On 9/29/11 10:16 PM, Smirnoff wrote:
>
> "Dudley Brooks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:j62nnp$moh$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On 9/13/11 11:33 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/28/11 7:44 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/27/11 7:58 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Right Click on the TASKBAR and select Properties there and not
>>>>>> on the Desktop
>>>>>
>>>>> That has no effect for me. But I see the opposite: I can put the
>>>>> Desktop icons in alphabetical order whether the Taskbar is locked
>>>>> or not...which makes sense. Why would the Taskbar relate to the
>>>>> Desktop? Isn't the "lock" option just to remove the resizing
>>>>> handles?
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the only control I see in Taskbar Properties is Unlock
>>>> *Taskbar*. But on a lark I tried it anyway; Arrange by Name *still*
>>>> doesn't work on the Desktop.
>>>
>>> Doesn't anyone have any idea why "Arrange by Name" isn't working?
>>
>> So doesn't ANYBODY have any idea???
>
> Is "Auto Arrange" or "Lock web items on Desktop" ticked?

Nope. Nothing is (or was) checked except "Show Desktop Items"

> If so, try ticking (selecting) just "Align to Grid" and "Show Desktop
> Icons", then try arrange icons by name.

Still doesn't work. And the cause and the solution which I just
discovered shows why:

I didn't realize that there are actually TWO Desktops, one under All
Users and one under Users/<my name>. (I discovered this by doing a
search on "Desktop" in the file system.) It's obvious why this is
necessary. And it's equally obvious that when I'm signed in as User <my
name>, I see both desktops. But nothing VISUALLY indicates that they
are really two desktops EXCEPT the fact that they sort separately! (I
had thought that Arrange by Name wasn't working because It didn't seem
to alphabetize the folders. I hadn't noticed that it was individually
alphabetizing two separate groups of folders.)

I think this is bad design. Evidently the items were also divided
between Users/<my name> and All Users back in 98SE, but I was never
aware of it because Arrange By treated them all equally (and because I'm
the only user). I'd prefer that way -- I'd like to have all the folders
THAT I CAN SEE alphabetized together.

Plus it's weird to have TWO folders called My Briefcase, especially
since one of them really is mine but the other really belongs to All Users.

So I solved it by moving all the folders into the same Desktop. I still
have two folders called My Briefcase, but I'm afraid to rename one of
them in case the renaming screws up its behavior as a briefcase
(something which happened to My Documents back in 98SE).

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:49:49 -0700, Dudley Brooks wrote:

> On 9/29/11 10:16 PM, Smirnoff wrote:
>>
>> "Dudley Brooks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:j62nnp$moh$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On 9/13/11 11:33 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/28/11 7:44 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/27/11 7:58 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Right Click on the TASKBAR and select Properties there and not
>>>>>>> on the Desktop
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That has no effect for me. But I see the opposite: I can put the
>>>>>> Desktop icons in alphabetical order whether the Taskbar is locked
>>>>>> or not...which makes sense. Why would the Taskbar relate to the
>>>>>> Desktop? Isn't the "lock" option just to remove the resizing
>>>>>> handles?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, the only control I see in Taskbar Properties is Unlock
>>>>> *Taskbar*. But on a lark I tried it anyway; Arrange by Name *still*
>>>>> doesn't work on the Desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't anyone have any idea why "Arrange by Name" isn't working?
>>>
>>> So doesn't ANYBODY have any idea???
>>
>> Is "Auto Arrange" or "Lock web items on Desktop" ticked?
>
> Nope. Nothing is (or was) checked except "Show Desktop Items"
>
>> If so, try ticking (selecting) just "Align to Grid" and "Show Desktop
>> Icons", then try arrange icons by name.
>
> Still doesn't work. And the cause and the solution which I just
> discovered shows why:
>
> I didn't realize that there are actually TWO Desktops, one under All
> Users and one under Users/<my name>. (I discovered this by doing a
> search on "Desktop" in the file system.) It's obvious why this is
> necessary. And it's equally obvious that when I'm signed in as User <my
> name>, I see both desktops. But nothing VISUALLY indicates that they
> are really two desktops EXCEPT the fact that they sort separately! (I
> had thought that Arrange by Name wasn't working because It didn't seem
> to alphabetize the folders. I hadn't noticed that it was individually
> alphabetizing two separate groups of folders.)
>
> I think this is bad design.

Only if you want a "single user" system.

> Evidently the items were also divided
> between Users/<my name> and All Users back in 98SE, but I was never
> aware of it because Arrange By treated them all equally (and because I'm
> the only user). I'd prefer that way -- I'd like to have all the folders
> THAT I CAN SEE alphabetized together.

I do like things the way they are because it allows me to configure
individual user accounts to suit the individual.

> Plus it's weird to have TWO folders called My Briefcase, especially
> since one of them really is mine but the other really belongs to All Users.

Allows for "global", and "local" settings, and uses.

> So I solved it by moving all the folders into the same Desktop. I still
> have two folders called My Briefcase, but I'm afraid to rename one of
> them in case the renaming screws up its behavior as a briefcase
> (something which happened to My Documents back in 98SE).

Windows based on the NT kernel is intended for multiple users. If you are
the only user, go ahead and use just one common folder for everything. Just
remember Windows NT (and later) was never intended as a "single user"
system. Setting it up for a single user requires some adjustment in the way
you approach things.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

I hadn't thought of the 2-Desktop problem,
though I've run into that with the Start Menu.
I put all shortcuts in the All Users Start Menu,
because I like to organize and weed it via
Explorer.

You might find TweakUI XP useful for the Desktop
and other folders. I created a C:\Windows\Desktop
and assigned that via TweakUI XP. As far as I can
tell it seems to be set here:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell
Folders\Desktop

All other Registry paths I find point to the App Data
folders. Yet all software seems to recognize and use
the C:\Windows\Desktop path. And Idon't have to mess
with finding things buried somewhere down in the bowels
of "Documents and Settings". I find it much more
sensible than the ridiculously long paths to App Data
folders, and it's compatible with files from Win9x. (I often
do things like writing scripts where I want to use the
Desktop path.)

There are a number of paths that can be changed with
this method, though most of them are just IE paths (Cookies,
History, Favorites) or My * nonsense.


| I didn't realize that there are actually TWO Desktops, one under All
| Users and one under Users/<my name>.

| I think this is bad design. Evidently the items were also divided
| between Users/<my name> and All Users back in 98SE,

In Win9x All Users was there for App Data, but it was
almost never used. Desktop was C:\Windows\Desktop.
As N. Miller noted, WinNT is designed to be a corporate
workstation OS. It's assumed that you're a corporate
employee, restricted to writing MS word docs to save
in your personal App Data hierarchy. Microsoft has never
bothered to fix that design for the hundreds of millions
of SOHo Windows users, so one has to just make do.

Actually, I don't think it's really that MS hasn't bothered
to fix it. Microsoft are salivating over the possibilities of
renting software via the "cloud". In recent news they announced
that there will be a new design in Win8:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...s-live-id.aspx

People (or "users" as Microsofties know them) who submit
to a Live ID tracking collar will be able to log into their
personalized Desktop from any PC. That idea is potentially
very convenient for many people. At the same time, it takes
a big step toward the cloud marketing ideal of selling you
Windows and then also charging you (or showing you ads)
for everything you do on Windows. (What Mr. Ballmer refers
to cheerfully as "software AND services" as opposed to
SaaS, or "software as a service" which was the term used in
the last rendition of the cloud scam.)

In light of all that, XP's apparent design flaw can be seen
as a deliberate move. If you're not a corporate lackey... if you
own your own PC... Microsoft is getting you used to having
a system administrator control your activity nevertheless. MS
themselves are your Sys. Admin. With Vista/7 it gets worse.
After moving through that process of increasingly restricted
Windows OSs ("for security's sake"), Win7 users will be far
more amenable than Win9x users to the scenario of needing
to log in online so that Microsoft can rent you your software,
allow you access to your pictures, and let you edit your docs --
all the while tracking your actions on- and off-line via your
Live ID. (Though at that point, of course, there isn't really
any "offline".)

On 9/30/11 2:13 PM, Mayayana wrote:

> I hadn't thought of the 2-Desktop problem, though I've run into that
> with the Start Menu. I put all shortcuts in the All Users Start Menu,
> because I like to organize and weed it via Explorer.
>
> You might find TweakUI XP useful for the Desktop and other folders.
> I created a C:\Windows\Desktop and assigned that via TweakUI XP. As
> far as I can tell it seems to be set here:
>
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders\Desktop

Yes, I used it a few times under 98SE. Perhaps I'll use it again in XP.
>
> All other Registry paths I find point to the App Data folders. Yet
> all software seems to recognize and use the C:\Windows\Desktop path.
> And I don't have to mess with finding things buried somewhere down in
> the bowels of "Documents and Settings". I find it much more sensible
> than the ridiculously long paths to App Data folders, and it's
> compatible with files from Win9x. (I often do things like writing
> scripts where I want to use the Desktop path.)
>
> There are a number of paths that can be changed with this method,
> though most of them are just IE paths (Cookies, History, Favorites)
> or My * nonsense.

Thanks for all the info. I agree that the design of Windows is
overcomplicated -- and discombobulated. For examples, why have what
should really be two folders been lumped into one: "Documents and
Settings". Microsoft designers don't seem to be capable of
understanding the logic of various categories.

(As someone once said, who but Microsoft would design an OS where, when
you want to turn your computer off, you press a button called "Start".)

>> I didn't realize that there are actually TWO Desktops, one under
>> All Users and one under Users/<my name>.
>>
>> I think this is bad design. Evidently the items were also divided
>> between Users/<my name> and All Users back in 98SE,
>
> In Win9x All Users was there for App Data, but it was almost never
> used. Desktop was C:\Windows\Desktop. As N. Miller noted, WinNT is
> designed to be a corporate workstation OS. It's assumed that you're
> a corporate employee, restricted to writing MS word docs to save in
> your personal App Data hierarchy. Microsoft has never bothered to
> fix that design for the hundreds of millions of SOHo Windows users,
> so one has to just make do.

Since I never intentionally moved any of my desktop items around, I
figured that either it was somehow caused by the upgrade to XP (but I
couldn't figure out how or why XP would arbitrarily choose *which* items
to move) or else I had unknowingly made them that way under 98SE and
never realized it because they were already presented "equally" on the
Desktop. But the truth is, I don't have a clue how the folders got
separated into the two sets.

> Actually, I don't think it's really that MS hasn't bothered to fix
> it. Microsoft are salivating over the possibilities of renting
> software via the "cloud". In recent news they announced that there
> will be a new design in Win8:
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...s-live-id.aspx
>
> People (or "users" as Microsofties know them) who submit to a Live
> ID tracking collar will be able to log into their personalized
> Desktop from any PC. That idea is potentially very convenient for
> many people. At the same time, it takes a big step toward the cloud
> marketing ideal of selling you Windows and then also charging you (or
> showing you ads) for everything you do on Windows. (What Mr. Ballmer
> refers to cheerfully as "software AND services" as opposed to SaaS,
> or "software as a service" which was the term used in the last
> rendition of the cloud scam.)
>
> In light of all that, XP's apparent design flaw can be seen as a
> deliberate move. If you're not a corporate lackey... if you own your
> own PC... Microsoft is getting you used to having a system
> administrator control your activity nevertheless. MS themselves are
> your Sys. Admin. With Vista/7 it gets worse. After moving through
> that process of increasingly restricted Windows OSs ("for security's
> sake"), Win7 users will be far more amenable than Win9x users to the
> scenario of needing to log in online so that Microsoft can rent you
> your software, allow you access to your pictures, and let you edit
> your docs -- all the while tracking your actions on- and off-line via
> your Live ID. (Though at that point, of course, there isn't really
> any "offline".)

Yes, as much as possible I am avoiding Cloud Computing. I hope it
continues to be possible to do so. (My XP computer is very old, and I
only use it for a tiny number of programs, so I won't be upgrading to
any more recent Windows version. My newer computer is a Mac -- which is
just as dictatorial and controlling, but in different ways. If I had
the time to fiddle with my computer more -- and if there were more apps
available -- I'd switch to open-source.

On 9/30/11 9:55 AM, N. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 08:49:49 -0700, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>
>>> On 9/29/11 10:16 PM, Smirnoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Brooks"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>>> message news:j62nnp$moh$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> On 9/13/11 11:33 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/28/11 7:44 AM, Dudley Brooks wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/27/11 7:58 PM, Mayayana wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Right Click on the TASKBAR and select
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Properties there and not on the Desktop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That has no effect for me. But I see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite: I can put the Desktop icons in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> alphabetical order whether the Taskbar is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> locked or not...which makes sense. Why would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Taskbar relate to the Desktop? Isn't the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lock" option just to remove the resizing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> handles?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, the only control I see in Taskbar
>>>>>>>>>>> Properties is Unlock *Taskbar*. But on a lark I
>>>>>>>>>>> tried it anyway; Arrange by Name*still* doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>> work on the Desktop.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't anyone have any idea why "Arrange by Name"
>>>>>>>>> isn't working?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So doesn't ANYBODY have any idea???
>>>>>
>>>>> Is "Auto Arrange" or "Lock web items on Desktop" ticked?
>>>
>>> Nope. Nothing is (or was) checked except "Show Desktop Items"
>>>
>>>>> If so, try ticking (selecting) just "Align to Grid" and "Show
>>>>> Desktop Icons", then try arrange icons by name.
>>>
>>> Still doesn't work. And the cause and the solution which I just
>>> discovered shows why:
>>>
>>> I didn't realize that there are actually TWO Desktops, one under
>>> All Users and one under Users/<my name>. (I discovered this by
>>> doing a search on "Desktop" in the file system.) It's obvious
>>> why this is necessary. And it's equally obvious that when I'm
>>> signed in as User<my name>, I see both desktops. But nothing
>>> VISUALLY indicates that they are really two desktops EXCEPT the
>>> fact that they sort separately! (I had thought that Arrange by
>>> Name wasn't working because It didn't seem to alphabetize the
>>> folders. I hadn't noticed that it was individually alphabetizing
>>> two separate groups of folders.)
>>>
>>> I think this is bad design.
>
> Only if you want a "single user" system.

No, for other reasons as well (see below).

>>> Evidently the items were also divided between Users/<my name>
>>> and All Users back in 98SE, but I was never aware of it because
>>> Arrange By treated them all equally (and because I'm the only
>>> user). I'd prefer that way -- I'd like to have all the folders
>>> THAT I CAN SEE alphabetized together.
>
> I do like things the way they are because it allows me to configure
> individual user accounts to suit the individual.

Well, *this* individual user would like to have it configured in such a
way that when I look at my desktop it is *not* differentiated into two
different classes of icons/folders -- especially when I never
(intentionally) created some folders differently from others. (I'm not
talking about system or built-in folders; I mean ordinary folders which
I created and named, some of which somehow got put in All Users and some
of which somehow wound up in my personal account. And the bad design is
that, if it weren't for the alphabetizing glitch, I never would have
known that they were two separate groups, because *except* for
alphabetizing separately there is nothing in the display which indicates
that they are different. Which then makes the weird alphabetizing even
more of a frustrating mystery until you solve it, since its cause is so
obscure.

>>> Plus it's weird to have TWO folders called My Briefcase,
>>> especially since one of them really is mine but the other really
>>> belongs to All Users.
>
> Allows for "global", and "local" settings, and uses.

Yes, I understand. (As I said, "It's obvious why this is necessary.")
But the bad design is that, again, they are not differentiated in any
way. They are *both* called "My Briefcase" -- which is stupid already
-- and they look identical, so there's no way of even knowing which one
is All Users and which one is me without clicking on them and opening
them. Well, there *is* a way: once you learn that the first folders on
the desktop are All Users and the last ones are the individual user, you
can see which group a particular My Briefcase is in. But it's not
visually obvious. And, of course, if you arrange folders manually on
the desktop, rather than using Arrange By or Auto Arrange, then there's
no way *at all* to tell which is which.

So, sorry, no two ways about it: bad (and stupid) UI design!

>>> So I solved it by moving all the folders into the same Desktop.
>>> I still have two folders called My Briefcase, but I'm afraid to
>>> rename one of them in case the renaming screws up its behavior as
>>> a briefcase (something which happened to My Documents back in
>>> 98SE).
>
> Windows based on the NT kernel is intended for multiple users. If you
> are the only user, go ahead and use just one common folder for
> everything. Just remember Windows NT (and later) was never intended
> as a "single user" system. Setting it up for a single user requires
> some adjustment in the way you approach things.

Yes, I've seen lots of discussion about this on the internet.

But I repeat: desktop folders which an individual user creates should
not be "mysteriously" divided between All Users and an individual user
*if nothing visually indicates that this is being done*.

> -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and
> the Drum

| For examples, why have what
| should really be two folders been lumped into one: "Documents and
| Settings". Microsoft designers don't seem to be capable of
| understanding the logic of various categories.
|

I think that folder has been named "Users" in Vista/7,
so maybe someone did get it. "Users", as grotesque as
that characterization is, at least describes the structure:
"This is where you, and the software you run, are able
to read/write files."

But there really is no excuse for all that being forced. There's
no excuse for not having a simple checkbox in the "Users"
applet in Control Panel. Checking "This PC is a single-user
system" would then configure the system appropriately.

(As in Win9x, all program settings could then go to C:\
Windows\Application Data and all personal folders could
then be on C drive.... where there's a chance of people
finding them if they want to back up and don't choose
to use a "backup for dummies" automated program.)

| I don't have a clue how the folders got
| separated into the two sets.
|

It's somewhat willy nilly. If I save a file to the Desktop it
goes to my C:\Windows\Desktop folder. But I've also noticed
that some types of file dialogs will show me the app data
Desktop path instead, or in addition. I haven't bothered to
notice which ones do that, but I've noticed enough to know
that I have to be attentive when selecting an Open/Save
location.
When I made shortcuts to my drives (partitions) those ended
up in All Users Desktop, for unknown reasons. There may be similar
forces at work with your folders: Maybe right-click -> New -> Folder
does one thing while dragging a folder does another...or some such.

But look on the bright side. In Vista/7, with virtualization,
it's often not easy to be sure exactly where files, folders, or
Registry settings actually are. Microsoft has thwarted the
whole basic idea of a file system... At least you can figure
out that your folders are in the wrong place.

I did a little experiment with this. When software needs
to know special folder paths, it's in the Registry but the
Windows API provides functions that are supposed to be
used.

Having set the Desktop path as C:\Windows\Desktop in

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders

by using TweakUI XP, I ran a test and got the following:

This function is the standard API call to get folder paths.
There are two Desktop paths. Software might use either one.

The function SHGetSpecialFolderLocation returned....

Desktop[0] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Desktop [H16] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Common Desktop: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop


The following calls were made to shfolder.dll, which is a small
DLL Microsoft made available for software installers, to provide
paths on older systems. It's not needed on XP, but is still used by
some installers, like Inno Setup. That DLL function returned the
following:

The function in shfolder.dll returned...

Desktop[0] C:\Documents and Settings\Sysadmin\Desktop
Desktop [H16] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Common Desktop: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Desktop

Already one can see that there is inconsistency even in
Microsoft's official methods, though using the TweakUI XP
method of changing a path in

HKCU\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders

seems to be reasonably dependable.

Next I tried changing the path to All Users Desktop in

HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders

It didn't work. Explorer seems to have a cache of paths. When
Explorer closes it rewrites the Registry with its cache. It may
be possible to fix that glitch, but it would require broadcasting
a system update via API. I haven't tested that.

So I guess the conclusion is that changing your personal
paths is realistic, but TweakUI XP is probably using an API
call to tell Explorer to update its settings. That call may or
may not be documented.

Changing All Users paths in accord with personal paths, so
that there's only one path per folder, may be possible, but
also would require programmatically telling Explorer to update its
settings. I imagine there's probably a method for that, since
corporate IT might sometimes need to do such things, but offhand
I don't know what it is, and the option is not offered in TweakUI XP.

I figured this one out. Most folders can be consolidated,
so that All Users and Current User location are the same.
There are Registry keys in both HKLM and HKCU like so:

SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders

SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\User Shell Folders

They're basically the same, but the latter is the one you
want for changing paths. Two things to be aware of:

1) Once you create a new folder, such as C:\Windows\Desktop,
you need to manually move all content from the personal Desktop
folder and from the All Users Desktop folder into the new one.

2) In the case of Desktop, your icon layout will be lost during
this process. Before changing the Desktop path, download
Icon Restore and back up your Desktop icon layout. After
consolidating my own folders I re-ran my path test and got
the following:

SHGetSpecialFolderLocation:
Desktop[0] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Desktop [H16] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Common Desktop: C:\WINDOWS\Desktop

shfolder.dll:
Desktop[0] C:\Documents and Settings\[username]\Desktop
Desktop [H16] C:\WINDOWS\Desktop
Common Desktop: C:\Windows\Desktop

In other words, there's a bug with shfolder.dll, but
aside from that Windows recognizes a consistent
path to the folder.

I'm glad you brought this up. I've used the same technique
to change Startup, Start Menu, and Start Menu\Programs
so that they all point to a C:\Windows\Start Menu path.
Now I won't have to reorganize Start Menu links when I
install new software. Whether the installer tries to install
per-user or system-wide, the shortcuts will go to the same
place.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 23:42:56 -0700, Dudley Brooks wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, I understand. (As I said, "It's obvious why this is necessary.")
> But the bad design is that, again, they are not differentiated in any
> way. They are *both* called "My Briefcase" -- which is stupid already
> -- and they look identical, so there's no way of even knowing which one
> is All Users and which one is me without clicking on them and opening
> them.

I don't have any "My Briefcase" folders. I can create them, but they start
out with "New Briefcase" as a default name; and the name field is
highlighted for changing to a user defined name. When I open the briefcase
in Windows Explorer, the URL bar has this path in it:

| D:\Users\%User_Name%\Documents\Testing

When I create another briefcase with the same name in another folder, the
URL bar shows:

| D:\Users\Public\Documents\Testing

They look different to me!

> Well, there *is* a way: once you learn that the first folders on
> the desktop are All Users and the last ones are the individual user, you
> can see which group a particular My Briefcase is in.

Because I have rearranged my Desktop icons, I have lost track which are
"Public", and which are "%User-Name%". OTOH, since I can create a Briefcase
with a user defined name, I can differentiate which are which by the
Briefcase name.

> But it's not visually obvious. And, of course, if you arrange folders manually
> on the desktop, rather than using Arrange By or Auto Arrange, then there's
> no way *at all* to tell which is which.

Indeed.

> So, sorry, no two ways about it: bad (and stupid) UI design!

But I honestly can't find a "My Briefcase", and when I create a briefcase, I
can name it anything I wish. But I am up to Windows 7, now, so maybe
Microsoft has changed the way things work from Windows XP?

>>>> So I solved it by moving all the folders into the same Desktop.
>>>> I still have two folders called My Briefcase, but I'm afraid to
>>>> rename one of them in case the renaming screws up its behavior as
>>>> a briefcase (something which happened to My Documents back in
>>>> 98SE).

>> Windows based on the NT kernel is intended for multiple users. If you
>> are the only user, go ahead and use just one common folder for
>> everything. Just remember Windows NT (and later) was never intended
>> as a "single user" system. Setting it up for a single user requires
>> some adjustment in the way you approach things.
>
> Yes, I've seen lots of discussion about this on the internet.
>
> But I repeat: desktop folders which an individual user creates should
> not be "mysteriously" divided between All Users and an individual user
> *if nothing visually indicates that this is being done*.

Nearly as I can tell, any Desktop icon created during an application
install, is dependent on the application programmer. Many do default to the
Public desktop. But any folders that I create on the Desktop, will be in my
Desktop, not the Public desktop. And I am reasonably confident that is the
same for Windows XP as for Windows 7 (which is what I am using right now).

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

On 10/1/11 6:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:

>> For examples, why have what should really be two folders been
>> lumped into one: "Documents and Settings". Microsoft designers
>> don't seem to be capable of understanding the logic of various
>> categories.
>
> I think that folder has been named "Users" in Vista/7, so maybe
> someone did get it. "Users", as grotesque as that characterization
> is, at least describes the structure: "This is where you, and the
> software you run, are able to read/write files."

Yes, that does at least make sense.

> But there really is no excuse for all that being forced. There's no
> excuse for not having a simple checkbox in the "Users" applet in
> Control Panel. Checking "This PC is a single-user system" would then
> configure the system appropriately.
>
> (As in Win9x, all program settings could then go to C:\
> Windows\Application Data and all personal folders could then be on C
> drive.... where there's a chance of people finding them if they want
> to back up and don't choose to use a "backup for dummies" automated
> program.)

Sounds good to me.

>> I don't have a clue how the folders got separated into the two
>> sets.
>
> It's somewhat willy nilly. If I save a file to the Desktop it goes
> to my C:\Windows\Desktop folder. But I've also noticed that some
> types of file dialogs will show me the app data Desktop path instead,
> or in addition. I haven't bothered to notice which ones do that, but
> I've noticed enough to know that I have to be attentive when
> selecting an Open/Save location.
>
> When I made shortcuts to my drives (partitions) those ended up in
> All Users Desktop, for unknown reasons. There may be similar forces
> at work with your folders: Maybe right-click -> New -> Folder does
> one thing while dragging a folder does another...or some such.

Sounds weird enough to be true! ;^)

> But look on the bright side. In Vista/7, with virtualization, it's
> often not easy to be sure exactly where files, folders, or Registry
> settings actually are. Microsoft has thwarted the whole basic idea
> of a file system... At least you can figure out that your folders
> are in the wrong place.

Unfortunately, I won't be upgrading to Win7 to experience the new
wonderfulness. <possible sarcasm?>

Thanks very much for all your detailed information, especially in your
next two postings! One of these days I'll have time to start digesting
it and trying it out.