doesn't change a thing.

in fact using a ssd for static data is ideal because the load times will be greatly reduced, and writes will never happen.

the ideal is to eliminate the concept of a filing cabinet and replace it with something like a desktop, or a dock, or a... well they haven't really thought of it yet.

Still missing the 'think a bit' bit. Never mind.

there is nothing to think about. static data belongs in a static data directory. user data belongs in a user data directory by default using something like an OpenFileName() dialog which allows the user to select the path to be used.

there is no discussion. no disagreement. no A vs. B.

there are the facts, the standards and the rules and nothing else. obey, or disobey.

PC - Personal Computer

'standards' such as these will just lead us into the pile of crap that is Windows 8, and the destruction of everything the PC actually stood for. Welcome to the new 'dumb' future.

And the point you seem to be missing about SSDs is that while they may be very 'nice' for static data, they're also damn expensive for large capacities, so it's not really viable to put a couple of TeraBytes of sample libraries on them.

Nebulous posturing shite.

If you want an Apple computer go out and buy an Apple computer and live with it how Apple has designed it to work.

If you want a Windows computer go out and buy a Windows computer and live with it how Microsoft has designed it to work.

If you want a personal computer go out and buy a box of PC components of your choice, assemble the PC yourself, install a Linux variant of your choice and configure the OS like you want. Now it's designed how you want it to work.

If you don't want to go this route then live with the design choices that Microsoft and Apple have made for you.

Compiled a lot of Linux kernels which don't have a /etc, /bin or /boot directory have you?

Yes.

yes the idea that this is a recent invention is laughable and shows just exactly how stupid most windows users are.

the home directory and application data directories have existed for decades. uh, well, nearly four of them now actually.

FOURTY YEARS.

dude, some guy that looked like this invented this whole standard:

(he didn't really, but just to give an impression of how f***ing long 40 years is.)

then some amatures randomly implemented a bunch of crap, and 25 years later microsoft finally implemented the standards instead for the first time with their mass market products.

that was already twelve years ago.

Dunno... personally I like folders on the root drive and I think stuff like /My Documents/Download is retarded. Sure it "works right now", but the second you copy it to a second drive, or mount the original drive on a second computer, all of your fancy paths break, whereas if you just used paths relative to 1 root folder, it would still work. That's also why I hate installers (break on drive copy) and I like straight EXE files in ZIPs (still works like it should). Windows registry also disappears on drive copy so I'm not sold on that one either.

This is a subject I feel strongly about, too. I, for one, prefer to be able to specify where I want things to be put, and have a system for determining where I install different types of files. I therefore much prefer to be allowed to change any default location to one of my choosing.

I do NOT want presets, samples, etc., installed to my C: drive - ANYWHERE on my C: drive. I reserve the C: drive for the operating system essential files. Apps go on a different drive, data on another one. Most programs I buy allow me to do this, either through options in the install routine. Those that do not, and install a bunch of crap to my C: drive with no option for an alternate location, get uninstalled and I don't purchase software from that company.

Fortunately, most enlightened companies and software authors are realizing that different people have different needs, and allow for alternatives. A few are even providing an alternative 'portable install' that you can unzip and move to wherever you want, which is pretty much ideal, in my opinion.

So forty years ago, you couldn't easily move your applications and personal data onto a different disk ?
Twelve years ago, you were forced (by a standard) to use a hidden 'ProgramData' directory ?

Strange, I don't remember that. I remember being able to put my data wherever I liked on most mainframes, and certainly on Unix/Linux machines. I seem to remember back in 1989, having plenty of choice where things went on a PC, running DOS, and then Windows. It would even let me write to 'Program Files' without complaining about security.

It *is* a recent mass-market effect that things are being locked-down more, and constrained to 'save users from themselves'. It's understandable that most users these days don't really have a clue how computers work, but that doesn't mean those of us who do should be forced into the same black hole.

Linux is obviously an option (although the most recent versions are going down the same stupid path) except for the fact that you're then faced with software not running on it. Again, choice.

See, this is the point - we want choice. If we can make that choice, everyone is happy (okay, not the big companies, as they can't control us) and you can still stick to your stupid 'standards' whilst the rest of us can use our computers how we want.

How does an idea which noone has posited except you, as a strawman, prove anything?

Exactly! Choice is what is essential. I have no real problem with installers defaulting to certain locations, as long as I can change it if I need to. I can even live with a company like Cakewalk, that installs things to a specific location, but provides information on how to hack the registry to change that default location if you need to do so.

What I object to is, for example, a program that installs 20 GB of clipart to my C: drive without giving me the option to put it somewhere else, or that dribble a few hundred files each to 8 different locations that are all hard-coded in the software itself and not changeable.

There are shareware/freeware/open-source installers available which offer all the options that users want, for a reasonable price - why some developers insist on writing their own, poorly written install routines is baffling to me. (I do some testing/beta-testing of shareware and freeware, and this is a long-standing pet peeve - sorry if I got carried away)