Best Unfragmented Way To Go With Containers

[robert lewis]

Bottom Line:  To FileMakers new Container, "your going to end up with too many external folder(s)".

 

for my FMA12  i just not want a bunch of external folders laying around all over in various locations on my Mac !!

 

 

 

My Quest  has long long been to have all my photo library images all reside in one file / table.

 

 

 

Currently the embedded images resides in a FMA11 file at 13,500 images at 6 GB.

Unfortunately it is corrupted but do have its clone in FMA12.  i could convert it but fear to mess with it as the file sits active open.

 

i have 20 GB of images from my iPhone camera now residing in various folders on my desktop.

 

KNOWING WELL ALL OF FILEMAKERS PREVIOUS VERSIONS CORRUPTION PROBLEMS ..  is all from fragmentations, "is why my solutions are all designed around maintaining one large over size files for keeping my disk blocks and memory blocks organized compact."  this has always worked well for me over many years is WHY i not want a bunch of various image folders spread out everywhere being the source of my container field and then having to maintain al the backups for the various folders, while worry about they're locations.  External referencing of containers and its features sounds great but i not like my solution spread out everywhere having links that can get easily corrupted. 

 

In my Quest, i find myself lost amidst FileMaker 12 new container options.  Boy, is there an awful lot of problematic opposition about these new containers from all walks of life Maybe i am wrong but i was kindna thinking FileMaker could of avoided all of this if they just had Cloned their container field for having several types of container fields for specific files. Seems werid having different file types going on in one file seems prone to corruption ??  in any case .... 

 

•How am i going to get my FMA11 images into this FMA12 Clone ?

•And add additional images from many various desktop folders ?

 

While wanting ALL the origional images from everywhere to ALL reside in one complete folder which will be the folder that FileMaker12 creates when referencing.

 

OPENED ! not secured !  Not for online!  not for servers !

 

thank you for you time,

rob 'jesus Land Tidd' lewis

 

[Wim Decorte]

You seem to be drawing conclusions about the source of file corruption that I'm not quite following.  But regardless, it is NOT a good idea to store 10,000+ files in one folder.  Both Windows and OSX have trouble with that many individual files in a folder.

 

What's you reasoning against subfolders?

[robert lewis]

THANKS,    over many years never had any corruptions everything fine until i added a plugin who gave me wrong version.

 

 

 

And about OS's ..  yea, never ever did liked neither OS machines, cause they are built designed around what Steve Jobs and Bill Gates THINK how the world should file things — improper filing systems.

Is not that, "the evolutionary mission goal of FileMaker to become an all in one filing system .. i say eliminate The MAC OS Finder completely.

 

 

 

In any case, i believe ANY and all Data NEVER shoud be a OPENED file.

 

Which is what my "I.A.M Program" does. Having simply a Home Screen where i stay and never out of that FileMaker Environment, that accesses everything through the windows of portals. And all my Data Source files remain forever closed as one big file. i just like to keep all my memory — RAM and most especially my disk not divided up and as you can also call it .. "Subfolder Memory" •[|(:-) i ve always hated all that NOISE — a spinning Hard Drive !! What a Horse and Buggy System !!

 

in any case i was able to convert FMA11 6GB, 13,500 image file into FMA12 (mostly duplicate images as i am still trying to find better formulas to rid them).

 

So i am still lost in my QUEST wanting ALL images to be only in one large file called "DataSource4IMAGES" to ALL be referenced and residing in one complete folder which will i assume will be the folder that FileMaker12 creates when referencing embeded images.

 

i just upgraded from 11 so, still confused about FM12 Containers trying to centralize that one main folder i seek.

 

Well, i can just start importing / embedding all these images •[|(:-( and then, once i have geeeese... you knows .. maybe 15 GB of embedded images, THEN have her, reference them all externally all back into that ONE Folder i want, i guess she'll do that i don't know?

 

 

thanks much for you time and concerns !

rob 'jesus Land Tidd' lewis

[Vaughan]

So i am still lost in my QUEST wanting ALL images to be only in one large file called "DataSource4IMAGES" to ALL be referenced and residing in one complete folder which will i assume will be the folder that FileMaker12 creates when referencing embeded images

 

 

Did you read the post from Wim? Putting thousands of files into a single folder is NOT recommended. Operating systems have limits on the number of files inside folders.

 

Change your strategy.

[robert lewis]

i started out 1984 on DOS Machines !!   All earth started out with "The Disk Operating The System".

RAM Memory components has and stil remains slow in development on earth, so Hard Disk Systems had to be

temporarily ultilized. Unfortunately we are still in that phase.

 

Thus, Bill Gates introduced Windows and Apple competed. Ever since, all there has been is, a

bunch of Windows FLYING AROUND for navigation, all the while EVERYBODY OF FILEMAKER HAS

BEEN BUSY EVOLVING ALL-IN-ONE Filing System CENTRALIZING NAVIGATION —

trying to keep US in ONE Environment.

 

i just think a Good Program is minimum navigation keeping a User from running around

in between a bunch of files and windows.

 

never the less, we all have our own Paths to travel. i deeply respect yours !   my strategy is to stay on MY PATH.

RAM Memory will increase and very soon NO HARD DRIVE DISK !   i ve always hated mechanical spinning hard disk !

 

i appreciate your thoughts but my strategy is to keep my Solution "The I.A.M Program"

and all its navigation operable entack all from within the computers RAM Chips accessing

all my data that stays closed on disk.

 

 

thank you for your time and thoughts,

rob 'jesus Land Tidd' lewis

 

 

 

 

[robert lewis]

Mountain Lion’s New File System Apple has been working on its file system and with iOS it had almost killed the concept of folders — before reintroducing them with a peculiar restriction: only one level! With Mountain Lion it brings its one folder level logic to OSX. What could be the reason for such a restrictive measure?

Classic folder systems don’t perform too well. One reason is that organizing folders is engaging in the tiring discipline of information architecture. Information architecture is hard brain work. Just like a chess problem, it seems obvious once done, but takes considerable mental energy to figure out a clear and simple information architecture. And mainly, you just don’t want to do it all the time. Tying folders to an app and reducing them to one level could solve a lot of these problems.

Folders-in-folders don’t work

The folder system paradigm is a geeky concept. Geeks built it because geeks need it. Geeks organize files all day long. Geeks don’t know and don’t really care how much their systems suck for other people. Geeks do not realize that for most people organizing documents within an operating system next to System files and applications feels like a complicated and maybe even dangerous business. Remember that autoexec.bat file?

Folders tend to grow deeper and deeper. As soon as we have more than a handful of notions, or (beware!) more than onehierarchical level of notions, it gets hard for most brains to build a mental model of that information architecture. While it is common to have several hierarchy levels in applications and file systems, they actually don’t work very well. We are just not smart enough to deal with notional pyramids. Trying to picture notional systems with several levels is like thinking three moves ahead in chess. Everybody believes that they can, but only a few skilled people really can do it. If you doubt this, prove me wrong by telling me what is in each file menu in your browser…

Folders-in-folders are hard to deal with. Just as physical folders-in-folders are prone to creating a mess, digital folders-in-folders represent a steep mental hurdle for most of us. Most people don’t want to bother with folder structures. They get confused when they’re forced to deal with settings in a text editing application. People expect things to just work.

Even geeks can’t handle folders in folders

http://informationarchitects.net/blog/mountain-lions-new-file-system/

 

 

 

 

rob 'jesus Land Tidd' lewis

[Rick Whitelaw]

I disagree with virtually everything you've said in your last post. Why? Because the information is incorrect. While Apple's IOS is going in that direction, and indeed has been that way all along (no visible file system), the OS X operating system continues to use folders and nested folders. You don't have to be a "geek" to understand this . You do have to be a little short sighted not to see the tremendous organizational power offered by a good file system.

As well, the search capabilities of OS X are outstanding. We can't complain that we couldn't find something because of nested folders and such.