with the Fieldviewer Interface
All objects whatsoever are filed on the hard drive in a file allocation table [FAT] just like dos/windows (with on exception).
To the parameters NAME - DATE - SIZE - EXTENSION must be added a fifth - ASSOCIATION. The ass parameter allows one to have dll files all over the place with the same name. When an application is written it is coded to fetch, say, a dll file "synch.dll... like the one associated with windows '98 not the one associated with Hanover's bank.exe, like, ya' know". So no application maker will construct two dlls of the same name and there will never be a conflict again (except legacy apps).A "folder" is now called a "set". Your PC is the local "domain of the variable" - hah! The "elements" of the set are the objects in it (formerly files). And you create a set by simply surrounding and area with a tool (like in paintbrush, i.e. square, oval, irregular line) ... then click a button to "declare" the included objects to be a set, i.e. another object listed in the FAT table as a container of other objects.
Youl may also surround any area with a tool for search. As in,
"I know I dropped that file somewhere down here yesterday but I can't remember exactly where."And/Or switch on the "night" option of the "fieldviewer", select .txt extension and all the .txt files in the area/fieldviewer appear as bright dots on a dark background.
The visual cue is perhaps the strongest aid in finding something lost.This system allows for "crossindexing" since declared "sets" may overlap as in a Venn diagram. One might also declare non-joined sets to be members of another "super-set".
There are in fact a few things yet to do in operating systems that haven't been done before. Not everything was invented at PARC.
And the Gates/DOJ problem could be rendered moot if the concerned parties would simply do what you're supposed to do to a "monopoly" in the free market ... form a consortium ... create the "new OS" ... and break the stranglehold. If you can't break Microsoft's hold by this method ... then ... they're perfect and shouldn't be opposed.
Whenever the foundation of any enterprise at all is "imperfect", it must eventually fail and be superceeded by something more reliable and, hopefully, simple.
Do you think that Windows '95-'98 is perfect?