Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Group51 · Jul 11, 2002, 07:53 AM

This is to gauge how well Mac users have adapted to one of the more prominent Unixisms, that of the Home directory. In OS 9 we could scatter our files hither or thither (more or less), OS X expects some order, or rather its much easier if you do it 'their' way. Do you?

[ 07-11-2002, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: Group51 ]

Group51 · Jul 11, 2002, 07:55 AM

I should say, this is the first poll I have done, so sorry if the questions are a bit lame or don't match; but I suppose that is what the discussion is for!

jcarr · Jul 11, 2002, 08:22 AM

I've been using, and encouraging other users to use the Documents folder since Mac OS 8. It just makes things so much easier when backing up, and/or migrating from one machine to another.

System stuff goes in the System folder, Applications in the Applications folder, and Documents in the Documents folder. Maybe I'm a little strange, but it just makes sense to me.

BZ · Jul 11, 2002, 08:24 AM

I like the organization of it all. I put all of my stuff in my home directory in one way or another. For me, it is all about simplicity and backing up. I can just throw my home folder onto another drive, DVD or an iPod and I am ready to go.

BZ

Nathan Adams · Jul 11, 2002, 08:46 AM

Just personal stuff I collect goe in the documents, movies, music folders. All my work goes in a 'work' folder which sits in the Mac HD

Justin W. Williams · Jul 11, 2002, 08:47 AM

I am a Unix geek. I love my home directory

Targon · Jul 11, 2002, 09:01 AM

NO. Whats the point of this folder when RETARDED LAZY Carbon developers stick application specific junk in here instead of the "Application Support" folder in the Library folder? Adobe, Microsoft an Apple a culprits of this.

I gave up on all this so i decided to create another partition entitled "Storage". In this Storage partition i created Documents, Music, pRon, Pictures and Downloads folders for my stuff.

There are way too many files on the startup disk as it is so i just backup my applications folder to the Storage partition an when required i can just initialize the startup disk partition an re-install the OS an drag my applications folder back.

mattmarshall · Jul 11, 2002, 09:08 AM

i absolutely agree with Targon. I use my HOME folder, but certainly not my Documents folder--it's been hijacked by Apple and many other software companies who have no common sense. it really ****es me off, too. i've sent feedback on this a few times, and wish everyone else would as well.

it simply defies logic to throw "appleworks user data" and "acrobat user data" and "itunes" stuff and "microsoft user data" in my damn documents folder. completely illogical and disregarding the organizatin of the system.

what the hell is my library for if you're going to dump this crap in MY documents folder? isn't "user data" a perference? application support? one of those things that belong in the Library?

[ 07-11-2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: mattmarshall ]

Millennium · Jul 11, 2002, 09:18 AM

I use my Home folder as it's supposed to be used.

Now, if only Apple (AppleWorkd), Adobe (Acrobat), and CTM Development (PowerMail) would do the same.

dazzla · Jul 11, 2002, 09:22 AM

Well, coming from Windows and it's My Documents structure (My Documents folder with My Pictures, My Music, My Movies subfolders) I use Home as my documents folder. There's hardly anything in my "Documents" folder, just a few bits of crap that applications decided to put in there.

<a href="http://idisk.mac.com/dazzla3/Public/home.jpg" target="_blank">http://idisk.mac.com/dazzla3/Public/home.jpg</a>

mishap · Jul 11, 2002, 10:04 AM

i use the Documents folder as an alias folder. I keep aliases to other folders around my computer. Like Applications, Projects, Mp3 etc... because when you go to open or save in most apps it will kick you there first, so i can just select the proper folder i want to save to.

i would use the folder for storage of my documents if it did not have the "user data" folders from other apps. if i had complete structure control of the folder, i would use it.

cpt kangarooski · Jul 11, 2002, 10:07 AM

I don't use either the Documents folder or my user directory. I'm not in the least bit convinced that it's necessary to segregate users' free space like that, and at any rate, I have an organizational scheme that works far better for me than what some gob in Cupertino or Murray Hill might personally enjoy.

lookmark · Jul 11, 2002, 10:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mattmarshall:
i absolutely agree with Targon. I use my HOME folder, but certainly not my Documents folder--it's been hijacked by Apple and many other software companies who have no common sense. it really ****es me off, too. i've sent feedback on this a few times, and wish everyone else would as well.

it simply defies logic to throw "appleworks user data" and "acrobat user data" and "itunes" stuff and "microsoft user data" in my damn documents folder. completely illogical and disregarding the organizatin of the system.

what the hell is my library for if you're going to dump this crap in MY documents folder? isn't "user data" a perference? application support? one of those things that belong in the Library?<hr /></blockquote>It sure is annoying, all right.

My solution is to make the folders like AppleWorks User Data or Microsoft User Data invisible, with a utililty like X-Ray.

Does anyone know why AppleWorks, iTunes, and Microsoft don't put these folders in Application Support?

Detrius · Jul 11, 2002, 10:35 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lookmark:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mattmarshall:
i absolutely agree with Targon. I use my HOME folder, but certainly not my Documents folder--it's been hijacked by Apple and many other software companies who have no common sense. it really ****es me off, too. i've sent feedback on this a few times, and wish everyone else would as well.

it simply defies logic to throw "appleworks user data" and "acrobat user data" and "itunes" stuff and "microsoft user data" in my damn documents folder. completely illogical and disregarding the organizatin of the system.

what the hell is my library for if you're going to dump this crap in MY documents folder? isn't "user data" a perference? application support? one of those things that belong in the Library?<hr /></blockquote>It sure is annoying, all right.

My solution is to make the folders like AppleWorks User Data or Microsoft User Data invisible, with a utililty like X-Ray.

Does anyone know why AppleWorks, iTunes, and Microsoft don't put these folders in Application Support?<hr /></blockquote>With iTunes, your mp3 collection goes in there, by default. Still, I don't know why they put it in there instead of the Music folder...

JKT · Jul 11, 2002, 10:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mattmarshall:
i absolutely agree with Targon. I use my HOME folder, but certainly not my Documents folder--it's been hijacked by Apple and many other software companies who have no common sense. it really ****es me off, too. i've sent feedback on this a few times, and wish everyone else would as well.

it simply defies logic to throw "appleworks user data" and "acrobat user data" and "itunes" stuff and "microsoft user data" in my damn documents folder. completely illogical and disregarding the organizatin of the system.

what the hell is my library for if you're going to dump this crap in MY documents folder? isn't "user data" a perference? application support? one of those things that belong in the Library?<hr /></blockquote>This "retarded" use of the Documents folder is a fault of OS9 because, guess what, the "Documents" folder is where many of these apps stored/do store their stuff in OS9... blame them for stupidity back then and blame them for Bad Carbon Port syndrome now.

Edit: And I guess this is why those apps don't use the Library folder - excusable in a way for something like AppleWorks which works in both 9 and X, but not for apps that don't.

[ 07-11-2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: JKT ]

driven · Jul 11, 2002, 10:54 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jcarr:
I've been using, and encouraging other users to use the Documents folder since Mac OS 8. It just makes things so much easier when backing up, and/or migrating from one machine to another.

System stuff goes in the System folder, Applications in the Applications folder, and Documents in the Documents folder. Maybe I'm a little strange, but it just makes sense to me.<hr /></blockquote>That's the way I do it.

Also: It should be noted that the App installs on OSX is far superior to Windows XP. If you back up your apps in XP, and don't have the associated registry settings it's pretty much useless.

For the most part (and there ARE exceptions) backing up an app in OS X simply involves saving the App directory. (And in some cases the associated pref FILE (which isn't too hard to find.)

barbarian · Jul 11, 2002, 11:02 AM

My docs folder is so full of crap that I stopped using it and created my own set of folders.

Here is some of the junk in there autocreated by other programs: Acrobat User Data, AppleWorks User Data, Book, Collection, gnumail, iNotepad Data, iOrganize X NotePad, ITunes, Mail.earthlink, Microsoft User Data, network map, Pineapple Db, David Cho's Movie, David's Contacts, David's Contacts.bu, SD Downloads

chris v · Jul 11, 2002, 11:13 AM

I toss the occasional readme or manual.pdf in the documents folder, but I keep all my important files on a separate partition. I basically don't like having to dig six or seven folders deep to get to files, and I don't have to worry about installs or system upgrades corrupting the drive with all my files on it.

CV

Targon · Jul 11, 2002, 11:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by JKT:
This "retarded" use of the Documents folder is a fault of OS9 because, guess what, the "Documents" folder is where many of these apps stored/do store their stuff in OS9... blame them for stupidity back then and blame them for Bad Carbon Port syndrome now.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Im not so sure OS 9 in it self it to blame, in fact, OS 9 it self has an "Application Support" folder in the System folder. Im sticking to blaming "Retarded Lazy" Classic/Carbon developers. Some of the 9x developers used the "Application Support" folder in the Mac OS 9x System folder, but most used the documents folder.

It is rather pitiful that Apple themselves are vandalising the system in this way...Provides a great example eh?

mishap-> The alias concept you mentioned is an excellent solution for the issue you explained ;-)

cpt kangarooski-> i agree with the sentiments in your post ;-) To expand on your thoughts i think it would be nice for Apple's installer to offer a "Single User Install" My idea's on this option would install the OS with NO user folder. The folders installed for this single user system would be the "Applications" folder, Library folder (with Application Support Folder inside) a System folder and then the Documents, Music, movies etc folders.

lookmark-> invisible screening of those folders is good idea i never thought of..thnx

Detrius-> you said regarding the "With iTunes, your mp3 collection goes in there, by default. Still, I don't know why they put it in there instead of the Music folder"

iTunes is the most spasticated of the lot...check it:
In the users library folder, there is the itunes plugins folder..this should be in the Application Support folder as well all agreed on. But itunes also creates a folder in the documents folder for its mp3 yet we agree mps should reside in the music folder. Funnily enough, itunes creates library files an stores these also in the documents folder. This is WACK!!!

Personally the itunes library's that are created should go in the itunes folder in application support and the mp3 should go in the music folder.

BTW i think Mails folder should be in Application Support as well not just dumped in the Library folder.

The question begs...What is going on with Jaguwire? Have these issues we have raised here been augmented in the Jag build that ppl have been reporting on?

asxless · Jul 11, 2002, 12:16 PM

I answered the poll based on my use of the "Documents" folder in my Home directory. I don't keep my documents in this "Documents" folder but I do use the 'system related' folders that are in my Home directory (e,g, Applications, Library).

The concept of storing a user's 'system related' folders (e.g. Applications, Library etc.) mixed together with a user's muti GByte 'documents', 'pictures', 'music' collections in single Home directory structure seems a little out of place for OS X users who are not really in a 'multi-user' situation (e.g. my personal TiBook). It also seems to be oriented toward a backup strategy based on cron jobs running tar to multiple 'tapes' in a stacker, instead of using the Finder or Toast and DVDs. Note: Even in most Unix only shops, the massive data sets (often now measured in terabytes) of scientific users are usually stored in separate file systems, usually on separate spindles and often on separate data/application servers even when the data are not "shared" by other users. The size of 'personal' online data sets (e.g. MP3s, images, etc.) are approaching the size of the online scientific data sets of only 5-10 years ago.

Because of my DVD based backup strategy, I want my 'system/application stuff' (e.g. Applications and Library) in my Home directory on the OS X boot partition. But I keep my: multi GB MP3 collection (Music), multi GB digital images (Pictures), multi GBs of working and historical documents (Documents) on their own separate partitions. I make these partitions 4.5 GB in size so that I can back up each partition (at differnt but appropriate intervals based on their propensity for changes) to a single DVD in a form which allows me to retrieve individual documents on any Mac (w/ DVD) using familiar Finder, Sherlock etc. GUI interfaces. I place aliases, in the appropriate folders in my home directory, to make it easy to jump to their real locations when an application persistently assumes I'd want to store everything in my Home directory <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

asxless in iLand

cpt kangarooski · Jul 11, 2002, 01:31 PM

Well, while I definately think that there should be more consideration given to users who are the only users of their computers -- which appears to continue to be a sizable, if not the largest, part of the user population for microcomputers of all kinds -- that's not really what I meant.

I mean, that I think that it is possible to create a multiuser system whereby each user has total control over the file structure _as they percieve it_ without impacting on other users. Remember: a file or icon is not data itself, it is just a mere pointer to the actual data on the disk. Linking illustrates that it's possible to have several pointers and that none of them are more privileged than any of the others.

Why not give each user free reign over their own personal set of links system-wide. Thus, I could arrange my files however I liked, putting a shared mp3 folder on the desktop perhaps, while other users could put the exact same folder within a Documents folder, or delete from their perception entirely, without any of us having any effect on the others.

At the very least, it seems promising enough to me to deserve further exploration.

Millennium · Jul 11, 2002, 01:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Well, while I definately think that there should be more consideration given to users who are the only users of their computers -- which appears to continue to be a sizable, if not the largest, part of the user population for microcomputers of all kinds -- that's not really what I meant.<hr /></blockquote>Must we go through this again?

All right. Go back up to the chalkboard and write this 100 times:

I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE.
I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE.
I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE.

To be precise, your personal TiBook has, in all likelihood, somewhere from four to six users. Some are more active than others. But you are unique among them, because you're the only one of them that's a human being. The others are for automated tasks, going about their business quickly and transparently. You didn't even know they were there; that is the beauty of the system. You think you are the only user, but you're really not.

Why do these processes require different users? Precisely to ensure that the transparency remains in effect: so they can't mess with your stuff, even if The Bad Guy somehow manages to subvert one of them.
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why not give each user free reign over their own personal set of links system-wide. Thus, I could arrange my files however I liked, putting a shared mp3 folder on the desktop perhaps, while other users could put the exact same folder within a Documents folder, or delete from their perception entirely, without any of us having any effect on the others.

At the very least, it seems promising enough to me to deserve further exploration.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>That would be a complete and utter disaster. Because not only are you not the only user of your machine, you are in all likelihood not the only human being who ever uses your machine. If people have to completely relearn the whole file structure of the machine every time they switch to a new user, or even worse, have to completely rebuild the file structure for every file on the disk every time they get a new machine, you'll negate any "usability" advantages you might gain.

In other words, you are not the only child in the house, so don't whine when Mommy asks you to clean your room.

asxless · Jul 11, 2002, 02:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Why not give each user free reign over their own personal set of links system-wide. Thus, I could arrange my files however I liked, putting a shared mp3 folder on the desktop perhaps, while other users could put the exact same folder within a Documents folder, or delete from their perception entirely, without any of us having any effect on the others.<hr /></blockquote>While you don't have "free reign over their own personal set of links system-wide", you CAN do most of what you describe right now using aliases and/or symbolic links.

iPhoto automatically stores new images from my digital camera on my 'images' partition and iTunes stores newly ripped MP3s to my 'music' partition. With help from Default Folder, most apps will default to a folder on my 'documents' partition. I even have the the Developer folder and development projects folders installed on yet another 'development' partition. And yes, I can compile with them there (e.g. OpenOffice.org).

Unix easily handles my file structure because it is logically equivalent of having these groups of data files on separate disks or file servers. They just happen to be on separate partitions of the same local disk on my TiBook.

asxless in iLand

[ 07-11-2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: asxless ]

Group51 · Jul 11, 2002, 04:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mishap:
i use the Documents folder as an alias folder. I keep aliases to other folders around my computer. Like Applications, Projects, Mp3 etc... because when you go to open or save in most apps it will kick you there first, so i can just select the proper folder i want to save to.

i would use the folder for storage of my documents if it did not have the "user data" folders from other apps. if i had complete structure control of the folder, i would use it.<hr /></blockquote>I sort of do this too. I have my real documents folder in a different bigger partition, with a custom icon and an alias in the dock. But I keep an alias in my 'Home' documents folder, so its easy to find. I do, however, keep all my pictures in my Pictures folder.

MacGorilla · Jul 11, 2002, 04:27 PM

I use all the folders. I write so I keep my writing in Documents, with folders for each project. Keeps me organized, which is always a challenge for an Aquarian.

billybob · Jul 11, 2002, 05:03 PM

im with most of you in terms of getting ****ed at developers who throw **** in the documents folder. Since it's obviously not going to change, I juts created a new folder called "Docs" where I store my documents, which is organized into subfolders. So, yes, I am using my documents folder, but not the one apple gave me because it gets filled with BS

lookmark · Jul 11, 2002, 06:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by billybob:
im with most of you in terms of getting ****ed at developers who throw **** in the documents folder. Since it's obviously not going to change, I juts created a new folder called "Docs" where I store my documents, which is organized into subfolders. So, yes, I am using my documents folder, but not the one apple gave me because it gets filled with BS<hr /></blockquote>Until Apple and others put these folders in the right place (grr), I recommend just making them invisible. I use a utility called X-Ray. No doubt there are a whole bunch, including the Terminal.

While annoying, it really makes this issue much less of a problem.

Or use "Docs" and make your "Documents" folder invisible, if you wish. Whatever works.

[ 07-11-2002, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: lookmark ]

booboo · Jul 11, 2002, 06:23 PM

I would like to use my Documents folder but - as has been pointed out here already - too many app's disresepect my sovereignty - and dump their crap in it.

My stuff gets lost in their wake, hence I end up using Some Other Folder, which I whack in the dock for quasi-easy access.

I don't want folders called Palm, AppleWorks User Data, Microsoft User Data, Saved Game States, Mac Amp Lite X, and iTunes amongst others, creating themselves, I want only folders called things like 'booboo's letters', 'booboo's urgent to do folder', etc....

The App's folder suffers similarly, come to think of it - certain app's and utils won't allow me to move them somewhere I'd be happier to put them... and this need to file and subfile is particularly relevent in OS X where screen space is already somewhat compromised

jmiddel · Jul 12, 2002, 01:28 AM

I work exclusively from /home /desktop, just like OS9. I find it the easiest

Cotton · Jul 12, 2002, 03:18 AM

Yes.

[ 07-12-2002, 03:27 AM: Message edited by: Cotton ]

iNeusch · Jul 12, 2002, 03:46 AM

Documents folder ?

juanvaldes · Jul 12, 2002, 04:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iNeusch:
Documents folder ?

<hr /></blockquote>you know, like the pictures folder where you store all your p0rn

cpt kangarooski · Jul 12, 2002, 07:53 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To be precise, your personal TiBook has, in all likelihood, somewhere from four to six users. Some are more active than others. But you are unique among them, because you're the only one of them that's a human being. The others are for automated tasks, going about their business quickly and transparently. You didn't even know they were there; that is the beauty of the system. You think you are the only user, but you're really not.<hr /></blockquote>No, I know this. In fact, I've been trying to remember where I learned this from, now. I think it was probably from Cliff Stoll's book, which I read a bit prior to actually using any Unix systems... which was, well, quite a while ago.

However, let me give you a message to remember: Human users are the only users that matter.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why do these processes require different users? Precisely to ensure that the transparency remains in effect: so they can't mess with your stuff, even if The Bad Guy somehow manages to subvert one of them.<hr /></blockquote>So basically because Unix offers no security whatsoever within a particular 'userspace,' a great mistake on its part given the increasing number of trojans spreading themselves around through viral methods, you need these seperate users to begin with. Alright, well, lets assume we stick with this kludge. Even then, why do you think there would be an impact? Those users would still have access to the files they need. In fact, we could even get rid of _every_ other file for them, and they'd never know that they were there. And if they liked having a particular organization, they could have it without causing us to have to make the big mistake of telling a human being that he cannot organize things as he likes because we're too incompetent to program software that can allow for that -- even though we more or less did so for over fifteen years.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If people have to completely relearn the whole file structure of the machine every time they switch to a new user, or even worse, have to completely rebuild the file structure for every file on the disk every time they get a new machine, you'll negate any "usability" advantages you might gain.<hr /></blockquote>Nope, a hundred times nope. This is _precisely_ what happened on the Mac. No one _ever_ complained, to my knowledge. Because people who didn't care about order were free to act randomly. People who did could impose it trivially. I know at least one person who sorted their files on his Mac just as though it was a Unix box because he liked it. You could too. I wouldn't stop you. But you, for some strange reason, insist on telling me that the organizational scheme that makes me most productive, which I would be willing to invest my time in, is no good, and that I simply am not allowed to do it; that I have to use yours, because you believe yours is better.

That's the biggest load of bull**** I've heard from you yet.

Barring an extraordinary technical constraint, users should generally be free to do what they like so that they'll be comfortable. If you want to offer a suggestion, that's fine, go nuts. But boy howdy, don't go enforcing it.

cwasko · Jul 12, 2002, 09:37 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by lookmark:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by billybob:
im with most of you in terms of getting ****ed at developers who throw **** in the documents folder. Since it's obviously not going to change, I juts created a new folder called "Docs" where I store my documents, which is organized into subfolders. So, yes, I am using my documents folder, but not the one apple gave me because it gets filled with BS<hr /></blockquote>Until Apple and others put these folders in the right place (grr), I recommend just making them invisible. I use a utility called X-Ray. No doubt there are a whole bunch, including the Terminal.
<hr /></blockquote>I took it one step farther. I put all the *sshole app's folders on my desktop, command-option dragged them back to the Documents folder, then dragged the originals to my Application Support. I then used the /Developer/Tools/SetFile -a V "/Users/chris/Documets/The *sshole App Folder" and made them invisible.

Now, they are where they should be and I don;t have to look at them.

kingskel · Jul 12, 2002, 11:03 AM

Millenium wrote: <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Must we go through this again?

All right. Go back up to the chalkboard and write this 100 times:

I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE.
I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE.
I AM NOT THE ONLY USER OF MY MACHINE. <hr /></blockquote>Wow. I am curious as to what qualifications are necessary to become a moderator here. You certainly don't have to be moderate, I see.

I think the problem here is that some people are not Millenium and are the only user of their machine. It is understood that X is based on a Unix file-system which is multi-user. So please try and make the effort to understand that this interface is not ideal for single-use machines. These users are not alone in their frustrations - ArsTechnica has hosted several lenghty articles pointing out these shortcomings.

Maybe a single-use Finder is the solution. Maybe not. In the meantime, it is inconvenient to move from the open (and frankly, simpler/easier)system layout of OS9 (where I could put my docs anywhere I wanted and all my System stuff was in a folder called "System Folder") to the more restricted layout of X. Yes, X has many advantages over 9 - this is not one of them. Added security is great (not that I ever had problems with hackers or viruses in 9), but so is ease-of-use and freedom to move files.

I hope patience and co-operation - not a patronizing attitude - will eventually lead to a solution for all.

Bernard Ducamp · Jul 12, 2002, 11:39 AM

Do I use the Documents Folder?
---------------------
YES. For two major reasons.

1. It's part of the Unix multi-user architecture. It makes sense.

2. I have kept my documents in a "Documents" folder ever since I got my first computer (circa 1989) and learned how computers work. Applications, system software, preferences, settings, ..... can all be replicated or reinstalled without major effort. My time is invested in the documents my applications produce. Whenever I do a backup, it becomes easy. Back up my "Documents" folder, and my time investment is protected.

Bernard Ducamp · Jul 12, 2002, 11:41 AM

Do I use the Documents Folder?
---------------------
YES. For two major reasons.

1. It's part of the Unix multi-user architecture. It makes sense.

2. I have kept my documents in a "Documents" folder ever since I got my first computer (circa 1989) and learned how computers work. Applications, system software, preferences, settings, ..... can all be replicated or reinstalled without major effort. My time is invested in the documents my applications produce. Whenever I do a backup, it becomes easy. Back up my "Documents" folder, and my time investment is protected.

cpt kangarooski · Jul 12, 2002, 12:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />layout of OS9 (where I could put my docs anywhere I wanted and all
my System stuff was in a folder called "System Folder") to the
more<hr /></blockquote>In fact, as a testament to the flexibility of System 7 and later, I'm
pretty certain that I recall that the files did not even have to be in a
folder, or that if they were that it had to be called 'System Folder.'
Just having the System suitcase (I can't believe they stuck with the
suitcase thing for so long; that was kind of dumb) in the same folder as
any program named Finder, and depending on the machine, an Enabler, was
usually enough, if you blessed it.
'Course, after booting from CD became prevalent by 93-94 or so, there was
never really much need.

Vanquish · Jul 12, 2002, 01:55 PM

I would love to use my Documents folder but I just can't until they move that microsoft and appleworks crap out of there (and others that don't belong there) it's just too clutterd and I am a clean-freak so I *hate* clutterd folders

.

[ 07-12-2002, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Vanquish ]

subego · Jul 12, 2002, 06:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
That would be a complete and utter disaster. Because not only are you not the only user of your machine, you are in all likelihood not the only human being who ever uses your machine. If people have to completely relearn the whole file structure of the machine every time they switch to a new user, or even worse, have to completely rebuild the file structure for every file on the disk every time they get a new machine, you'll negate any "usability" advantages you might gain.

In other words, you are not the only child in the house, so don't whine when Mommy asks you to clean your room.<hr /></blockquote>Pretty overzealous denial of what amounts to be a more elegant system of aliases.

Are you sure it's that impossible? Programmer types are smart.

The Evener · Jul 12, 2002, 06:29 PM

I'll echo what others have said -- I use all the folders of my home directory EXCEPT the Documents folder. I'm also really ticked off that for some reason (probably Apple developer notes?) that too many apps like AppleWorks dumps user pref information in that folder. The whole point of the Documents folder is that it's for ME to put stuff in! The Library/Preferences folder should be for that other junk. So I had to create my own folder for personal documents. I wrote Apple to complain about their wacky use of the Document folder, but so far it appears Apple hasn't received enough negative feedback about their current practice.

mrtew · Jul 13, 2002, 12:04 AM

I found out a better way to get rid of this junk in the Documents folder than making it invisible. I drag it to the trash and then hold down on the 'Trash' icon until a little menu thingy comes up and I click on 'Empty Trash'

Jasoco · Jul 14, 2002, 04:59 AM

Since I used Windows, I kept my files organized logically. All in one place inside sub-folders. Like the Home folder is now.

Here is my Home folder:
<a href="http://www.jasoco.com/lookhere/illustss/myhome.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.jasoco.com/lookhere/illustss/myhome.jpg</a>

Inside you see 12 folders.

Backup (709.5 MB): Here I put Stuffit or Disk Image or Setup Installation apps I download off the internet or Disk Images of HD's from my old Macs.

Box o' Crap(155.8 MB): An alternative to cluttering up the Documents folder I use this for stuff that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Desktop (Varies): I think you know what this is. Usually all downloaded files go here at first before I file them.

Documents (100.7 MB): I let whatever app wants to put here go here. I aiin't gonna try and stop it. So I only use it for that.

Downloads (56k): The official Download folder for my browser. Though, since I switched to Mozilla I've been using the Desktop. One day I'll start using it again.

Library (294.7 MB): Obvious, don't you think?

Movies (1.51 GB): Here I put all QuickTime movie files or Flash files I save.

Music (1.29 MB): MP3's, of course.

Pictures (792.4 MB): Image files, pictures, screen shots, etc all go in here. All categorized by type of image. I.e. screenshots, digital photographs, pr0n, Miscellaneous Images.. I'm a ScreenShot Whore so I like to collect them when I can. There's over 200 MB in the ScreenShots folder itself.

Sites (91.7 MB): I now use this for holding the files belonging to the many web sites I maintain. Including my own which I keep a solid back up in there.

Sounds (5.2 MB): The newest folder so it's still got a different icon. I place sound files like WAV's or Audio files in here.

Text Files (22.1 MB): What do you think goes here? Any TXT, RTF, PDF files go here.

The icons are my own creation (Except the Sounds one for now). The bar on the left has neat 16x16 versions of the main icons. I am proud of my design. They look especially cool at 128x128.

I love the whole Home way of life. About time! Backing my HD up is so much easier!

I still don't get why there's a Music folder, but by default the MP3's go in the Documents folder and the "Sample" music files are stored deep in the Library folder. What the heck is the Music folder FOR if they won't use it??

Think of it this way. If apps DIDN'T put crap in the Documents Folder, I wouldn't need it anymore. That's what my "Box o' Crap" folder is for. I like the name and icon. I'd just delete it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by John Tewksbury:
I found out a better way to get rid of this junk in the Documents folder than making it invisible. I drag it to the trash and then hold down on the 'Trash' icon until a little menu thingy comes up and I click on 'Empty Trash'<hr /></blockquote>Um, you DO realize the files will be recreated next time you run the program? So don't delete the files. They're IMPORTANT to the app.

robotmarkVIII · Jul 14, 2002, 05:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Well, while I definately think that there should be more consideration given to users who are the only users of their computers -- which appears to continue to be a sizable, if not the largest, part of the user population for microcomputers of all kinds -- that's not really what I meant.

I mean, that I think that it is possible to create a multiuser system whereby each user has total control over the file structure _as they percieve it_ without impacting on other users. Remember: a file or icon is not data itself, it is just a mere pointer to the actual data on the disk. Linking illustrates that it's possible to have several pointers and that none of them are more privileged than any of the others.

Why not give each user free reign over their own personal set of links system-wide. Thus, I could arrange my files however I liked, putting a shared mp3 folder on the desktop perhaps, while other users could put the exact same folder within a Documents folder, or delete from their perception entirely, without any of us having any effect on the others.

At the very least, it seems promising enough to me to deserve further exploration.<hr /></blockquote>It's perfectly possible to customize your directory structure so that youre "home" could be in a different place (through netinfo, in this case). In fact, you could change the ownership of /System/ to be an admin user instead of root, so you can trash stuff all you want. It's terribly insecure though. I've never tried it, but you could also delete /Users, and set your Home directory to something like /Documents. The thing that would prevent it from working is not something in darwin, but in the higher level "Mac" stuff, i.e., the finder, which may still look for the old desktop folder.

Here's a tip though, if you want to customize how your Home is configured, just edit the /System/Library/UserTemplate/English.lproj/ folder to suit your needs. As long as there still is a Library folder in there, things should work. Every new user created would have that configuration. Nice if you're some sort of admin...

robotmarkVIII · Jul 14, 2002, 06:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bernard Ducamp:
Do I use the Documents Folder?
---------------------
YES. For two major reasons.

1. It's part of the Unix multi-user architecture. It makes sense.

(snip).<hr /></blockquote>Well the documents folder thing isn't. At least in Debian (w/ the linux kernel) the default /home folder is empty of files visible to the user. You can pretty much do whatever you want with the way it's organized. Both Konqueror and Nautilus (GMC too) by default take you to your home.

I assume that's the way it is with a lot of commercial Unices[?], except for os x of course

robotmarkVIII · Jul 14, 2002, 06:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by subego:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
That would be a complete and utter disaster. Because not only are you not the only user of your machine, you are in all likelihood not the only human being who ever uses your machine. If people have to completely relearn the whole file structure of the machine every time they switch to a new user, or even worse, have to completely rebuild the file structure for every file on the disk every time they get a new machine, you'll negate any "usability" advantages you might gain.

In other words, you are not the only child in the house, so don't whine when Mommy asks you to clean your room.<hr /></blockquote>Pretty overzealous denial of what amounts to be a more elegant system of aliases.

Are you sure it's that impossible? Programmer types are smart.<hr /></blockquote>I agree that something like that might be possible, but it's a lot easier just to give each person their own folder. Most people don't care and it would free up a lot of time to work on more important things in X.

mattmarshall · Jul 14, 2002, 06:20 PM

yeah, but how do we get this messed up situtation reversed? apple can't fix it with Jaguar--it's the applications, not the OS that are the problem.

have you guys been submitting negative feedback about this issue? it seems to bother a lot of people.

any ideas on how to convery this general discontent with the misuse of the Documents folder?

[ 07-14-2002, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: mattmarshall ]

cpt kangarooski · Jul 14, 2002, 06:40 PM

robotmark--
Well hell. It would've saved years and a fortune in development costs (Lisa alone cost something like $30 million to make) if Apple had never gone the GUI route to begin with. It sure would've been easier.

Frankly, ease of development is not a high concern for me. As a rule of thumb, there is a fixed amount of work necessary to accomplish any task on the computer -- lazy developers shift the greater part of the burden on to the user. Good developers reduce the user workload as much as they can.

So this is hard. That's why Apple charges so much. I certainly wouldn't put up with forking over a premium for something that was merely on par with pretty much everything else.

Incidentally, I don't believe that your solution would accomplish what I'm talking about. Essentially, the end result is for each user of the same machine to 'see' something little different in terms of required directory structure than a system running MacOS (or anything else that didn't impose restrictions -- GSOS was okay too, IIRC). This would pretty much necessitate all the accounts overlapping in terms of what they can access (aside from truly private files), yet still not interacting with each other. My suggestion is basically to give each user free reign over _a_ complete file structure, but for each user to have a seperate one, even though they're reflecting the same files.

Apfhex · Jul 14, 2002, 09:18 PM

I have a couple of text files and an Aliases folder (which I have in the Dock for easy access to less frequently used apps) inside my Documents folder, but that's all. Prior to OS X, I already had my files organized in such a manner that, for me, works better than using the folders in my Home directory.

IF I had multiple users using my machine, I might reconsider wher I put my files, but as the only user I don't need to worry about it.

robotmarkVIII · Jul 14, 2002, 09:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Frankly, ease of development is not a high concern for me. As a rule of thumb, there is a fixed amount of work necessary to accomplish any task on the computer -- lazy developers shift the greater part of the burden on to the user. Good developers reduce the user workload as much as they can.<hr /></blockquote>Certainly. Why should Apple spend time on any feature you don't care about. Lazy, misguided developers, all of them. They have hearts of gold though, hearts of gold.