Can a saved search be indistinguishable from real folders?

[Guest]

I saved a search (creating a 'virutal folder') and would like programs (such
as Adobe Bridge or Irfanview) to see it as a folder -- but they don't -- they
apparently see it as an unknown file type.

I have Irfanview set up such that when I right-click on a folder, I see an
option for 'Browse with Irfanview'. However, when I right-click on a search
folder, that option doesn't appear -- as if Vista isn't presenting the search
folder as a folder type to applications.

However, apparently Open dialog boxes work with saved-search folders -- when
directed to a saved-search folder, the Open dialog displays 'searching' and
then the list of the virtual folder -- that's great, that's what I expect.

However, I have other applications that apparently don't see the
saved-search folder like a real folder.

(I think the point of a saved-search folder is to function as a 'virtual
folder', ie., be indistinguishable from a real folder by applications. Is
this impression correct?)

What's happening here? Can I get a saved-search folder to operate just like
a real folder?

 

[Richard G. Harper]

I would suspect that an updated, Vista compliant version of a program or one
that uses Windows API calls for File Open/Save dialogs would support this.
You might want to see if Irfanview or Adobe have Vista-compliant versions of
their software or if these are, let them know you're not happy with their
performance in this area.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

 

[Guest]

To my mind, it would be elegant and correct for the operating system to
present a 'saved search' folder to all appolications exactly as a real folder
is presented. Thus no changes should be required to any applications -- they
should all just work as usual -- instant access to saved-search collections
-- great!

But as mentioned originally, I'm having problems getting many applications
to work with saved-search folders -- am I doing something wrong? Or, could
Microsoft have implemented 'virtual folders' (saved searches)
non-transparently? If so, why? What's the advantage worth all the
disruption that would cause to applications?

their software or if these are, let them know you're not happy with their
performance in this area.

No, if it turns out Microsoft implemented save searches as some new type,
without good reason, I'll be unhappy with Microsoft. Why should we put
pressure on other vendors if it turns out Microsoft produced bad design?

Why can't it be 'invisible' to all existing applications whether or not a
folder is real or 'virtual' (ie., a saved search)?

 

[Richard G. Harper]

As I mentioned, the problem is almost surely in the software, not Microsoft
Vista. If Vista can present saved search folders seamlessly, Vista is doing
so because it's using the proper API calls to do so. If Vista can do it so
can other programs but they must do so properly and following Vista
standards./

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] (e-mail address removed)
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

 

[Paul Randall]

How many files with identical file names can be put in a normal folder? How
many can be put in a 'search' folder? What other differences are there
between normal folders and 'search' folders. M$ has stretched the
definition of a folder and maybe someday it will be able to include the
search folder in that definition, but it may require some more of the
dreaded 'bloat' that we hear about.

-Paul Randall

 

[Guest]

Richard, could you provide a URL to the 'Vista standard' to which you are
referring? To what Microsoft document would you refer an application
developer?

Also, did 'stacks' and 'filters' not make it into the release? (see
http://www.microsoft.com/indonesia/msdn/search_organize.aspx)

(It's hard for me to tell what Microsoft was thinking about and what
actually got released.)

 

[cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)]

On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 05:34:00 -0700, Baffin

To my mind, it would be elegant and correct for the operating system to
present a 'saved search' folder to all appolications exactly as a real folder
is presented. Thus no changes should be required to any applications -- they
should all just work as usual -- instant access to saved-search collections
-- great!

Think through the safety and security implications of that.

But as mentioned originally, I'm having problems getting many applications
to work with saved-search folders -- am I doing something wrong? Or, could
Microsoft have implemented 'virtual folders' (saved searches)
non-transparently? If so, why? What's the advantage worth all the
disruption that would cause to applications?

I think there was a change in design intention on this.

Originally, when Vista was to embed SQL within the WinFS file system,
these "virtual folders" were to function more transparently as
folders, as you expect.

When WinFS was dropped, functionalities of "virtual folders" were
scaled back - I'd thought they had been dropped alltogether.

Just as web mania drove MS to embed IE4 in Win98, with "View As Web
Page" on your local file system, so search mania has driven MS to
embed search into Vista.

Just as there were safety downsides to blurring the edge between
Internet and local PC (as well as HTML-everywhere also dropping
scriptability everywhere), so may there be safety downsides to
searching for rather than specifying the files etc. you "open".

Why can't it be 'invisible' to all existing applications whether or not a
folder is real or 'virtual' (ie., a saved search)?

The original intention of file names was to ensure that every file was
uniquely named. When this hit scalability issues, the concept of
directories and paths was added.

The need to uniquely identify files is as strong as ever, in an age of
pervasive malware, phishing, etc. but is also necessary to avoid
"version soup" problems, reversion to pre-patch code, and confusion
between old and new versions of data files that may be scattered
across "live", backup, and off-PC storage locations.

When you throw away that specificity and just "search" for things, you
need to be very sure about what you are looking at. Not easy, through
a shell that hides file name extensions, allows dangerous file types
to define their own icons, etc.

So yes; I *definately* want it to be very obvious as to whether I am
looking at a directory, or some virtual collection of found items.

-- Risk Management is the clue that asks:

"Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the
ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?"