Windows 7
-
Be sure to get 64-bit pc. Of course, most pc sold now are 64-bit capable. There's nothing like running two Visual Studios, VMWare, Firefox, and Pandora on a 12GB pc with dual quad-core cpus and W7x64 (less than 50% memory). :)
Best wishes, Hans
-
In Windows Explorer try going to Libraries -> Documents in the left-hand window. Then in the right-hand window click on one of the "My ..." shortcuts and you will see what Christian is talking about.
I must get a clever new signature for 2011.
-
In the folder, or in the treeview in the sidebar? If you have show hidden files on, you'll see both the working and non-working links in the folder. In the tree the non-working shortcuts still appear under Libraries->Documents->My Documents. I never noticed this until Richard MacCutchan pointed it out upthread, because the proper links work. The tree and folder view are inconsistent about what combination of Show hidden files (radio button) and hide protected OS files (checkbox) make them visible. Show hidden files (unselected), hide protected files (unchecked) will hide them in the folder, but not the tree. To clear them from the tree you need hide protected files checked. I haven't tested all combinations, but by default have everything shown and just deal with seeing stuff I'm not supposed to. :rolleyes:
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
Tree view - yes, I have the can't clickies. In the folder it depends on what I'm looking at. I still have the can't clickies, but in the Library->Documents view I can click through. I always display system files, hidden folders/files and file extensions. I also set my Java/Flash/Browser caches to 8 MB, and set my browsers to clear everything on closing. Things just work better that way.
-Sean ---- Fire Nuts
-
Be sure to get 64-bit pc. Of course, most pc sold now are 64-bit capable. There's nothing like running two Visual Studios, VMWare, Firefox, and Pandora on a 12GB pc with dual quad-core cpus and W7x64 (less than 50% memory). :)
Best wishes, Hans
All Microsoft Server OS's from 2008 R2 on are 64-bit only. I suspect Windows 7 might be their last desktop OS that gives you the 32-bit choice. The latest sales figures I've seen show a really high percentage of 64-bit sales vs 32-bit sales. You'd be crazy not to get a 64-bit OS these days. Just my opinion. Just don't get XP 64-bit because that version bites ЧЛЕН. :laugh:
-Sean ---- Fire Nuts
-
How very odd and Microsoft-like.
Soon...very soon...http://CraptasticNation.blogspot.com/[^]
Hey! Where have you been - it's been a while since you posted...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
The one thing I hate is that I have one login on this machine, but the file system still shows 'my pictures', 'my downloads', etc under my documents ( twice, one folder and one shortcut ) and tells me I have no permission to open them when I try. Again, there is one login on this machine, I am the admin, the sole user, etc. Why show me stuff that I can't look at, but let me see it if I navigate to it slightly differently ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
It only does that if you have elected to show hidden system files.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer
-
-
All Microsoft Server OS's from 2008 R2 on are 64-bit only. I suspect Windows 7 might be their last desktop OS that gives you the 32-bit choice. The latest sales figures I've seen show a really high percentage of 64-bit sales vs 32-bit sales. You'd be crazy not to get a 64-bit OS these days. Just my opinion. Just don't get XP 64-bit because that version bites ЧЛЕН. :laugh:
-Sean ---- Fire Nuts
Sean Cundiff wrote:
bites ЧЛЕН.
:laugh:
There is only one Ashley Judd and Salma Hayek is her prophet! Advertise here – minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
-
The one thing I hate is that I have one login on this machine, but the file system still shows 'my pictures', 'my downloads', etc under my documents ( twice, one folder and one shortcut ) and tells me I have no permission to open them when I try. Again, there is one login on this machine, I am the admin, the sole user, etc. Why show me stuff that I can't look at, but let me see it if I navigate to it slightly differently ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I've had various issues with "my documents" and related folders. I like to have my entire "Documents and Settings" (now "Users") folder on a separate disk to my boot disk as my boot disk is an SSD and I want to avoid unnecessary writes to all the app data / local settings / temp folders etc. It was a hassle doing it in XP but even more of one in 7 due to the zillions of junction points that are already there, the UAC and the weird way windows search works (finding 2 copies of a file that only exists once because it's on H: but there is a junction on C: that point to it, etc). In an ideal world windows would just provide a simple option to relocate the entire user data tree, and also wouldn't write tons of crap in the windows folder (winsxs, prefetch, the temp folder within windows, etc). If I do a backup of what's changed, just within my user folder, simply between shutting down and starting my computer back up, even though I've not ran anything, over a gigabyte has changed. Anyway I'm going off on a mad tangent of rants so I'll stop here, overall in most respects I agree that 7 is an improvement over XP. I skipped vista completely.
-
I've had various issues with "my documents" and related folders. I like to have my entire "Documents and Settings" (now "Users") folder on a separate disk to my boot disk as my boot disk is an SSD and I want to avoid unnecessary writes to all the app data / local settings / temp folders etc. It was a hassle doing it in XP but even more of one in 7 due to the zillions of junction points that are already there, the UAC and the weird way windows search works (finding 2 copies of a file that only exists once because it's on H: but there is a junction on C: that point to it, etc). In an ideal world windows would just provide a simple option to relocate the entire user data tree, and also wouldn't write tons of crap in the windows folder (winsxs, prefetch, the temp folder within windows, etc). If I do a backup of what's changed, just within my user folder, simply between shutting down and starting my computer back up, even though I've not ran anything, over a gigabyte has changed. Anyway I'm going off on a mad tangent of rants so I'll stop here, overall in most respects I agree that 7 is an improvement over XP. I skipped vista completely.
Dave Parker wrote:
I like to have my entire "Documents and Settings" (now "Users") folder
Can you still change the path by slipstreaming it in the install disk?
Dave Parker wrote:
I want to avoid unnecessary writes to all the app data / local settings / temp folders etc.
I think you're probably worrying over nothing. After ~16 months of storing everything except media files on my primary desktop, my Indilynx Barefoot SSD was at 96% lifetime left.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
Dave Parker wrote:
I like to have my entire "Documents and Settings" (now "Users") folder
Can you still change the path by slipstreaming it in the install disk?
Dave Parker wrote:
I want to avoid unnecessary writes to all the app data / local settings / temp folders etc.
I think you're probably worrying over nothing. After ~16 months of storing everything except media files on my primary desktop, my Indilynx Barefoot SSD was at 96% lifetime left.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
You probably can change the path by slipstreaming but at the time I thought that would be more work, but I might consider it next time. I probably do worry to much about writes, I think that writes are pretty slow on my X25M SSD though. I have a game called City Life which used to be installed to Program Files on my SSD and I noticed it taking a huge amount of time starting up compared to when it was on a HD and it turned out it was creating a several gigabyte temp file in its own folder (not the temp folder for some reason) each time it ran. I ended up playing about with junctions keeping parts of the game on SSD and parts on HDD to get the best performance.
-
Hey! Where have you been - it's been a while since you posted...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
You probably can change the path by slipstreaming but at the time I thought that would be more work, but I might consider it next time. I probably do worry to much about writes, I think that writes are pretty slow on my X25M SSD though. I have a game called City Life which used to be installed to Program Files on my SSD and I noticed it taking a huge amount of time starting up compared to when it was on a HD and it turned out it was creating a several gigabyte temp file in its own folder (not the temp folder for some reason) each time it ran. I ended up playing about with junctions keeping parts of the game on SSD and parts on HDD to get the best performance.
sequential write speed was the one liability of the Intel controller. When it first came out it smoked everyone on random writes, but they had to hurt sequential performance to do that. It was a reasonable tradeoff since huge sequential writes are relatively rare, while random IO suckage is common. Current generation SSD controllers smoke intel on both fronts.
3x12=36 2x12=24 1x12=12 0x12=18
-
The one thing I hate is that I have one login on this machine, but the file system still shows 'my pictures', 'my downloads', etc under my documents ( twice, one folder and one shortcut ) and tells me I have no permission to open them when I try. Again, there is one login on this machine, I am the admin, the sole user, etc. Why show me stuff that I can't look at, but let me see it if I navigate to it slightly differently ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
I'm going to bet that you also see a "Documents and Settings" folder under the C: drive. So why would MS put this folder in place when Win7 doesn't use it? Could it be because MS have to content with lazy programmers that don't follow guidelines and try to do things their own way forcing MS to put rubbish like this into their system. Anyway just turn off "Show hidden files, folders and drives" and those folders you can't access will disappear.
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
-
-
They aren't - the actual folders are named "Documents", "Pictures" etc. I think the "My " prefixed ones are hard links/junction points for backward compatibility. Why you can't click on them is beyond me - I suspect the OS UI support for junction points is somewhat incomplete (ever tried creating one without writing code...?) and they've taken the easy way out of preventing interactive users from accessing them directly.
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
-
There is no reason I can see, it's a sign they still have not fixed the new security code to work properly
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
These are special directory hardlinks primarily used for programs hard coded to write to specific, depreciated folders (Documents and settings, Application Data, etc, instead of using %appdata% or %userprofile%). You cannot access these directly, but you can, however, delete them, if you know none of your programs do not access these specific folders in this specific way. Microsoft makes its money on the back of companies who have many bespoke pieces of software and would require compatibility with new versions of windows to keep their revenue stream high - I can't say I've never found a commercial piece of software which writes to these folders specifically (yet...), but I can't say the same for in-house software coded for a specific operating system (IE, XP or 2000). As for the folders in %appdata% with "My" in front of their name, this is just trickery - the directory may be named "My *", but the actual path omits the "My". You can check by clicking in the breadcrumb (address) bar until it turns into a path. Oh, and, if you're wondering - if you DO delete these hardlinks, and then install a piece of software that would try to write to these directories, nothing particularly bad will happen - they will simply recreate the directories in a standard way (ie, real folders). Using hardlinks like this just keeps all the relevant data in one spot. Hope this clears up any confusion.
-
They aren't - the actual folders are named "Documents", "Pictures" etc. I think the "My " prefixed ones are hard links/junction points for backward compatibility. Why you can't click on them is beyond me - I suspect the OS UI support for junction points is somewhat incomplete (ever tried creating one without writing code...?) and they've taken the easy way out of preventing interactive users from accessing them directly.
Anna :rose: Tech Blog | Visual Lint "Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
They are created and owned by the SYSTEM process. If you intentionally mess with the file ownership and permissions, they work properly as standard directory hard links. They are designed to be written to by installers, Windows directs the files to their proper locations on-the-fly (as they did with early 64-bit software still trying to write data to 32-bit secific folders and registry keys), rather than accessed via Explorer by standard users.
-
I've had various issues with "my documents" and related folders. I like to have my entire "Documents and Settings" (now "Users") folder on a separate disk to my boot disk as my boot disk is an SSD and I want to avoid unnecessary writes to all the app data / local settings / temp folders etc. It was a hassle doing it in XP but even more of one in 7 due to the zillions of junction points that are already there, the UAC and the weird way windows search works (finding 2 copies of a file that only exists once because it's on H: but there is a junction on C: that point to it, etc). In an ideal world windows would just provide a simple option to relocate the entire user data tree, and also wouldn't write tons of crap in the windows folder (winsxs, prefetch, the temp folder within windows, etc). If I do a backup of what's changed, just within my user folder, simply between shutting down and starting my computer back up, even though I've not ran anything, over a gigabyte has changed. Anyway I'm going off on a mad tangent of rants so I'll stop here, overall in most respects I agree that 7 is an improvement over XP. I skipped vista completely.
Until Microsoft implements application level virtualization for older programs, there is no way WinSxS will disappear. It's the lesser of two evils, without this no software would've worked properly in Vista and now Windows 7 without being rewritten to use the new Vista versions of files. Can you imagine how much worse Vista would've been seen if Microsoft basically told every one of it's 100k+ strong programming community to just tough up and recode every single application specifically for Vista? Not even going to bother thinking about in-house software here.
-
I think there may be some general misunderstanding about some of the inner workings of Windows 7 here. No one, and I mean no one, actually runs with Administrator privileges at all times in Windows 7. All users including Administrators run with limited privileges, and are only elevated to admin privs when necessary to perform a certain action. This is part of the UAC that is now built into Windows Vista/7. So even though your account is listed as Administrator, you are still running with limited user privileges until elevation is required. The second issue that I see is that since Windows Vista, the "My *" locations are no longer "real" folders. While there is a [root]:\Users\Documents folder, these are now libraries. You can add *ANY* location to a library and it will show up. Say you have MP3's in C:\Music and D:\Other Music, you can add both of these locations to "My Music" and you will see them there, you simply right click on the library and one of the tabs allows you to add and remove locations to the library. Also, since I think Windows XP there is never *ONLY* your account on a machine. There is ALWAYS another Administrator account on the machine that is hidden from view. This account is typically viewable when booting into safe mode, and you can also see this account when you open compmgmt.msc and view the Local Users and Groups. And if you can't access a directory, then there is some form of folder permissions in place that is preventing you from accessing it. Hopefully, some of this might clear up some issues with Windows 7.
