Difference between Libraries and Folders with Shortcuts

[Ouizardus]

I'm very unclear on the purpose of "libraries" in Windows 7. It seems to me that the same structure could be duplicated in Windows 7 and earlier versions by simply creating a folder (as a "library") and putting the relevant shortcuts to other folders or files in that folder.

Given that, the whole library system just seems redundant, and it sometimes even gets in the way. Do libraries have any other purposes or advantages over shortcuts of which I am unaware? Thanks.

 

[Chappy]

I thought the same thing originally, that these Library things really had no use for me.
After using them for awhile tho, I have completely changed my mind on this and now I'm looking for other things that I can use the Library base XML as a template for other tasks.

Say you had some Pictures stashed around your machine in different locations, for different reasons. Like me, I have many areas where I have folders of different types of pictures scattered thru 3 OS's. Adding these folders to the Pictures Library offers fast easy access to all my pictures no matter where they are, and they're quickly available from the Start menu or the Explorer pane in any window.

I'm strictly using the Library functions now and I would miss it terribly if it were not there now. Doing this by adding shortcuts to a folder is a very clunky and unproductive way to attempt accomplishing the same thing, without really succeeding.
Work with them awhile and hopefully you'll see the power of these libraries.

 

[Ouizardus]

Interesting. Since Windows 95, I've been organised my files into folders based on their type: Pictures, Games, Work, etc. Although sometimes the line between such divisions is sometimes blurred, I still almost never lose anything. I suppose that thus far, I've simply found that an organised file system is all I need.

There are a few other ambiguities about libraries:
* If you copy or save a new file into the root of a library, where does it go on your HD?
* How aware are other programs of the library system? For example, if you are used to having two sets of items (say data files) in a library, they may be in very different locations on your HD. It seems to me this could make it hard for you to find them if you need to access them through a program that has no knowledge or access to libraries.

My personal experience tells me that libraries may lead to much confusion (and frustration) for some end-users who believe that files are in their library, but do not know the real location of such files. Sure, technical users such as ourselves get the idea easily enough, but many end-users are unlikely to read documentation, visit forums, or even Google such things. Such users may think that libraries are just another place to store stuff on their computers, and think nothing more of it. I just think of my poor grandmother or aunt who simply don't grasp many very fundamental computing concepts needed to use computers properly and efficiently. They understand just enough to get by, but no more. Ideally, this is how computers should be. Unfortunately, when the slightest thing goes wrong, they haven't the faintest idea where to even start.

Anyway, all this to say that I'm afraid making lots of files and folders *look* like they're all grouped together when they're really not at all is very risky business. Even if you educate users about libraries the first time they use them, people will forget. However, I suppose there's no way to make a system work for everyone, especially one with a global audience like Windows.

 

[dubbbs]

Similar to a music player for example. You can drag music from wherever into iTunes and sort/organize your "library" how you like.

So yeah, I see the application, but still don't see myself using it that often. I prefer REAL organization--my music folders are a case-in-point, where they're all organized by artist and whatnot, not just in the music player library.

 

[kegobeer]

* If you copy or save a new file into the root of a library, where does it go on your HD?

You can define the default save location for each library. Just right click on the library, select properties, and choose the save location.

* How aware are other programs of the library system? For example, if you are used to having two sets of items (say data files) in a library, they may be in very different locations on your HD. It seems to me this could make it hard for you to find them if you need to access them through a program that has no knowledge or access to libraries.

AFAIK, you can't/don't select a library as any type of save location. You still have to choose a directory, so there isn't any confusion for the applications.

My personal experience tells me that libraries may lead to much confusion (and frustration) for some end-users who believe that files are in their library, but do not know the real location of such files. Sure, technical users such as ourselves get the idea easily enough, but many end-users are unlikely to read documentation, visit forums, or even Google such things. Such users may think that libraries are just another place to store stuff on their computers, and think nothing more of it. I just think of my poor grandmother or aunt who simply don't grasp many very fundamental computing concepts needed to use computers properly and efficiently. They understand just enough to get by, but no more. Ideally, this is how computers should be. Unfortunately, when the slightest thing goes wrong, they haven't the faintest idea where to even start.

Anyway, all this to say that I'm afraid making lots of files and folders *look* like they're all grouped together when they're really not at all is very risky business. Even if you educate users about libraries the first time they use them, people will forget. However, I suppose there's no way to make a system work for everyone, especially one with a global audience like Windows.

Just like any new technology, it will take time for people to understand and use libraries. I don't subscribe to the idea that a computer has to be the easiest thing to use - the user has to take the time to read about how the computer works. If you made an operating system that even the least computer savvy person could use, only the least computer savvy person would use it. It's too bad that more people don't look at the library window, see the question mark in the corner, and click on it. A nice explanation of how libraries work lurks just beneath the surface.

 

[Antman]

Ouizardus​

Last Activity: 05-05-2009

I agree, It's too bad that more people don't look at the big picture.

 

[mickey megabyte]

AFAIK, you can't/don't select a library as any type of save location. You still have to choose a directory, so there isn't any confusion for the applications.

good post, apart from this bit above - you can save into a library, but it will go into the place specified in the first part of your post.

i didn't grok libraries either at first, but i'm slowly learning how to use them more - jump-lists too...

 

[kegobeer]

Thanks for the clarification, mickey. I haven't attempted to do any saving from applications, so I was going from memory. I use libraries all the time. I now hit the Win key and start typing what I want. Since I do a lot of downloading, I created a download library and assigned different folders to it. I hit the Win key, type "down", the download library appears, and I have access to every folder assigned to that library. Sweet.

 

[dhar890723]

I'm very unclear on the purpose of "libraries" in Windows 7. It seems to me that the same structure could be duplicated in Windows 7 and earlier versions by simply creating a folder (as a "library") and putting the relevant shortcuts to other folders or files in that folder.

Given that, the whole library system just seems redundant, and it sometimes even gets in the way. Do libraries have any other purposes or advantages over shortcuts of which I am unaware? Thanks.

Using shortcuts would not be that similar; using symbolic links would. I like the concept of libraries, but I can't get them to work in a way that works well for me.

1. I've set up a custom set of columns for my Music folder, and I made it the default for Music folders in Folder Options/View. (It is "optimized" for Music.) However, my Music library refuses to respect my columns. It always displays Name, Contributing Artists, Album, #, and Title. I've tried "optimizing" the library for "General Items" and then back to "Music", but no joy; it goes back to the original set of columns instead of the ones I designated for Music.

2. I have folders <profile>/Books/Manuals/Guitar and <profile>/Guitar. I created a library "Guitar" and added these folders to it. They both appear in the library as "Guitar", which is less than useful. I want to rename them in the library (and only in the library), but this is not possible.

3. Choosing a different view (say, icons vs. details) for a library can affect other libraries. The views are not fully independent.

If I'm missing something here, please fill me in, because I'm about to give up on libraries.

 

[kegobeer]

Using shortcuts would not be that similar; using symbolic links would. I like the concept of libraries, but I can't get them to work in a way that works well for me.

1. I've set up a custom set of columns for my Music folder, and I made it the default for Music folders in Folder Options/View. (It is "optimized" for Music.) However, my Music library refuses to respect my columns. It always displays Name, Contributing Artists, Album, #, and Title. I've tried "optimizing" the library for "General Items" and then back to "Music", but no joy; it goes back to the original set of columns instead of the ones I designated for Music.

AFAIK, libraries don't respect views of the folders that belong to the library.

2. I have folders <profile>/Books/Manuals/Guitar and <profile>/Guitar. I created a library "Guitar" and added these folders to it. They both appear in the library as "Guitar", which is less than useful. I want to rename them in the library (and only in the library), but this is not possible.

I have several folders with the same name in a library, but since the entire path is dispayed, I am not confused by the names. If you want different folder names, give them different names.

3. Choosing a different view (say, icons vs. details) for a library can affect other libraries. The views are not fully independent.

That hasn't happened to me. All of my libraries have different views. I can change the view of the Music library, and it does not affect any other libraries. It might have something to do with whatever version of Windows 7 you are using - if you enter your system specs, we'll know for sure.

 

[Lanthus20]

I like the libraries because it helped me in my switch from xp to seven. Now on my xp partition I had a bunch of pictures, but the libraries make it so that they are right there with the rest.

Same with music, documents, everything! It's really helped alot making the switch, and I think it's something that people will use.

 

[dhar890723]

AFAIK, libraries don't respect views of the folders that belong to the library.

More seriously, they don't respect the "Folder Views" that have been chosen with "Apply to Folders" in "Folder Options". For example, when I go to the Library Properties for my Music Library and choose "Music" under "Optimize this library for:", I don't get the columns I set up for my Music folder, which I designated to apply to all folders "optimized for music" when I used "Apply to Folders". The music settings do work in real folders, just not in libraries.

I have several folders with the same name in a library, but since the entire path is dispayed, I am not confused by the names. If you want different folder names, give them different names.

I don't want to give the folders different names. They're organized and named exactly as I want them to be in the file system, and I'm not going to change this to accommodate a shortcoming in the design of this new "Libraries" feature. If it bugs me enough, I just won't use Libraries.

Also, in the folder tree pane, the full names are not given, so under my "Guitar" library, there are two items, both named "Guitar (X:". This just isn't useful. (I left off the closing paren after X: because the message board software turns it into a smiley. Anyone know how to defeat this?)

That hasn't happened to me. All of my libraries have different views. I can change the view of the Music library, and it does not affect any other libraries. It might have something to do with whatever version of Windows 7 you are using - if you enter your system specs, we'll know for sure.

I'm using Win7 Ultimate RTM.

 

[kegobeer]

More seriously, they don't respect the "Folder Views" that have been chosen with "Apply to Folders" in "Folder Options". For example, when I go to the Library Properties for my Music Library and choose "Music" under "Optimize this library for:", I don't get the columns I set up for my Music folder, which I designated to apply to all folders "optimized for music" when I used "Apply to Folders". The music settings do work in real folders, just not in libraries.

I think that because a Library exists as a container, it is outside any optimization the user sets. Since a library isn't a folder, I wouldn't expect this customization to carry over.

I don't want to give the folders different names. They're organized and named exactly as I want them to be in the file system, and I'm not going to change this to accommodate a shortcoming in the design of this new "Libraries" feature. If it bugs me enough, I just won't use Libraries.

Also, in the folder tree pane, the full names are not given, so under my "Guitar" library, there are two items, both named "Guitar (X:". This just isn't useful.

I'm using Win7 Ultimate RTM.

Identical folder names in any library certainly can't be considered a shortcoming, IMHO. If I have two files named the same thing, I can't expect the OS to somehow know they are different, or provide me a secondary "title" that I can customize, which will only display in certain places. You can certainly name your folders however you want, but it looks like you'll just have to live with having two folders named the same in your library. The order folders are listed in the library never changes, so as long as you know which folder is listed first, at least you won't make mistakes when copying/moving/etc. It's not a fix, but it's sort of a workaround.

You didn't mention the folder tree pane was where the problem existed. That is true, the full path isn't displayed there. However, in the main window, the entire path is listed. I do not know how to enable the full path in the folder pane; this is something you could probably submit to Microsoft on one of the Windows 7 Social boards.

(I left off the closing paren after X: because the message board software turns it into a smiley. Anyone know how to defeat this?)

If you want to disable smilies, wrap your text in noparse /noparse tags, like this:

[PLAIN];)[/PLAIN]

;)

 

[dhar890723]

I think that because a Library exists as a container, it is outside any optimization the user sets. Since a library isn't a folder, I wouldn't expect this customization to carry over.

The design is inconsistent. Both libraries and folders can be "optimized" in their respective property sheets, and Windows defines exactly the same five categories for each, "General Items", "Documents", "Music", "Pictures", and "Videos". The only way I know to customize a category is through the obfuscated 3-step procedure involving selecting a category for a folder, modifying that folder's view, and then going to Folder Options and choosing "Apply to Folders". That procedure has always been horribly unclear and difficult to discover, but it's all Windows offers. There is no reason to think it shouldn't apply to libraries, and it's extremely surprising that it doesn't.

Identical folder names in any library certainly can't be considered a shortcoming, IMHO. If I have two files named the same thing, I can't expect the OS to somehow know they are different, or provide me a secondary "title" that I can customize, which will only display in certain places.

At the file-system level, Windows provides exactly that capability when using hard and soft links, it provides it for shares at the networking level, and at the Explorer level, it provides the really bizarre, confusing, unhelpful "My" prefix renaming. If you can't rename folder "links" in Libraries, you can't do it, but it isn't because you shouldn't be able to; it's because the "Library" concept is still very incompletely realized and rudimentary.

If you want to disable smilies, wrap your text in noparse /noparse tags, like this:

[PLAIN];)[/PLAIN]

;)

I'll never remember that. Isn't there an easier way, like a toolbar button or something?

 

[kegobeer]

The design is inconsistent. Both libraries and folders can be "optimized" in their respective property sheets, and Windows defines exactly the same five categories for each, "General Items", "Documents", "Music", "Pictures", and "Videos". The only way I know to customize a category is through the obfuscated 3-step procedure involving selecting a category for a folder, modifying that folder's view, and then going to Folder Options and choosing "Apply to Folders". That procedure has always been horribly unclear and difficult to discover, but it's all Windows offers. There is no reason to think it shouldn't apply to libraries, and it's extremely surprising that it doesn't.

I agree that it's inconsistent. Making a product suggestion is the only way it will get changed.

At the file-system level, Windows provides exactly that capability when using hard and soft links, it provides it for shares at the networking level, and at the Explorer level, it provides the really bizarre, confusing, unhelpful "My" prefix renaming. If you can't rename folder "links" in Libraries, you can't do it, but it isn't because you shouldn't be able to; it's because the "Library" concept is still very incompletely realized and rudimentary.

I am not following your logic. Hard and soft links aren't the same as an identical file or folder - they are different. Also - shares are not the same, they are different and merely links to files/folders on another computer. Shortcuts are also not the same - again, they are just pointers to an original file. In these cases, someone makes a shortcut/share/etc.

In your original post, you talk about how you'd like the library to know or provide a way to rename one of the folders. If you want to make a symlink (mklink /D your new name d:\your original folder) to one of the folders, and put that symlink in a common place (perhaps make symlinks to all of your duplicate folders and keep them in a unique directory so you can find them easily) then you can include that in the library instead of the actual guitar directory. The files end up in the same place, and you have a different name in the library.

I'll never remember that. Isn't there an easier way, like a toolbar button or something?

If you want to disable all smilies in the entire post, you can select "disable smilies in text" under additional options in the full edit page (Go Advanced, not the quick reply). If you want smilies in some places, but not in others, you have to use the noparse tags.

 

[dhar890723]

I am not following your logic. Hard and soft links aren't the same as an identical file or folder - they are different. Also - shares are not the same, they are different and merely links to files/folders on another computer. Shortcuts are also not the same - again, they are just pointers to an original file. In these cases, someone makes a shortcut/share/etc.

The folders that are added to libraries aren't moved to the libraries in any sense. Instead, libraries contain a type of link to the folders. Given that I can rename every other similar type of link I can think of, I should be able to rename the links that reside in libraries. In fact, I'd say that's the proper place to rename them, and if MS agreed, they wouldn't have returned to the "My" prefix in the profile folder, which doesn't work anywhere but in Explorer. I guess the copious praise they got for dropping the much hated "My" in Vista wasn't sufficient.

In your original post, you talk about how you'd like the library to know or provide a way to rename one of the folders. If you want to make a symlink (mklink /D your new name d:\your original folder) to one of the folders, and put that symlink in a common place (perhaps make symlinks to all of your duplicate folders and keep them in a unique directory so you can find them easily) then you can include that in the library instead of the actual guitar directory. The files end up in the same place, and you have a different name in the library.

That's an interesting idea, but it doesn't work as Explorer resolves the link when it adds it to the library. If it had worked, I expect the file pane would have displayed the path to the link, which I wouldn't have wanted. If it had been up to me, instead of Explorer displaying the following in the file pane:

Guitar (22) -----
Parent folder path

I would have used:

Guitar (22) ----- (but this is renamable and respected by the folder tree pane)
Parent folder path\Guitar (as this is the full object name, it is not renamable)

I mean, it does the latter (except for the renaming bit) in the "add location" dialog box.