OT: Confessions of a computer repairman

[The Natural Philosopher]

This works for me too.

For the few apps that need windows.

too slow for gaming tho.

[Mark]

There are rsync versions for Windows. I haven't tried any but that may be a good way to go.

[John Williamson]

Agreed, which is why I said:-

But almost all of that is generated on the fly by the program install processes, and, for most programs, you can set the default data path at install time to something like "My Documents\Application Data", which will use a folder which has a relative reference to the user's My Documents folder, (The OS`replaces the "My Documents" placeholder, (Normally pointing to "C:\Documents and Settings\$Username\My Documents" on XP.) with wherever your documents are actually stored, as it's a system controlled folder) so when you move "My Documents" on the system, your data goes with it, rather than setting it to a specific folder on the HD, such as "D:\Username\Application name\data". Some programs (MS ones mainly, IME.) insist on keeping their data in its own folder inside the Documents and Settings folder under the application's name, seperated from the user's other data. For Outlook, which is a particular PITA in this respect, I keep a PDA synchronised and use that as a backup of my calendar and contacts data. I also use the PDA as the easiest way to keep two copies of Outlook synchronised by synchronising each of them in turn to the PDA.

[Scott M]

Good god, that can be done?

I mean, in a way I'm not surprised as there's always options or things buried in the registry, but in 15 years of using Win95 onwards I've never seen a reference to doing this or found a way.

Personally, I just lay down a directory structure on D: but it would be ever so useful when setting up other people's computers who always rely on My Documents and its atrociously buried/long winded path.)

Anyway, I'm off to google that.

[dennis]

Win7 does move it. I expect its XP, the eleven year old OS is getting a bit long in the tooth.

[Bernard Peek]

Or possibly Unison, which has Windows, Mac and Linux versions.

[Bernard Peek]

I've done this with XP and it offered to move the existing files to the new location.

[Huge]

Troo. Although they've not bothered me so far and it doesn't seem to care if you delete them.

OK, I've never tried anything that complicated - I just sync stuff on my laptop with work - one folder with Projects work in it.

[Jeff Gaines]

Probably no need.

XP onwards right click on "My Documents" in Explorer, select "Properties" and set the location (to an existing directory). XP will offer to move existing data and (annoyingly) pop up a question about whether you really, really want to move the ini file.

[The Natural Philosopher]

rsync is what I use.

But that's all on linux.

Windows is in a virtual box, so that gets backed up at the same time.

Definite thumbs up for rsync and cron...

[The Natural Philosopher]

The equivalent of my D: drive is actually a different computer altogether.

[Mike Barnes]

Just cut and paste the folder using Explorer

[Mike Barnes]

If you want the best tool there is (IMO), go for this:

's the only sync program I know that shows you everything in an easy- to-grasp Explorer-style tree rather than a list of pathnames. It's well featured, solidly and sensibly engineered, and it's British. It costs about £25 but it's worth every penny. The FTP sync feature alone is worth the asking price (if you have a use for that!).

[John Williamson]

The work of moments. Right click on the "My Documents" folder on the desktop, open the properties entry on the resulting menu, and use the "Move" button.

If you've already got a "My Documents" folder on your D: drive, then "Find target" is the one you need, or use the Move button to navigate to the existing folder. It will then copy the contents of the new installation to your old data folder, generating folders called "Copy of My Music" and the like.

You *can* do it by editing the registry. ;-)

[Daniel James]

Isn't that covered by:

"Well, the bloke in the shop said I'd need the extra card or the web would be very slow!" (or other, similar, rubbish)

Cheers, Daniel.

[Daniel James]

Yes ... what *is* that all about?

I've just been reading an interview with Mark Shuttleworth ("Mr.Canonical, father of Ubuntu) in which he says (talking about Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity) "We're also harnessing -- for the first time -- the full power of your graphics card, to keep the interface smooth, fast, and sexy".

[Leaving aside the fact that I can't imagine anything that could make a user interface "sexy" in any meaningful way.]

I wonder that he doesn't seem to have realized that the best way to keep a user interface smooth and fast is to make it SIMPLE, so that it doesn't have to require a powerful graphics card, and doesn't work it hard (costing you electricity, and causing heat) if you do have one.

Mark Shuttleworth used to seem clued up and sensitive to the wants and needs of ordinary users, but I wonder whether he's losing the plot.

Cheers, Daniel.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It's the race to emulate Apple's BS I think.

Gnome 4 or whatever its called.

[Rob Morley]

First impressions (on a hardware installation) are that it's just nasty, I didn't get as far as second impressions because I reverted to the classic desktop. Maybe they'll get it working a bit better before the next release, or maybe I just need to play with it a bit more before I "get it".

[Rob Morley]

Ubuntu has gone with Unity rather than the new Gnome (which I think isn't ready yet anyway).

[Huge]

Stick to what you know (whatever that is). The next version of Ubuntu doesn't use Gnome at all.