![]() _its nice to know W9x would help out in this situation if really needed On a modern 2GHz multicore processor and adequate memory and identical HDD (but different than above), with no indexing and background services minimized,īest performance is found with Wxp on FAT32 volumes. Using a 2GHz processor with adequate memory and identical HDD, with no indexing and background services minimized,īest performance was found with W95, then W98, then Wxp, all on FAT32 volumes. I don't like search to be slow or questionable, and of course it needs to return the same results from the same archive every time.Īnd indexing is not helpful, I usually want to search within every file. It's worth the effort to be the most reliable and repeatable you can get. Some of my scientific instruments are decades old and I like to be able to search back quite a number of years compared to most offices. Here's a short search thread with the original 2010 post about W7 followed by a 2011 response and 2014 final experience: The frankenstein folder-search monster that is windows 10 used as designed - that simply doesn't work for anybody. I don't think I know anybody - technically inclined or no - that seems to be using the library feature as it was intended most people either just accept utter chaos, and treat the PC largely as throwaway or hope they can find something using search (oh boy) or they use a parallel structure entirely divorces from the libraries, and live with the fact that lots of the OS apps and views will then make you jump through hoops to access stuff where you actually store it, because the OS always offers stuff like libraries first.įolders work. Add to that the fact that all kinds of programs store their "user" data in your documents, using poorly-names hardcoded folder names (including lots of microsoft apps), and pretty quickly everything just turns really messy. But I think worst is just the generally inconsistency everything is "special" and nothing works quite like anything else. but the reality is that people (shockingly) have multiple storage devices, and libraries work terribly with that. If truly everthing were easily mountable inside a library, then maybe it would work. The arbitrary top-level boxes MS thought of are always in the way and they're sometimes an alias for a folder, but in other ways quite different. I'm not sure exactly who thought up the disastrous library feature, but the net effect is that it makes it really, really hard to organize stuff into folders. ![]() Unfortunately, even that is particularly impractical on windows. ![]() Finder or Thunar, which are my other options on my home computers. Windows Explorer in the Windows 10 era isn't great, but it's much better than e.g. Clicking around a graphical file explorer is just way less cognitive overhead than stringing together a big command on the command line. I can browse to my taxes directory, do a search for "kind:picture" then sort the results by modified date and drag the relevant items into the destination directory.įor some types of tasks this is so convenient that sometimes when I'm ssh'd into a server on my home network I'll move files into a mounted network share so that I can manipulate them from Windows Explorer. Search is indispensable for this.Īs an example, say I have records related to my taxes - a bunch of documents and images - organized into directories by year, and I want to copy all of the images for the last 5 years out into a temporary directory so that I can flip through them easily. But I often need to do searches along different dimensions than the "primary keys" I chose for organizing the directory structure. I'm a data hoarder and I organize meticulously, so I get where you're coming from.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |