How do experts install freeware CutePDF Writer into "C:\My Programs"?
Susan Sharm
directory?
I like the freeware CutePDF Writer which creates PDF files on Windows
from any file. And, I don't mean to look any freeware horse in the
mouth ... but ... It really irks me when an installer is so dumb as to
not allow you to install a program properly where it belongs, in a
task-based directory tree (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
wherever you what it to go).
I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
XP anymore.
That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
On the contrary, for many years I have kept a very well organized
"C:\My Programs" set of basic directories where the directory tree is
organized by task (not brand names).
The problem is the freeware CutePDF installers located at
http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp does not respect the
need by most of us to install where we want.
Since CutePDF is freeware, I can't complain. But, before I use
something drastic such as COA32 to change the address from the silly
marketing BS directory "C:\Program Files\Acro Software\CutePDF Writer"
to a much more logical and well organized directory tree under "C:\My
Programs\Conversion Tools\CutePDF", I figured it was worth asking the
experts how they resolved the issue themselves (many of you must have
run into this problem before).
How do you install the freeware CutePDF Writer where it belongs on your
system?
The Six Million Dollar Man
I haven't used Cute PDF in a long time. I wonder if this behaviour is
related to the necessity to install GhostScript separately.
I now use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com/ , which has recently been
greatly improved in version 2. No third party programs need to be
installed separately.
--
Insert witty comment here.
Susan Sharm
> I wonder if this behaviour is related to the necessity to install
> GhostScript separately.
> No third party programs need to be installed separately.
This is great! I was wondering WHY GhostScript had to be installed
first before CutePDF Writer could work. On the CutePDF web page
(http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp) was a link for a
similarly broken installer for what they call GPL GhostScript version
8.15 (http://www.cutepdf.com/download/converter.exe ) which, like the
CutePDF Writer installation program, also blindly installs into the
horridly unorganized flat C:\Program Files directory, filled with
haphazard and impossible to organize directories.
Neither program gave the user a chance to put these programs where they
belong (in a task-based directory tree). Perhaps, (being freeware), the
developers figured it was best (for them) if we didn't have a choice.
It makes sense from their perspective.
However, if PrimoPDF allows me to install where it belongs, e.g., into
"C:\My Programs\Conversion Tools\PrimoPDF", then I'll undelete CutePDF
Writer in favor of the PrimoPDF writer at once.
This seems a better alternative than trying to move CutePDF &
GhostScript to where they belong.
Thank you for your astute advice,
Susan
Susan Sharm
Oh my!
The freeware PrimoPDF (http://primopdf.com) installed easier and
quicker on Windows XP than CutePDF Writer
(http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp) did and without
the need for a secondary program such as GhostScript
(http://www.ghostscript.com/) to also be co-installed!
Like the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF created a selectable printer in
Start, Settings, Printers and Faxes named "PrimoPDF". However, unlike
the CutePDF Writer, PrimoPDF seems to have more user configurable
options such as automatic launching the Adobe Acrobat Reader on the
printed-to-PDF results, security options, document properties, etc.
Neither CutePDF nor PrimoPDF seems to allow you to select whether or
not to embed all fonts (I am not sure if they embed anything or
everything at this point).
But, best of all, the CutePDF installer allows you to install the
program where it belongs!
Thank you for you astute advice - I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my
system as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF (or did I
miss something important that CutePDF has over PrimoPDF)?
I love you guys,
Susan
Aandi Inston
> (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
>wherever you what it to go).
1. PDFWriter is obsolete, not included with any current version of
Acrobat.
2. PDFWriter is a print driver, it has to be installed into system
folders.
3. Acrobat does install other files to Program Files (which can be
redirected), and to the system folders and to Common Files (which
cannot be redirected in the installer).
>
>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.
Odd, everyone I know does. Your milage varies.
>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
I don't know, I find the Program Files\Manufacturer name\Product name
structure works pretty well when I want to find stuff.
I agree it's impolite to write an installer that doesn't offer a
choice, but it seems fairly moot, as so many things now go off to the
system, to Common Files, and especially to the Windows Installer
directories, that the actual program location is becoming almost an
afterthought.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
Logan Shaw
> Does anyone know how to install CutePDF into a properly designated
> directory?
No, I use the Mac, which by default can create PDF files from any
program that can print, with no third-party software installed or
anything. I suppose I could switch to Windows if I wanted to endure
hassles like this, but it doesn't seem like a very compelling value
proposition.
Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?
- Logan
Logan Shaw
> Thank you for you astute advice - I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my
> system as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF (or did I
> miss something important that CutePDF has over PrimoPDF)?
Nope, PrimoPDF has everything that CutePDF has and more. PrimoPDF
even has on extra special feature: a Usenet shill named Susan.
Or at least so it would appear...
- Logan
Susan Sharm
> I use the Mac, which by default can create PDF files from any
> program that can print
>
The Mac is a wonderful system. It always was. That's why Apple enjoyed
50% margins on HARDWARE in the olden days (which is an absolutely huge
& amazing accomplishment)!
I never understood why the DOS (and then Windows) PC beat the Mac
soundly. The Mac had everthing except cost (for hardware & software)
over the PC. Sigh. The PC won (at least in my household) on cost alone
many years after my last "PowerMac" but you are correct. PostScript has
always been a forte of the Apple Macintosh systems.
Back to your question. Isn't misc.consumers.frugal-living for people
who widely employ freeware software (among other things frugal)?
I'll remove misc.consumers.frugal-living in all the remaining posts (I
only added it back here to respond to your query).
Susan
Shawn Hirn
"Susan Sharm" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No. There are plenty of newsgroups where computer questions are
appropriate. Just look in the "comp" newsgroup hierarchy.
Rod Speed
> Logan Shaw wrote
>> I use the Mac, which by default can create
>> PDF files from any program that can print
>> Why are you posting this to misc.consumers-frugal-living, anyway?
> The Mac is a wonderful system. It always was. That's why
> Apple enjoyed 50% margins on HARDWARE in the olden
> days (which is an absolutely huge & amazing accomplishment)!
> I never understood why the DOS (and then Windows)
> PC beat the Mac soundly. The Mac had everthing except
> cost (for hardware & software) over the PC. Sigh.
Wrong, it had its own downsides. Still does, the support for
more obscure hardware like say digital TV capture is pathetic.
> The PC won (at least in my household) on cost alone many
> years after my last "PowerMac" but you are correct. PostScript
> has always been a forte of the Apple Macintosh systems.
> Back to your question. Isn't misc.consumers.frugal-living for people
> who widely employ freeware software (among other things frugal)?
Not necessarily, most obviously with those
who choose to use MS products for free.
And quite a few get MS products for free
as part of free or dirt cheap hardware too.
Frugal aint just about what is free, its more about
what has the capability you want at the best price.
JeffM
>
>>as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF
>
>PrimoPDF even has on extra special feature:
>a Usenet shill named Susan.
Well, let's review.
The Six Million Dollar Man advocated an all-in-one solution
that gave the file structure the OP requested.
The OP said that was exacty what she was seeking.
Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
who reject a solution that was inferior for their purposes.
.
.
I will concede that for someone who already has GhostScript installed,
that may not be the case:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:9tth6GJT4gwJ:leoville.tv/radio/pmwiki.php/ShowNotes/Show170+Previous-coverage-*-this+PrimoPDF+Go2PDF+Download-size+pdfcreator+CutePDF+%22PDF+Creator%22+Paperless-Printer
A word of warning: If you value your teeth,
you should avoid labeling "contented customers" as "shills" in
Meatspace.
Bob Ward
Or we have a pair of sockpuppets.
And my teeth are fine, thankyouverymuch.
It's a lot easierto make such threats from behind your keyboard, isn't
it?
Ivan Tisljar
wrote:
>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.
>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
There is one thing called "guidance for programming for windows", and
it specifies where should shared files go, and program installations,
if you want 100% microsoft compatible software.
Noone is forcing you to install into program files, but be aware that
you are minority then. Even though it seems to you that it isn't true.
I still install all my games into C:\GAMES\, it's leftover from DOS.
But it is not standard. Everything is designed do reside in program
files.
Program Files are well organised - if you know your system at least a
bit. And I don't see the difference with installing into C:\Program
files\ or C:\My programs\ :) except for some strange way of showing
Microsoft that you are different :)
Ivan.
--
"Ego autem quia veritatem dico non creditis mihi."
visit me/posjetite me @ http://hlloyge.cjb.net/
-=delete _system_ to mail me=-
Foobar is not active ;-)
JeffM
>
>Or we have a pair of sockpuppets.
>
Perhaps.
.
.
>>A word of warning: If you value your teeth,
>>you should avoid labeling "contented customers" as "shills"
>>in Meatspace.
>
>It's a lot easierto make such threats from behind your keyboard,
>isn't it?
>
Unless your name is Logan Shaw,
you have no stake in this either.
It was clearly labeled as a warning.
I was noting that calling people names in Cyberspace
has no health consequences,
but that that does not necessarily extrapolate.
The Real Bev
> I agree it's impolite to write an installer that doesn't offer a
> choice, but it seems fairly moot, as so many things now go off to the
> system, to Common Files, and especially to the Windows Installer
> directories, that the actual program location is becoming almost an
> afterthought.
I figure it's safer to install a program where it wants to go. When I used
win95 exclusively I was pickier, and installed everything into its own
subdirectory right off c:\, with the associated data files, pictures, docs,
also right off c:\. Now I only use it for a few things and just don't care as
long as I can put the data files where I want them -- with SHORT pathnames.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=====================================================
It's 95% of the lawyers making the other 5% look bad.
Logan Shaw
>>>>I use PrimoPDF http://primopdf.com
>>>>The Six Million Dollar Man
>>
>>>I've deleted CutePDF Writer from my system
>>>as it seems to have nothing whatsoever over PrimoPDF
>>>
>>>>Susan Sharm
>>
>>PrimoPDF even has on extra special feature:
>>a Usenet shill named Susan.
I wrote that.
>>Logan Shaw
I did not write that text. If you would kindly refrain using
a quoting style that makes it appear that I wrote things which
I did not write (in this case making it appear that I signed
my name in a way that I did not), I would appreciate it.
> Well, let's review.
>
> The Six Million Dollar Man advocated an all-in-one solution
> that gave the file structure the OP requested.
>
> The OP said that was exacty what she was seeking.
>
> Ergo, we have 2 contented customers
> who reject a solution that was inferior for their purposes.
After looking at it again, I agree it's possible she's not a
shill. Going against the shill idea, we have the fact that
she described a competing product in much more detail than a
shill would want to. But supporting the shill idea is the
fact that this was crossposted to numerous newsgroups, one
of which is irrelevant, and she posted not one but TWO posts
that were full of multiple paragraphs of excitement about
the product. Back on the other hand, going against the shill
idea is the fact that PrimoPDF seems to be freeware, a fact
I was not aware of since I don't keep up with Windows software.
So, I remain undecided on the shill issue. Which is of course
what the "so it would appear" that I wrote was meant to convey.
- Logan
Susan Sharm
> Program Files are well organised
Hi Ivan,
I appreciate your perspective. I will courteously share mine (which
differs slightly from yours). There's no difference between C:\Program
Files & C:\My Programs IF we don't mind two major flaws of C:\Program
Files
- FLATNESS
- ORGANIZATION
FLATNESS: The C:\Program Files flatness is utterly ridiculous. The
long-standing computer rule of thumb (from the UNIX world) is to plan
on having, on average, roughly, about 10 directories at any one level
of a hierarchy. Anything much less is overkill; anything much more
generally begs for another level of hierarchy. In my case, I have
nothing in the top level of C:\My Programs other than ten tasks (my
plan being to install grouped tasks together, e.g., to group media
editors under "My Editors", and to group finance programs under "My
Money", and to group the kid's games under "Tims Games", etc.
ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable flatness of the C:\Program Files
directory, nobody in their right mind would willingly organize programs
by their brand names. That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
that have absolutely nothing to do with each other than they share a
common letter in the alphabet. Even then, some manufacturers respect at
least a single hierarchy (e.g., C:\Program Files\Adobe), while others
create additional flat hierarchies (e.g., C:\Program Files\Microsoft
Office, C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games, C:\Program Files\Windows
Update, etc.). You see, it's not even organized by brand name.
Put it this way. Say the movers are unpacking your house. Instead of
you telling them to put the garden supplies in the shed, the car in the
garage, the dresses in the bedroom, the shoes in the closet, the linen
in the linen closet, the toothbrush in the bathroom, the dishes in the
kitchen, etc, you allow them to leave EVERYTHING in the living room, in
a bijumbled mess, based loosly on the brand name. Anyone who says this
makes sense is going to have to have a PhD in logic if they plan on
convincing me of the logic in this plan of operation.
To those who would argue that we could organize C:\Program Files
hierarchically, I state that I tried that for years. Basically
Microsoft madness will defeat you. If you change your "programfilesdir"
variable in the system registry you will, all of a sudden, get tons of
total crap in your C:\My Programs directory. The minute you use any
Microsoft Office tool, it does this (try it - you'll despair as I have
already done). Worse yet, the PC comes to you already filled with
unorganized crap in the C:\Program Files directory. Just like the Start
Menu is filled with items organized by a four-year old on LSD.
Basically, anyone wishing to run an organized PC learns the hard way to
leave the Start Menu and C:\Program Files mess as it was when you
bought the machine, wholly unorganized. They then create menus that ARE
organized, and they create a C:\My Programs hierarchy that uses the
SAME task-based organization.
By the way, don't even get me started on the fact that Microsoft thinks
it's perfectly sane to leave an insane set of FILES in the root level
of the C drive! It's obvious they never even thought about where files
belong. But, just because they caved in to chaos doesn't mean we have
to succumb to the Microsoft Madness ourselves!
Respectfully yours,
Susan
Rod Speed
> Ivan Tisljar wrote
>> Program Files are well organised
>> I don't see the difference with installing
>> into C:\Prografiles or C:\My programs
> I appreciate your perspective. I will courteously share mine
> (which differs slightly from yours). There's no difference
> between C:\Program Files & C:\My Programs IF we don't
> mind two major flaws of C:\Program Files
> - FLATNESS
> - ORGANIZATION
> FLATNESS: The C:\Program Files flatness is utterly ridiculous.
That is just plain wrong. It isnt a flat organisation,
they're organised by manufacturer and then application.
> The long-standing computer rule of thumb (from the UNIX world)
That doesnt make it a long-standing computer rule of thumb.
> is to plan on having, on average, roughly, about
> 10 directories at any one level of a hierarchy.
That is just plain wrong too.
> Anything much less is overkill; anything much
> more generally begs for another level of hierarchy.
Mindlessly superficial. What matters is how logical the hierarchy is.
> In my case, I have nothing in the top level of C:\My Programs other
> than ten tasks (my plan being to install grouped tasks together, e.g.,
> to group media editors under "My Editors", and to group finance programs
> under "My Money", and to group the kid's games under "Tims Games", etc.
No reason why it should be organised by function, its actually
better to organise it by manufacturer at the top level, because
its easier to work out what the manufacturer is than what
category is. In spades with the automated install, that can
never be done reliably by category, trivial by manufacturer.
> ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable
> flatness of the C:\Program Files directory,
Just your pig ignorant fantasy.
> nobody in their right mind would willingly
> organize programs by their brand names.
Wrong again, most obviously because that is trivial to automate
and anything else requires manual intervention at install time.
> That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
> that have absolutely nothing to do with each other
> than they share a common letter in the alphabet.
Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to fine.
That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.
> Even then, some manufacturers respect at least a single hierarchy
> (e.g., C:\Program Files\Adobe), while others create additional flat
> hierarchies (e.g., C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office, C:\Program
> Files\Microsoft Games, C:\Program Files\Windows Update, etc.).
> You see, it's not even organized by brand name.
Yes, its organised by manufacturer and then brand name.
> Put it this way. Say the movers are unpacking your house. Instead
> of you telling them to put the garden supplies in the shed, the car in
> the garage, the dresses in the bedroom, the shoes in the closet, the
> linen in the linen closet, the toothbrush in the bathroom, the dishes
> in the kitchen, etc, you allow them to leave EVERYTHING in the
> living room, in a bijumbled mess, based loosly on the brand name.
Completely useless analogy.
> Anyone who says this makes sense is going to have to have a PhD in
> logic if they plan on convincing me of the logic in this plan of operation.
Likely you actually are that stupid.
The obvious reason for doing it by manufacturer is that that is always
going to work reliably without manual intervention at install time.
Even you should have noticed that the apps arent
manually executed from the Program Files tree on PCs.
> To those who would argue that we could organize C:\Program
> Files hierarchically, I state that I tried that for years. Basically
> Microsoft madness will defeat you. If you change your
> "programfilesdir" variable in the system registry you will, all of a
> sudden, get tons of total crap in your C:\My Programs directory.
> The minute you use any Microsoft Office tool, it does this (try it -
> you'll despair as I have already done). Worse yet, the PC comes
> to you already filled with unorganized crap in the C:\Program Files
> directory.
Your pathetic anal hangup are your problem.
> Just like the Start Menu is filled with items
> organized by a four-year old on LSD.
In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.
> Basically, anyone wishing to run an organized PC learns the
> hard way to leave the Start Menu and C:\Program Files mess
> as it was when you bought the machine, wholly unorganized.
You're pig ignorantly lying there. It isnt anything like wholly unorganised.
> They then create menus that ARE organized,
> and they create a C:\My Programs hierarchy
> that uses the SAME task-based organization.
> By the way, don't even get me started on the fact that
> Microsoft thinks it's perfectly sane to leave an insane
> set of FILES in the root level of the C drive! It's obvious
> they never even thought about where files belong.
More mindlessly silly pig ignorant ranting.
> But, just because they caved in to chaos
Lying, again.
> doesn't mean we have to succumb to the Microsoft Madness ourselves!
Doesnt mean we have to take any notice of pig ignorant fools like you either.
Susan Sharm
> It is still better than the C:\ flat directory structure of pre-95 Windows.
> Except that in english (and probably other) versions of Windows "Program
> files" includes a whitespace in the directory name.</offtopic>
> Personally I prefer to direct them to "D:\Program files".
Hi Morten,
I agree. Prior to Windows 95, Windows 2.1 and 3.1 (if I remember
correctly the numbers) were a mess. Even with Windows 95 & Win98, there
wasn't the concept of a separate data hierarchy from the documentation
hierarchy. Then, when the latest incarnation of 2K/NT/XP-based Windows
software arose, the separation of data from program files became
accepted but Microsoft made such a mess of both directories that I
still use the well organized system I learned off the Internet.
C:\My Archivers (for PGP, PDF, ZIP, RAR, COA32, INCTRL5, etc.)
C:\My Browsers (for Firefox, Netscape, etc.)
C:\My Calendars (for TaskMaster, CalendarManger, etc.)
C:\My Databases (for map programs, address book managers, etc.)
C:\My Editors (for picture editors, video editors, etc.)
C:\My Finances (for Quicken, TurboTax, TaxCut, etc.)
C:\My Games (for games)
C:\My Hardware (for dvd burners, telephony SKYPE, etc.)
C:\My ISP (for NetZero, SBCGlobal, VPN, etc.)
etc.
And, that having been said, I agree that saving these important
programs onto a separate partition is also commonplace practice.
Likewise, it goes without saying too much that the DATA files for each
of these applications goes into the same directory tree in C:\My Data.
For example, PGP keys would go in C:\My Data\My Archivers\PGP Data;
browser bookmarks would go in C:\My Data\My Browsers\Firefox Data, etc.
To those others who say you can't organize your PC by task, well, I
can't say much to them as they wouldn't even understand the point.
Respectfully yours,
Susan
Susan Sharm
> So, I remain undecided on the shill issue. Which is of course
> what the "so it would appear" that I wrote was meant to convey.
Hi Logan,
I didn't even know what a "shill" was until I looked it up just now.
Typically I just ignore non-helpful comments in Internet posts (such as
those from a certain set of posters in this thread) as those childish
posters simple feed off of the controversy they cause by their lazy
commentary (lazy because they bring nothing to the table and offer
nothing in return).
The reason I generally cross post is that I really and truly believe in
both learning from and in edifying as many intelligent people as
possible. I do sincerely try to limit the posting to relevant groups,
e.g., for a freeware PDF program, to comp.text.pdf,
adobe.acrobat.windows alt.comp.freeware, and (I thought it was
relevant) misc.consumers.frugal-living (being intelligent use of
freeware).
This conversation has morphed from how to install one program, to the
use of another which was suggested by someone else, and then to the
proper installation of program and data files, hence necessitating a
revision of the relevant newsgroup list. For example, windows XP basics
and deployment are now more relevant than are the pdf-related
newsgroups.
I can not (and will not) prove to you that I am not a "shill" (for whom
I might wonder), but, I do thank you for allowing me to learn yet
another word in our wondrous language!
Respectfully yours,
Susan
TT
college philosophy teacher.
"Susan Sharm" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131520875....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Susan Sharm
> My oh my you sure do love to hear yourself type. More longwinded that my
> college philosophy teacher.
Hello TT,
Think about what you've contributed to the thread.
Then compare it with what "The Six Million Dollar Man", "Aandi Inston",
"Morten Skarstad", "Ivan Tisljar", etc. have contributed.
We offer ideas, suggestions, helpful hints, insight, explanations,
logic, and reasoning.
You offer ... ?
Respectfully yours,
Susan
pjp
programs and data till the cows come home. To my mind, I'd first like to see
everyone who uses a pc at least have some basic "plan" rather than what I do
see which is everything almost everywhere. Cluttered desktop, cluttered
root of C: and data files of all sorts scattered almost anywhere else, e.g.
sub-folders of apps etc. etc. My experience also leads me to believe that
the vast majority of users never ever even think of "backup" even when they
have the means (e.g. burner) or if they do, they have no idea of what to
back up or where to find it, e.g. so long as "Open" in the app works, they
don't care.
"Susan Sharm" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131602645.5...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Susan Sharm
> I think one could debate the merits and faults of almost any organization
Hi PJP,
I agree.
So others can benefit from what I've practiced for a decade, here is
the two-step "plan" I offer the masses for PC organizational strategy:
1. Determine an organizational strategy you are comfortable with!
- For example, organize all programs by task as shown below
2. Then, apply that organizational strategy to the FIVE key areas:
- Applications (e.g., your program files)
- Application data (e.g., your settings & personal files)
- Application shortcuts (e.g., your start menu)
- Application installers (e.g., your downloaded initial installers &
updates)
- Send-to menu
It matters not what organizational strategy we choose; I merely offer
one which has been in use for more than a decade and which has served
me well (see prior posts). The point is you always know, even before
you save or install any application, exactly where every application
belongs, e.g.,
C:\My Archivers\PDF Writers\PrimoPDF
C:\My Browsers\Firefox
C:\My Calendars\Meeting Maker
C:\My Databases\Maps\MetroGuide USA
C:\My Editors\Text Editors\Lemmy
C:\My Finances\Tax Programs\TurboTax2006
C:\My Games\Flight Simulators\MSFS2006
C:\My Hardware\DVD\Rippers\DVD Shrink
C:\My ISP\Dialup\NetZero
... blah blah blah ...
While the benefits of the mindless approach of piling all applications
into a single flat directory are debatable, notice the huge benefits of
this simple two-step organizational process:
- Backing up data is nearly trivial (back up C:\My Data & you're done!)
- Recovering all programs from a system crash is nearly trivial
- Managing & utilizing multiple machines is extremely consistent
- Locating & updating applications and files is tremendously logical
- Migrating to new systems over time reinforces & strengthens your
original strategy
Again, I agree with all of you that having an organizational strategy
(any organization you are comfortable with) is the right approach ...
all I do above that concept is to offer one that has been working for
me for more than a decade on Windows-based PCs (all operating systems
up to and prior to Windows XP).
I hope this posts continues to add to our general knowledge,
Susan
Marco Kesseler
> Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to fine.
>
> That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.
Right. So now I have to move the MacroMedia stuff into the Adobe folder?
> In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.
Given this remark, it is utterly beyond me, how you rant against someone
who WANTS to organise stuff her way. You say you are not ranting?
Rod Speed wrote:
> Just your pig ignorant fantasy.
[SNIP]
> Completely useless analogy.
[SNIP]
> Likely you actually are that stupid.
[SNIP]
> Even you should have noticed that the apps arent
> manually executed from the Program Files tree on PCs.
[SNIP]
> Your pathetic anal hangup are your problem.
[SNIP]
> You're pig ignorantly lying there. It isnt anything like wholly
unorganised.
[SNIP]
> More mindlessly silly pig ignorant ranting.
[SNIP]
> Lying, again.
[SNIP]
> Doesnt mean we have to take any notice of pig ignorant fools like you
either.
Then don't, and let us have a polite discussion.
Marco
Sharon F
> Again, I agree with all of you that having an organizational strategy
> (any organization you are comfortable with) is the right approach ...
I think consistency is the key. Once you have developed your own plan,
stick to it. When performing system maintenance, check for "loose ends"
(that can and do happen when you're in a hurry) and move them into your
chosen folder structure.
--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User
Susan Sharm
> consistency is the key.
> Once you have developed your own plan, stick to it
Hi Sharon,
I agree. What I do for consistency is I have a set of CDROMs & DVDs
backed up that I call my "blueprints". I use these whenever I set up a
new PC.
Over the years, I learned to give up on trying to reign in the YAFFO
Microsoft Mess. In the olden days, I used to change the registry keys
for the common files dir, program files dir, data directory, etc. Too
many programs had hard-coded paths that didn't use system variables.
Lately, I simply maintain a CDROM of a consistent yet EMPTY set of
hierarchies for each of the FIVE key areas:
- Application installations, i.e., C:\My
Programs\{Archivers,Browsers,Calendars, etc.}
- Application data, i.e., C:\My Data\My
Programs\{Archivers,Browsers,Calendars, etc.}
- Application menus, i.e., Start->My
Programs\{{Archivers,Browsers,Calendars, etc.}
- Application installers, i.e., C:\My
Installers\{Archivers,Browsers,Calendars, etc.}
- Send-To menu, i.e., Send To -> {Archivers,Browsers,Calendars, etc.}
I call this framework CD of blank blueprint files my YAHOO CD (yet
another hierarchical organizational option).
My use model, when I set up a new system, is so simple and yet so
intuitive. All I do is grab my YAHOO CD and copy the file structure
over. This has worked time and time again. Nothing needs to be changed
in the original system (I gave up long ago using PC Magazine's Change
of Address (coa32.exe) to try to fix the default YAFFO Microsoft Mess).
Then, from that point forward:
- I save all downloaded installers where they belong (e.g., c:\my
installers\...)
During installation:
- I install all programs where they belong (e.g., c:\my programs\...)
- I set up the program default data locations (e.g., c:\my data\...)
Immediately after installation:
- I move the original shortcut to where it belongs (e.g., Start->my
programs\...)
- I copy a shortcut to the SendTo menu (e.g., Send To -> my
programs\...)
Voila! Instantly organized Windows PC!
Everything has a place to go BEFORE I even start the installation of
anything!
All data is kept in a single hierarchy, in a known logical hierarchy.
All menus are in the same known logical hierarchy.
All installers are kept in the same known logical hierarchy.
What could be simpler or easier?
All it takes is the upfront work of deciding upon the organizational
tree (which I've already done for every single type of program I've
ever encountered).
I write this lengthy reply because I think, as you appear to believe
also, that many millions would benefit from this simple organizational
YAHOO CD idea. And I wish to help them. And to improve my own YAHOO CD
blueprints!
Together, we welcome polite discussion that increases our knowledge as
a whole,
Susan
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> ORGANIZATION: Besides the untenable
>>> flatness of the C:\Program Files directory,
>> Just your pig ignorant fantasy.
>>> nobody in their right mind would willingly
>>> organize programs by their brand names.
>> Wrong again, most obviously because that is trivial to automate
>> and anything else requires manual intervention at install time.
>>> That mixes programs at any one level of hierarchy
>>> that have absolutely nothing to do with each other
>>> than they share a common letter in the alphabet.
>> Irrelevant. What matters is how easy the right one is to find.
>> That will always be more reliable by manufacture than by category.
> Right. So now I have to move the MacroMedia stuff into the Adobe folder?
Dont know, dont, care. If it offered something
at install time, you likely can specify that there.
>>> Just like the Start Menu is filled with items
>>> organized by a four-year old on LSD.
>> In spades. You're always welcome to reorganise that any way you like.
> Given this remark, it is utterly beyond me, how you rant against someone who
> WANTS to organise stuff her way.
Your problem. I wasnt commenting on her wanting to organise
things any particular way, just pointing out that her assertion
that Program Files has a flat structure is just plain wrong and
rubbing her nose in the reason its organised by manufacturer,
because that requires no manual intervention at install time
and that is obviously very desirable.
What matters is how easy a particular directory is to find
in Program Files if you need to find it, and you usually dont.
<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs?
> Then don't, and let us have a polite discussion.
Just how many of you are there between those ears ?
She was nothing like polite with her rant about how its done by default.
Rod Speed
> To those others who say you can't organize your PC by task,
No one ever did anything like that.
> well, I can't say much to them as they wouldn't even understand the point.
You didnt understand the point they were making.
Sharon F
> I write this lengthy reply because I think, as you appear to believe
> also, that many millions would benefit from this simple organizational
> YAHOO CD idea. And I wish to help them. And to improve my own YAHOO CD
> blueprints!
>
> Together, we welcome polite discussion that increases our knowledge as
> a whole,
Although I have no idea how "yahoo blueprints" came into the discussion
(this post is showing up in many, many newsgroups) -- yours is a good plan.
It illustrates another important point in file management which is to keep
the structure simple. Simple structure = regular backups. Complicated
structure = "oops, I haven't done a backup in 3 months."
While my plan is different (partition images and data backups), it
accomplishes the same things. It's easy to perform on a regular basis and
it's easy recovery if things go pear shaped. Neither plan is "better" -
they are both good tools that accommodate individual computing styles and
usage patterns.
Interesting topic - a favorite of mine. Thanks for letting me join the
discussion.
Susan Sharm
> An important point in file management is to keep the structure simple.
> Simple structure = regular backups.
> Complicated structure = "oops, I haven't done a backup in 3 months."
Hi Sharon,
Thank you for offering your insight. This is a favorite topic of mine
also!
I agree, the simpler and more consistent, the better.
My backups are trivial.
1. If I wish to backup all my important data, I back up C:\My Data.
2. If I wish to backup all my application installers, I back up C:\My
Installers.
My backup strategy is that simple.
Susan
Susan Sharm
> I back up C:\My Data.
Also, when I migrate to a new machine (which I do often), setup is just
as simple.
First, I grab my archived blueprint CDROM containing empty directory
trees.
Then, I grab my archived DVD backups of "My Data" & "My Installers".
I copy the "My Programs" blueprint empty directory tree to the new PC.
I copy the Start-Menu blueprint of archived shortcuts to the new PC.
I copy the "My Data" backup to the new PC.
Then, one by one, I install the applications from my archived "My
Installers" DVD (i.e., archivers, browsers, calendars, databases,
editors, finances, games, hardware, isps, mailers, etc.) into the now
existing blueprint of empty directories.
Voila! The new PC is all set up the same way the old PC was!
It's so simple & intuitive, I don't even have to create new shortcuts!
I hope my posts add to the general knowledge level & abilities of the
community,
Susan
Susan Sharm
> Then, one by one, I install the applications from my archived "My
> Installers" DVD (i.e., archivers, browsers, calendars, databases,
> editors, finances, games, hardware, isps, mailers, etc.) into the now
> existing blueprint of empty directories.
One more point.
The organization of the application installation hierarchy needs to be
as hierarchical as it needs to be (as compared to the typical
"C:\Program Files" which is too flat and almost wholly unorganized
except by the inconsistent whims of each of the individual installation
program marketing groups).
However, in my use model, there is a rule that there shall NEVER be an
application installed directly into the C:\My Programs hierarchy. That
is, a flat file structure is strictly forbidden in my use model.
Everything belongs at least one subdirectory below the top level of the
My Programs hierarchy.
For example, for a simple set of applications such as "C:\My
Programs\My Mailers", one might expect to see only a few installed
applications only two levels deep, e.g.,
C:\My Programs\My Mailers\Blat
C:\My Programs\My Mailers\Eudora
C:\My Programs\My Mailers\Pegasus
C:\My Programs\My Mailers\Thunderbird
etc.
Likewise, I promote a simple two-level hierarchy for NNTP news readers,
e.g.,
C:\My Programs\My Readers\40tude Dialog
C:\My Programs\My Readers\Free Agent
C:\My Programs\My Readers\NewsXpress
C:\My Programs\My Readers\Xnews
etc.
In stark contrast, some hierarchies require three or more levels, e.g.,
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Cleaners\Crap Cleaner
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Cleaners\Clean Up!
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Cleaners\Easy Cleaner
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Cleaners\Internet Eraser
etc.
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Firewalls\Filseclab
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Firewalls\Kerio
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Firewalls\Sygate
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Firewalls\Zone Alarm
etc.
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Malware\Ad-Aware
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Malware\HijackThis
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Malware\Spybot Search & Destroy
C:\My Programs\My Vaccines\My Malware\Spyware Blaster
etc.
The main point is the rule that nothing ever gets installed flat into
the application hierarchy by name; everything is installed at least two
levels deep by task and subtask as needed.
I hope this post, like all my posts, add to the general knowledge of
the community,
Susan
Logan Shaw
> It illustrates another important point in file management which is to keep
> the structure simple. Simple structure = regular backups. Complicated
> structure = "oops, I haven't done a backup in 3 months."
Not necessarily true if you just back up all files on the system.
IMHO, this is the only way to go; anything else and when it comes
time to restore, you go, "Oh crap -- I never did add that to the
stuff I back up." And then you are missing some important file.
Yes, you can just make a rule that a certain directory gets backed
up and everything important must go in there, but as soon as you
do that, you've got some config file or (on Windows) registry tweak
that took you time to track down how to accomplish, and you can't
put that into your special backups folder.
But then, when they say "back up your work", my theory is that time
spent configuring the machine the way I need it to be counts as work,
so all that data should be backed up.
- Logan
Sharon F
> Not necessarily true if you just back up all files on the system.
> IMHO, this is the only way to go; anything else and when it comes
> time to restore, you go, "Oh crap -- I never did add that to the
> stuff I back up." And then you are missing some important file.
>
> Yes, you can just make a rule that a certain directory gets backed
> up and everything important must go in there, but as soon as you
> do that, you've got some config file or (on Windows) registry tweak
> that took you time to track down how to accomplish, and you can't
> put that into your special backups folder.
>
> But then, when they say "back up your work", my theory is that time
> spent configuring the machine the way I need it to be counts as work,
> so all that data should be backed up.
Logan, I agree with that too. I have multiple partitions. C: the main drive
with Windows, gets imaged in entirety. 5-10 minutes to make an image. 5-10
minutes to restore an image. Without imaging software, it can take days to
restore Windows and reinstall all of my programs. I prefer the shorter
route of minutes instead of days.
I think there's always an "oops" with data backups. They can happen an hour
after a complete backup is made. If you're more comfortable imaging or
copying data drives too - great! That's what works for you. The objective
is not to be 100% always up to date but to keep the "oops" factor as small
as possible and at a level you can live with comfortably.
Susan Sharm
> I think there's always an "oops" with data backups.
Hi Logan and Sharon,
I understand and agree with what you say and do above. In fact, that's
why I re-use my shortcuts when I move from one system to another. All
that work is re-usable when you use the same file structure every time.
However, in the interests of full disclosure so others can learn
multiple methods of accomplishing a system restore or migration to a
new system, instead of backing up my registry, what I do is keep a log
of every change I make to the system.
It only takes a second to log each activity because I added an AppsPath
line to my Windows registry called "history" (actually it's history.exe
but that's a Microsofterism in that there is no history.exe on my
system). Whenever I change any registry setting or modify my system, I
log it simply by typing Start->Run->history->OK.
Typing "history" brings up my history.txt file to which I add a single
line (usually by cut and paste) for each action I perform to modify the
original system.
Then, when I go to the new system, I just re-read my history file (in
reverse order) so that I can quickly return the new system back to the
original.
There are advantages to your system (complete accuracy) and advantages
to mine (the new system starts cleaner), just as there are
disadvantages to your system (backup size) and disadvantages to mine
(incomplete accuracy).
I welcome other suggestions for more efficient system eimaging and
migration so we all learn from each other,
Susan
Marco Kesseler
Rod Speed
> Bye, Rod
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you couldnt bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag
even if your pathetic excuse for a 'life' depended on it.
Marco Kesseler
Oh Rod, how you hurt me! It is like you can see right through me.
You, in contrast, _can_ bullshit your way into anything because your
'life' depends on it.
Rest asured you all, I am going to stop now. I am getting
pretty bored with Rod, and I guess that holds for you too.
Rod Speed
Susan Sharm
> >The organization of the application installation hierarchy needs to be
> I just create a "My Readers" item above my start menu. Then add
> whatever shortcuts I want. The shortcut doesn't care where the program
> is. Neither do I.
Hi John Fitzsomons,
Thank you for your respectful insight. Very many people are just like
you, perhaps tens of millions of the Windows users out there. Not many
are like I, perhaps thousands or tens of thousands, in comparison.
Neither is right. Neither is wrong. In both cases, "the organization of
the application hierarchy needs to be as organized as it needs to be".
Both Windows organizational styles have their pros; both have their
cons. It's like the difference between planning every step of a long
trip down Windows Lane versus letting the travel agent do it all for
you. The pros and cons are similar.
In your case, the application hierarchy doesn't need to be organized by
you; it's organized by the creator of the application. You spend your
time and effort organizing your Start Menu shortcuts (I think). In my
case, not only do I spend initial setup time organizing my application
hierarchy, but I likewise organize my Start Menu (and three other
areas) similarly. Not right or wrong. Just different. Each has their
pros and cons.
I would guess the major pro of your style of organization is that it is
easier to let a program install where the marketing wanted it to go
than it is to install it elsewhere; the major pro of my style of
organization is I can find anything on my system in a flash because I
know where it will be even before I install it. No matter which of my
many PCs I use, I always have the applications in the same location on
all of them.
The original problem came about when a particular application installer
only allowed your method of organization; and not mine. That was the
original problem. All agreed that was not a well written installer.
Some of us (who organize our application hierarchy) decided NOT to use
the program for that sole reason. We therefore opted for the
competitive product (which I won't mention lest I be tagged a shill).
It's good to have insight from everyone - that's what makes us a
working community,
Susan
Susan Sharm
> >Some hierarchies require three or more levels, e.g.,
> Golly, you must spend all your day burrowing down through directories & subdirectories!
Not really.
Like you, my similarly organized Start Menu shortcuts bring up the
applications in day to day activities; but I use a simple Windows trick
to be able to go to any directory in a flash:
For example, if I need to go to the Thunderbird application directory,
I can run:
- Start, Run, Mailers
This instantly takes me to the "C:\My Programs\My Mailers" directory.
Likewise if I need to go to the Skype application directory, I run:
- Start, Run, Phone
Which instantly takes me to the "C:\My Programs\My Hardware\My Phones"
directory.
I didn't mention it until now so I thank you for giving me the
opportunity to let folks in on yet another organizational secret. My
plan of record is that I save a shortcut to all the directories on my
BLUEPRINT CDROM and I copy over these shortcuts to any new PC's
C:\Windows directory.
Note: Windows XP doesn't handle spaces well so that's why these
shortcuts omit the leading "My". Otherwise, we'd have to use quotes and
that is a no no.
By doing so, I enable all these "jump to's" to work instantly!
I hope these tricks of the trade help many others,
Susan
Susan Sharm
> >- Start, Run, Mailers
> That instantly gives me "Cannot find the file "Mailers"...." etc. On
> my win98SE system.
Hi John Fitzsimons,
You are in luck! On the older Windows systems, you could still use the
"App Paths" key. Only on the latest Windows operating systems does the
registry AppPaths key no longer work to open up a directory.
So, for the older Windows systems, navigate to this key:
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths
And add a new Apps Paths key value pair for any desired folder:
folder.exe = C:\Path\Path\Path\Path\folder
This even works for files, for example:
filename.exe = C:\Path\Path\Path\file.doc
which many of use use for quick access to our contact lists, for
example.
Note the Microsoftism that you MUST use the "exe" extension for the key
name even though this has nothing to do with executables and there is
nothing on your system of that name.
Let us know how it works for you!
Susan
Lou Franklin
There's a very simple workaround I've used for years. You install
where you're forced to, then use a Registry Search & Replace utility
to move all your program's Registry additions to your desired
directory; i.e., move form C:\My Programs to C:\My Freebie Programs,
or whatever. And of course, remember to create the desired folder in
the first place! Finally, cut and paste all the program's files into
the new folder.
You may be surprised to find that some of these little apps only have
a couple of Registry entries in the first place, and often you don't
even need to reboot for Windows to read the new Registry info. My
little program also shows you exactly what's being replaced.
This searcher is only a single 280K file; if you like this idea let me
know and I'll attach a copy to an email for you to try.
Lou
Replies: l...@cbcintl.com
**************************************************
As to the searcher app,
"Susan Sharm" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Does anyone know how to install CutePDF into a properly designated
>directory?
>
>I like the freeware CutePDF Writer which creates PDF files on Windows
>from any file. And, I don't mean to look any freeware horse in the
>mouth ... but ... It really irks me when an installer is so dumb as to
>not allow you to install a program properly where it belongs, in a
>task-based directory tree (I'm sure Adobe Acrobat PDFWriter installs
>wherever you what it to go).
>
>I mean, nobody I know uses "Program Files" to install into on Windows
>XP anymore.
>That horribly unorganized "Program Files" flat directory structure is
>such a Microsoft mess that nobody can organize it properly, IMHO.
>
>On the contrary, for many years I have kept a very well organized
>"C:\My Programs" set of basic directories where the directory tree is
>organized by task (not brand names).
>
>The problem is the freeware CutePDF installers located at
>http://www.cutepdf.com/Products/CutePDF/writer.asp does not respect the
>need by most of us to install where we want.
>
>Since CutePDF is freeware, I can't complain. But, before I use
>something drastic such as COA32 to change the address from the silly
>marketing BS directory "C:\Program Files\Acro Software\CutePDF Writer"
>to a much more logical and well organized directory tree under "C:\My
>Programs\Conversion Tools\CutePDF", I figured it was worth asking the
>experts how they resolved the issue themselves (many of you must have
>run into this problem before).
>
>How do you install the freeware CutePDF Writer where it belongs on your
>system?
pjp
the apps themselves.". It's the data that's important, another pc can be
bought and the apps reinstalled.
My "style" still very much reflects starting back in the days of one (and if
lucky) two 360Kb drives under DOS 2. Organization of what was on which
floppy was critical to not going nuts :) First desktop had a 10Meg in it and
as I wrote software at the time, my organizational strategy became more of
...
Source
Souce\C
...
Source\Pascal
etc.
I still maintain that for software projects but I also have a
"Unprocessed Pics" folder and as pics are "processed" they get moved to a
"Photos" folder and as well the "Pics" folder under my "To Be Burned"
There's also a "Documents" folder. Downloads, rips, scans and pretty well
everything else go into "C:\Temp" until I decide what to do with them. I
pretty much totally ignore MS's design with my only real complaint being
stupid apps that always insist in opening in My Documents rather than last
used folder.
The key for me is ... I simply do not let it become cluttered and deal with
everything as it's created etc.
"Susan Sharm" <susan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131608449.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...