworking class, "think
twice, delete once". (Lifted from "measure twice, cut once".)

 

[Six Underground]

I think that's "Windows 7 Inside Out", in case anyone wants a good
recommendation.

I'm looking forward to "Windows 7 Annoyances". The whole
Annoyances series has been great.

Regards.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Your description implies a rather nice scheme for organising shortcuts
(pointers) as a quick'n'dirty database which can be accessed from any
program that's aware of Libraries. Yes, that is how Libraries should

Or even, if they'd done it properly, programs that are _not_ aware of
libraries: the "shortcuts" should have been transparent (i. e. like Unix
links). Otherwise, they're no better than the shortcuts we already have.

work IMO. But apparently, if you delete the file from "classical
guitar", then it's deleted from the other folders, too. And from your
HDD. That's what the anti-Libraries people claim. If they're right,
Libraries are dangerous.

Wolf K..

Yes, making the default the deletion of the file rather than the
shortcut (unless it's the last shortcut) was rather daft.

Also, if Char is right that you can only "put" folders, not files, in
libraries, then they can't be used as I describe anyway. So I'm not sure
what they _are_ for.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You realise, Fraser, that what happened between us can never repeat itself.
Unless, of course, the exact same circumstances were to repeat themselves." "By
exact same circumstances, sir, you mean: we would have to be aboard a train
loaded with unconscious Mounties, that had been taken over by terrorists, and
were heading for a nuclear catastrophe?" "Exactly." "Understood."


 

[Jeff Layman]

I'm not a fan of Microsoft at all, but even I would never blame
Microsoft if I deleted a file and later decided I needed it. That's
what backups are for.

The issue here is exactly what a "library" is. If Microsoft wanted it
to be something different from an ordinary folder, why do files "stored"
in it behave as though they are in an ordinary folder?

As I pointed out to Char, if you look at library FAQs in Win7 "Help", it
says "However, unlike a folder, a library gathers files that are stored
in several locations. This is a subtle, but important, difference.
Libraries don't actually store your items." That is misleading in the
extreme. They may not be stored, but they behave exactly as if they are
stored there. In fact as they can appear in several library folders at
once, and deletion of any of those will delete the file from the other
library folders as well as the original location, it could be looked
upon as a sort of "Super Storage"!

 

[mechanic]

Files are never stored in a Library; they are only viewed there.

That's why there are quotes around "store" above.

So if I understand your question, I believe the answer is yes, you can
include the same folder in more than one Library, and therefore
deleting a file would naturally remove it from each of its Library
views, (since deleting a file actually deletes the file).

But surely one wants the option to remove a file from a library
without disturbing other libaries that might link to the file?

 

[mechanic]

I'm looking forward to "Windows 7 Annoyances".

It's been out for a while (2010). Bigger than the Vista annoyances
book, but strangely I find W7 less annoying than Vista...

 

[Char Jackson]

Or even, if they'd done it properly, programs that are _not_ aware of
libraries: the "shortcuts" should have been transparent (i. e. like Unix
links). Otherwise, they're no better than the shortcuts we already have.


Yes, making the default the deletion of the file rather than the
shortcut (unless it's the last shortcut) was rather daft.

Also, if Char is right that you can only "put" folders, not files, in
libraries, then they can't be used as I describe anyway. So I'm not sure
what they _are_ for.

I'm puzzled by the level of confusion I'm seeing on this topic.
There's nothing overly complicated going on here, yet people are all
over the map, speculating that this or that should happen or shouldn't
happen. Interesting, but a bit bizarre.