Hi folks,
here some thoughts about a 'human' explorer:
We all loose time searching for files which location we cant remember. Reason is the difference between storage concepts of our brain and most OSs. We do remember the circumstances of an item (file or word...), the relations vaguely. For simplicitys sake developers preferred the hierarchical concept to force a file to explicit location.
A human oriented explorer should treat the file name not as an identifier but as one attribute among others. The file should be available in multiple contexts. They represent the relations which defines the location of the file.
Maybe this could be implemented with the help of hard links, or in an database based OS. Too far out?
mycle
Future Explorer
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
you may be prophetic here
a database-like filesystem is coming in a few years' time, if we are to believe microsoft's Longhorn hype
my personal opinion about this would be negative. There will be too many "old dogs" having to learn new tricks from scratch, on mikro$oft's whim. 2x/x2 would be affected too, probably made incompatible as win3.1 filemanager is today -- or worse :(
a database-like filesystem is coming in a few years' time, if we are to believe microsoft's Longhorn hype
my personal opinion about this would be negative. There will be too many "old dogs" having to learn new tricks from scratch, on mikro$oft's whim. 2x/x2 would be affected too, probably made incompatible as win3.1 filemanager is today -- or worse :(
-
Starsurfer
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 2002 Feb 23, 23:51
- Location: Atlantis
Hi.
Though it might help things my thoughts are it will always
be a problem i.e. "searching for files which location we cant remember..."
thats why a good search program(s) your'e used too is very helpful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Starsurfer.
That might be good.-Just for the heck, could you name some attributes..A human oriented explorer should treat the file name not as an identifier but as one attribute among others...
Though it might help things my thoughts are it will always
be a problem i.e. "searching for files which location we cant remember..."
thats why a good search program(s) your'e used too is very helpful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Starsurfer.
Hi Starsurfer
We know file attributes like date, size, type.
Searching files could be treated like in real life. At your home you may not be able to name exactly the location of every thing. But if you are looking for maybe a special magazine you might remember a connection to the living room. This represents the context.
A search engine do not have this clue. It would search the whole flat and find most magazines in the trash.
We know file attributes like date, size, type.
Searching files could be treated like in real life. At your home you may not be able to name exactly the location of every thing. But if you are looking for maybe a special magazine you might remember a connection to the living room. This represents the context.
A search engine do not have this clue. It would search the whole flat and find most magazines in the trash.
Hi Nikos
Longhorns purpose is to take total control over every file. It wants to control even the access by any program. MS wants one fat universal programm to do really everything on your pc. Looks like the try to extend dependency.
To achieve easier (human like) file accessibiltiy it should be sufficient to have an index of all files and additional context information. One may gather these contextual information by tracking file access.
It is neither trivial nor impossible.
Longhorns purpose is to take total control over every file. It wants to control even the access by any program. MS wants one fat universal programm to do really everything on your pc. Looks like the try to extend dependency.
To achieve easier (human like) file accessibiltiy it should be sufficient to have an index of all files and additional context information. One may gather these contextual information by tracking file access.
It is neither trivial nor impossible.
imho longhorn (if it ever materialises) will be way over the top. It is going to break tons of existing programs that have non-trivial file operations, all in the name of "finding things easily". So everybody will have to recalibrate their minds, just because M$ run out of things to push as (useless) upgrades. I am the most disorganized person possible, yet i manage very well, thank you.
NTFS already has an indexing service but that doesn't seem enough for them, they have to move the goal posts yet again, affecting man+dog. Imagine if car manufacturers "revolutionized" the car "user interface" every 2 years or so -- how many road deaths would we mourn. You can't force people to chang their ways just to fill your bank account. M$ playing god almighty again
xplorer2 will bring many extras for efficient file searching, including boolean/regexp searches, and you could also search for attributes and what have you in all these new columns that it knows how to read (owners, version, etc).
NTFS already has an indexing service but that doesn't seem enough for them, they have to move the goal posts yet again, affecting man+dog. Imagine if car manufacturers "revolutionized" the car "user interface" every 2 years or so -- how many road deaths would we mourn. You can't force people to chang their ways just to fill your bank account. M$ playing god almighty again
xplorer2 will bring many extras for efficient file searching, including boolean/regexp searches, and you could also search for attributes and what have you in all these new columns that it knows how to read (owners, version, etc).
-
Starsurfer
- Bronze Member
- Posts: 109
- Joined: 2002 Feb 23, 23:51
- Location: Atlantis
It sounds way out...in the pure sense.
the location itself of a file, being actually defined by the various relations, which
are represented by the attributes/contexts we think about things.
Well, there are lot of things about it that would make things easier also.
At least, you've put it very attractively...
A little fun discussion......
One thing I can think about is previously done tasks & recently accessed files..
of course implemented in a much better way than presently.
worst of all wouldn't want microsft coming out with a sort of
mock version of the real thing/idea :p :lol: , at least in terms of what you are talking about.
& then learning to use it.. is a real pain. especialliy if its not
implementing anything in the core sense of the idea.
quite a bit, already comes through....i.e. in terms
of the way our brain (or should I say, we :) ) relate(s) to things...
talking of which,; the scrap pane is more attuned to the way
our brain looks at things. I think.-? :)
~~~~~~~~~~
Starsurfer.
Edited By Starsurfer on Jan. 10 2003 at 12:10
the location itself of a file, being actually defined by the various relations, which
are represented by the attributes/contexts we think about things.
Well, there are lot of things about it that would make things easier also.
At least, you've put it very attractively...
A little fun discussion......
imho, There would have to be a lot more than that, for it to be anything.file attributes like date, size, type...
One thing I can think about is previously done tasks & recently accessed files..
of course implemented in a much better way than presently.
worst of all wouldn't want microsft coming out with a sort of
mock version of the real thing/idea :p :lol: , at least in terms of what you are talking about.
& then learning to use it.. is a real pain. especialliy if its not
implementing anything in the core sense of the idea.
In terms of 'storage concepts of our brain', & the search function/tool; I think...A search engine do not have this clue. It would search the whole flat and find most magazines in the trash.
quite a bit, already comes through....i.e. in terms
of the way our brain (or should I say, we :) ) relate(s) to things...
talking of which,; the scrap pane is more attuned to the way
our brain looks at things. I think.-? :)
~~~~~~~~~~
Starsurfer.
Edited By Starsurfer on Jan. 10 2003 at 12:10