none
Why windows 7 did not have a different icon for share folder?

    Question

  •  

    Why windows 7 did not have a different icon for share folder, just like XP or Vista? Or I can config to help on distinction between normal folder and my share folders?

     

    Thanks a lot.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:11 AM

Answers

  • Goldsix,

    One of the goals for the Windows 7 release is to reduce large cognitive loads on users by simplifying the user interface. With the investment in sharing for the Windows 7 release, and especially with HomeGroup in the consumer space, we believe that a majority of users’ content will be shared. The previous overlay model would have resulted in the sharing overlay appearing frequently in typical Explorer views, potentially distracting users with information that they might not use or need on a daily basis. A single sharing overlay can’t provide details about how an item is shared (for example, who it’s shared with, what privileges are assigned, etc.) and this results in a higher cognitive load for the end user. Prior to Windows 7, there were also scenarios in which the sharing overlay was shown inconsistently, which caused user confusion. As a result, based on the above, the sharing overlay was removed from the items view in Explorer.

    The sharing state information that the overlay provides isn’t gone but rather has been moved to the Details pane in Windows Explorer. This approach is an improvement over the overlay model, as it helps provide more relevant data related to sharing (for example, who the item is shared with). The Details pane is also where all other relevant properties for an item--such as ratings and author--are displayed, making the overall experience more consistent for end users by providing one location in which they can see all relevant state information for an item.

    I hope this helps your understanding of why this changed in Windows 7.

    Sincerely,

    -Tony Mann


    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:58 PM
    Owner
  • Yes, Tony, thanks for your explanation!

    I'm sorry to say that I can only find Owner, People, Publisher, etc. But there is no item named "sharing state information" you've mentioned in the "Choose Details" list. Would you pls let me know the exact name?

     

    thx again ;-)

     


    If you share a folder, then click the folder to select it, at the bottom of the screen in the details pane, you'll see "State:" and "Shared" with the appropriate "people" icon. It also shows "Shared with" and lists the users/groups.
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:49 AM
    Owner

All replies

  • Goldsix,

    One of the goals for the Windows 7 release is to reduce large cognitive loads on users by simplifying the user interface. With the investment in sharing for the Windows 7 release, and especially with HomeGroup in the consumer space, we believe that a majority of users’ content will be shared. The previous overlay model would have resulted in the sharing overlay appearing frequently in typical Explorer views, potentially distracting users with information that they might not use or need on a daily basis. A single sharing overlay can’t provide details about how an item is shared (for example, who it’s shared with, what privileges are assigned, etc.) and this results in a higher cognitive load for the end user. Prior to Windows 7, there were also scenarios in which the sharing overlay was shown inconsistently, which caused user confusion. As a result, based on the above, the sharing overlay was removed from the items view in Explorer.

    The sharing state information that the overlay provides isn’t gone but rather has been moved to the Details pane in Windows Explorer. This approach is an improvement over the overlay model, as it helps provide more relevant data related to sharing (for example, who the item is shared with). The Details pane is also where all other relevant properties for an item--such as ratings and author--are displayed, making the overall experience more consistent for end users by providing one location in which they can see all relevant state information for an item.

    I hope this helps your understanding of why this changed in Windows 7.

    Sincerely,

    -Tony Mann


    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:58 PM
    Owner
  •  

    Why windows 7 did not have a different icon for share folder, just like XP or Vista? Or I can config to help on distinction between normal folder and my share folders?

     

    Thanks a lot.


    Do you mean the icon on an XP shared folder has a little hand on it and both Vista and Windows 7 have two little people?

    If so, I agree that a different identifier would have been ideal.

    Wednesday, August 12, 2009 6:33 PM
  • Yes, Tony, thanks for your explanation!

    I'm sorry to say that I can only find Owner, People, Publisher, etc. But there is no item named "sharing state information" you've mentioned in the "Choose Details" list. Would you pls let me know the exact name?

     

    thx again ;-)

     

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:35 AM
  • yes, that's my concern.
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:35 AM
  • Yes, Tony, thanks for your explanation!

    I'm sorry to say that I can only find Owner, People, Publisher, etc. But there is no item named "sharing state information" you've mentioned in the "Choose Details" list. Would you pls let me know the exact name?

     

    thx again ;-)

     


    If you share a folder, then click the folder to select it, at the bottom of the screen in the details pane, you'll see "State:" and "Shared" with the appropriate "people" icon. It also shows "Shared with" and lists the users/groups.
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner
    Thursday, August 13, 2009 1:49 AM
    Owner
  • That's a very awful answer, not all of us use Windows in a home environment, imagine you have a folder with 500 folders , and you start choosing which ones you need to share one by one, then if you want to check back which ones you shared ....... are you going to click one by one ? , you don't have a quick visual approach to the shared folders, when you are supposed to, instead of getting windows easier you are making it harder.

    The most controversial is that if I share the whooooooooole drive (which is VERY insecure) it shows the dang overlay icon !!!!!!!

    Why you don't let the users choose whatever they want instead of taking us by one-way road????

    More than 15 years with this overlay icon and someone decides to change it? geeee

    oh, and please dont copy paste your answer and reply as a human,

    Thanks
    • Proposed as answer by b4n4n4p4nd4 Monday, July 09, 2012 7:32 PM
    Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:56 AM
  • hahahaha this is sooooo funny.!!!

    The share overlay is not in Server 2008 R2 either.
    I could understand taking it out of a client OS, but a server??? Jeeeez!!!
    Theres no way i can live with that on file servers!

    How is it possible that microsoft dont think we'd want a visual cue for shared folders in the explorer view in a file server environment??
    Brilliant job guys. !!

    But really this is really priceless:

    "...This approach is an improvement over the overlay model, as it helps provide more relevant data related to sharing (for example, who the item is shared with). The Details pane is also where all other relevant properties for an item--such as ratings and author--are displayed, making the overall experience more consistent for end users by providing one location in which they can see all relevant state information for an item"

    Hey Mr Anthony Mann MSFT: I'm an end user and this sucks. I'm also an IT pro and in that capacity I also think this sucks. The overall experience is more consistent? well sure all the folders look exactly the same!!! and indistinguishable from one another.

    How does it make my life easier? how do i benefit from your 'more consistent' end user experience?? I'll tell you how. I've got to click on each folder individually now to tell if its shared or not. Thanks dude... like my day wasnt busy enough already, i now gotta go clicking around individual folder to get infomation i used to have at a glance. 

    Good call!

    What this actually does is make the administration of servers with large number of shares infinitely more difficult, less precise, more time consuming, less intuitive. Actually worse in every way.
    ...but you can give yourself a pat on the back for trying to turn this, 'mistake' into a feature. It's is right up there with "coco pops: so choclatey they even turn the milk brown"

    This shows that MS really have no idea what enterprise customers actually want.
    'cognitive overload' my ar*e!  More like 'stupidity overload'

    And whats that padlock overlay icon all about??  Yeah, thats soooo usefull isnt it!!!
    So usefull that nobody really knows what it means, but everyone wants to get rid of it.

    The only thing that seems consistent are these really poor design decisions to take out perfectly usefull stuff!

    Can you please patch these mistakes... as ssegabriel said: its not up to you to decide if these things are useful or not for admins
    Leave the choice with the admins!!

    • Edited by boxing_surfer Sunday, August 23, 2009 10:52 PM
    • Proposed as answer by b4n4n4p4nd4 Monday, July 09, 2012 7:32 PM
    Sunday, August 23, 2009 7:51 PM
  • Yes, Tony, thanks for your explanation!

    I'm sorry to say that I can only find Owner, People, Publisher, etc. But there is no item named "sharing state information" you've mentioned in the "Choose Details" list. Would you pls let me know the exact name?

     

    thx again ;-)

     


    If you share a folder, then click the folder to select it, at the bottom of the screen in the details pane, you'll see "State:" and "Shared" with the appropriate "people" icon. It also shows "Shared with" and lists the users/groups.
    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner

    Yes, I have to click my 500 folders one by one to see which one is shared ? :-S
    Monday, August 24, 2009 3:58 AM
  • Hello,
    You can get a list of the shared folders by:
    on the start menu, right click computer and choose manage
    This brings up the computer management MMC.
    Choose shared folders and under that choose shares.
    That will give you a list of the shared folders, the share name, the location of folder, the number of connections, and a description of the share.
    Thanks, Darrell Gorter This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
    Tuesday, August 25, 2009 10:14 PM
  • Thanks Darrell,

    But youre missing the point.... 

    Yes of course we can all get a list of shares in many different ways... share and storage management.... even 'net share'..
    but none of them show the shares in the context of the filesystem hierarchy

    This is vital when LARGE NUMBERS of shares are implemented at MANY different levels in the file system, and NTFS permissions are designed so they propogate & inherit progressively down the tree. This is a fairly basic principle of structured information management.

    By removing this overlay, MS are making this kind of strucutred information management much more difficult and much more prone to error.
    Its now very difficult to visualise the effect of applying a permission at 'point A' will have on a share further down the tree... purely because now we cant easily see what folders are shared futher down the tree, at a glance

    Given that this is a task typically performed by junior admins... I shudder to think at the consequences for corporate information security.
    This is a REALLY big mistake.

    The fact that MS really dont understand this is whats most disturbing. 
    That such a design decision has been made without the correct understanding of its impact in a corporate environment. Especially when it undoubtedly has an impact on information security which MS just completely overlooked.

    MS need to learn from this this and remedy the situation fast.
    This vane attempt at telling us that you know whats best for us... better than we do.... its insulting, arrogant and wrong.

    I dont think that I'm the only one here that thinks so
    Wednesday, August 26, 2009 8:53 AM
  • Again... Microsoft has taken something and over complicated it. In an enterprise desktop operating system, the end user should be able to view which folders are shared without having to click on them in an instant. This is an administration nightmare when you have to create user security for whole depts. and verify shares and permissions.

    Why can't MS just realize that they need to keep the same names, functions, and similar icons to simple tasks so that end-users are already familiar with the environment? They have constantly done this and I'm sure I'm not the only one complaining about it. I guess they've never heard of the phrase if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

    If they don't fix this, we'll just decide to keep good ol' XP pro Corp SP3 running on all of our workstations and not migrate. I'm tired of wasting money on forced migration into something that is not as functional as the original product in the first place.

    Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:55 PM
  • YES Darrell... It's just great that something "NEW" and "IMPROVED" takes 3 more steps to get the same results as it took 1 step before. That's a great programming philosophy!

    Thursday, August 27, 2009 7:57 PM
  • Absolutely Stupid Reasoning. You should fire the person who came up with this retarded idea to make something more complex instead of easier.
    Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:00 PM
  • Not to mention, that to stop the sharing of a folder, you have to go to the Computer Management MMC to stop sharing that folder.  I guess Microsoft would like us to start using the MMC for all our folder sharing need from now on?
    Thursday, August 27, 2009 8:13 PM
  • You do not have to use the MMC to stop sharing it, any more than you have to use the MMC to start sharing it.  Just right-click on it, go to "Share with...", "Advanced Sharing", and uncheck the "Share this folder" box - just like you always did.  The problem is with determining that the folder is shared in the first place - not with how you share or stop sharing.

    I would like to see an option to be able to visually distinguish between shared and non-shared folders - give us a check-box or radio button to show a different icon when we create the share.  As it is, I believe it makes our jobs as administrators more difficult.  While the decision may have been valid for a HomeGroup, I believe it is counterproductive in a server or corporate environment.  Maybe it's just something that I need time to get used to - I'll have to wait and see.  But at the present, it seems like a "we know what you need better than you do" decision.

    As a side note, I can't understand how saying things like it is stupid and the person should be fired is helpful in any way.  While making that type of statement seems rather inappropriate, voting it as "helpful" is even worse.  Give MS solid reasons why you disagree with the decision (and it apparently was a conscious decision, not a bug) and provide feedback to them asking that the behavior be changed.


    Ralph Bley
    Friday, August 28, 2009 11:58 AM
  • I can only share the sentiments expressed by my fellow Admins. Having an indicator for a shared folder was a valuable resource. Interestingly enough it is only Server 2008 R2 that gives no immediate visual indicator that a folder is shared. As a royally painful work-around I've been manually changing the icons of folders when I share them. Interestingly enough the new shared folder icon is still in ntshrui.dll.

    MS couldn't spare the extra six lines of code to put an option in CP -> Folder Options -> View to toggle how to display a shared folder? GMAB.

    Sneak this in a hot fix or pony up the registry key we need to add to fix this abomination.
    Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:34 PM
  • I wonder if this removed feature falls under the category of:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_7

    See reference # 7
    Saturday, September 05, 2009 10:43 PM
  • You would think there would be columns available in details view, such as "State" or "Shared with", so you could use that.

    I looked through the 200 or so fields available, and even tried a few that I thought might show something.

    No, there is nothing available in the columns available in the details view.

    They give us an indicator for Junctions and SymLinks but take away share state.  Go figure.
    Sunday, September 06, 2009 1:34 AM
  • I think M$ removed the overlay due to performance issues rather than to make the system easier or more complex. What do you think guys?
    Sunday, September 06, 2009 2:38 PM
  • Microsoft removes usefull features because the developers love to see people beg to have them reimplemented.

    • Proposed as answer by Brian Borg Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:49 PM
    Sunday, September 06, 2009 2:45 PM
  • They give us an indicator for Junctions and SymLinks but take away share state.  Go figure.

    Not only do reparse points get the little "shortcut" arrow, but read-only folders get a little paddelock.  And I hav also noticed that the drive with Windows on it (%SystemDrive%) gets a little "Windows flag".

    Why didn't they leave the indicator for shares?
    • Proposed as answer by ONE ZERO Sunday, September 06, 2009 10:11 PM
    Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:58 PM
  • I think M$ removed the overlay due to performance issues rather than to make the system easier or more complex. What do you think guys?
    I recall there was an issue with vista and manually arranging icons in a large folder would freeze explorer, so the answer was to remove this feature. XP is my main system right now for the lightning fast performance and more functional but I can't see how having the shared folder indicator could impair performance.
    Sunday, September 06, 2009 9:58 PM
  • Well saying that it is stupid (which it is) and also saying the person(s) should be fired from their programming positions should show MS how strongly we administrators feel about this decision. The company as a whole should realize that people don't want to learn new environments or GUI's they just want something that works and has the same icons , labels as the systems they are already used to.

    I personally feel the reason they do this is to increase their revenue on training manuals and materials.

    I'm a microsoft partner and our company is supposed to sell MS solutions to small to mid-size businesses and provide their IT support. I'm getting a lot of feedback that end users are fed up with having to learn new GUI's and systems. And there really is no justification in this. If anything Microsoft is holding back computing and programming progess than advancing it.

    Ralph Bley must be a Microsoft employee or a fanboy, otherwise he'd understand after so many mistakes MS has made and cost valuable downtime from critical updates that weren't tested properly, to migration directions for various servers that are blantently wrong on Technet and whitepapers, MS needs to clean house.

    Stick to basics, improve your code and reliability and quit changing things just because "YOU" think it'll make it easier on us, it's easy enough as it is already...

    Friday, September 11, 2009 2:18 PM
  • Anthony, there are a plethora of overlay icons strewn about the OS. A lock overlay, a shortcut overlay, a windows overlay for the Windows OS hard drive, not to mention the fact that nearly every folder in the User directory has its own very distinct icon: downloads, documents, pictures, etc.

    I'm not buying cognitive overload. This needs to be brought back. People who don't know the difference won't care. People who need it are /really annoyed/ that it is gone. It's one of the first things I noticed about the whole Windows 7 experience, honestly.

    Any hope of this design decision being revisited?
    Sunday, October 04, 2009 7:14 PM
  • The shared folder overlay icon was a good idea becouse it was the quick and easy way to see if a folder is shared. Put it back.

    • Edited by ONE ZERO Sunday, October 04, 2009 9:28 PM
    Sunday, October 04, 2009 9:06 PM
  • all the ITs must join and ask for it to be restored, there is no reason to remove it

    Sunday, October 04, 2009 9:11 PM
  • Thanks a lot for all your concerns. I've noticed that we can use a tool to display old style icon for share folders. It's fine to me.
    http://4win7.com/2009/10/the-share-folder-icon-issue-in-windows-7.html
    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:11 AM
  • Thanks a lot for all your concerns. I've noticed that we can use a tool to display old style icon for share folders. It's fine to me.
    http://4win7.com/2009/10/the-share-folder-icon-issue-in-windows-7.html

    Sorry, but Im not fine with it.

    I´m tired of have to find third party sofware to do basic things every time a new version of windows is released.

    I haven´t even found a way to show free space in status bar!

    If I need to find third party software every time, maybe it´s time to start searching LINUX software. It appears to be evolving every new version, while Windows, on other hand, is becoming more and more dumbed down with every version.

    There is NO WAY to say a MISTAKE that size is a "feature" improved. Come on, who believe this?
    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 11:37 AM
  • Supposedly it's by design but that is a bit hard to believe.

    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:54 PM
  • and It's a real bad design, how can they put overlays for all the other stuff but the shared folder! , yesterday I installed windows server 2008 r2 and it doesn't have the feature either, how can you think that I will be able to share like 50 folders and manage them visually , this is going backwards, even gnome or kde have a visual indicator that the folder shared, mac os,  even windows since windows 3.11 for workgroups , sooooooooooo what's going on here?????????????

    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 1:59 PM
  • For our next caveat, the shortcut indicator will no, longer appear. So have hours of fun deciphering which icon is an executable and what may be a shortcut. You may have an easier time if file extensions are enabled but if it's a folder with a custom icon, your guess is as good as mine. Hit or miss.
    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 2:15 PM
  • hahahaha this is sooooo funny.!!!

    The share overlay is not in Server 2008 R2 either.
    I could understand taking it out of a client OS, but a server??? Jeeeez!!!
    Theres no way i can live with that on file servers!

    How is it possible that microsoft dont think we'd want a visual cue for shared folders in the explorer view in a file server environment??
    Brilliant job guys. !!

    But really this is really priceless:

    "...This approach is an improvement over the overlay model, as it helps provide more relevant data related to sharing (for example, who the item is shared with). The Details pane is also where all other relevant properties for an item--such as ratings and author--are displayed, making the overall experience more consistent for end users by providing one location in which they can see all relevant state information for an item"

    Hey Mr Anthony Mann MSFT: I'm an end user and this sucks. I'm also an IT pro and in that capacity I also think this sucks. The overall experience is more consistent? well sure all the folders look exactly the same!!! and indistinguishable from one another.

    How does it make my life easier? how do i benefit from your 'more consistent' end user experience?? I'll tell you how. I've got to click on each folder individually now to tell if its shared or not. Thanks dude... like my day wasnt busy enough already, i now gotta go clicking around individual folder to get infomation i used to have at a glance. 

    Good call!

    What this actually does is make the administration of servers with large number of shares infinitely more difficult, less precise, more time consuming, less intuitive. Actually worse in every way.
    ...but you can give yourself a pat on the back for trying to turn this, 'mistake' into a feature. It's is right up there with "coco pops: so choclatey they even turn the milk brown"

    This shows that MS really have no idea what enterprise customers actually want.
    'cognitive overload' my ar*e!  More like 'stupidity overload'

    And whats that padlock overlay icon all about??  Yeah, thats soooo usefull isnt it!!!
    So usefull that nobody really knows what it means, but everyone wants to get rid of it.

    The only thing that seems consistent are these really poor design decisions to take out perfectly usefull stuff!

    Can you please patch these mistakes... as ssegabriel said: its not up to you to decide if these things are useful or not for admins
    Leave the choice with the admins!!

    Totally agree, his answer was ridiculous. Sounded like buzz words they use in management meetings to impress eachother while not being bound at all in the real world. When I read 'cognitive overload', coffee almost came out of my nose. Looks like we are going to get file management based on the lowest common denominator. Problems with the file manager are too numerous to list, but then again I don't have to, just read any of the 100's of well thought out posts about what a disaster the changes to the file manager have been. As an IT pro and enthusiast my opinion of the file manager are the changes are a major oversight and huge mistake.
    Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:57 PM
  • When I read 'cognitive overload', coffee almost came out of my nose.
    LOL!  I did, seriously!  Thanks for making me smile, Brimstone67.

    "Cognitive overload" seems to mean "We think you're all quite stupid, and so we're not going to work particularly hard on making the Explorer rewrite do all the things the prior version used to do, and besides we really can't do that anyway because all the smart and experienced engineers have moved up into management." 

    And don't think for a minute we didn't notice there's no configuration options to turn those useful things on - hence my comment about not working particularly hard.

    -Noel
    Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:50 AM
  • Anthony could only have bean joking when he told us what might result in "cognitive overload". Maybe what he really meant was how our central processors would be suffering from this not us tell-tale users.
    Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:35 AM
  • Well, I amvery much surprised that many "gooooood" stuff going away with windows7. In fact every time a new version is out I have to spend quite a lot of time just to get used to work with new interface.
    I am IT pro, and I hate to waste my time on searching 3 party S/W to close the gaps like this one.
    In my opinion, you MUST retrench the guy who implemented this @update@ and made so many developers unhapy.
    Listen to us, please !
     
    Thursday, October 29, 2009 8:50 PM
  • Yikes, I hadn't even noticed this before, I agree, it's a total nightmare, especially for file servers, bring it back!
    Friday, October 30, 2009 3:17 AM
  • There's plenty of those little padlocks on my folder icons to go around.
    Friday, October 30, 2009 4:53 AM
  • So tired of Microsoft removing functions because they think so and us begging for petty features that worked like a charm in previous versions.
    Anonymuos
    Sunday, November 01, 2009 8:06 PM
  • The worst thing is that if I share a folder and then unshare it, it gets a stupid padlock on it which I have no way to remove.  WTF???
    Wednesday, November 04, 2009 6:27 AM
  • hi The111,

    yes, it will generate bored padlock icon if you unshare the folder. In order to remove it, pls just right click the folder and add "administrator" to Share with...


    Good Luck.
    Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:35 AM
  • hi The111,

    yes, it will generate bored padlock icon if you unshare the folder. In order to remove it, pls just right click the folder and add "administrator" to Share with...


    Good Luck.
    That's not entirely true... I found out what I had to do and it is add "authenticated users" back to the permissions on the security tab.  It is already shared with administrators, even when it has the lock icon.
    Wednesday, November 04, 2009 3:27 PM
  • Include inheritable permsions from current user. No lock.
    Wednesday, November 04, 2009 7:22 PM
  • I notice that Mr. Li marked this question as "answered" after only two days, when judging from the (still) flooding commentary on this, none of it good...it seems to most certainly not be answered. I hadn't noticed it on my personal Win7 laptop, because I don't use a lot of shared folders on it. However, now that it's been brought to my attention, Microsoft can of course kiss any upgrade money they'd receive from my school goodbye. We'll be staying with Windows 2008 (service pack 2) on our file servers until this is taken care of.

    As many have pointed out, it's not a (horribly) big deal on personal systems, but there's no way I will ever ever use a server OS that does not have simple visual cues for a function as basic as "is this folder shared" or not.

    Mr. Li, I suggest you remove that "marked as answer" button from this question; otherwise it will be difficult to take you seriously.
    Wednesday, November 04, 2009 8:28 PM
  • Include inheritable permsions from current user. No lock.

    Where is that?  I can find include inheritable permissions from parent object... but not from current user.
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 2:52 AM
  • Include inheritable permsions from current user. No lock.

    Where is that?  I can find include inheritable permissions from parent object... but not from current user.

    Your right - "include inheritable permissions from parent object".
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:13 AM
  • Include inheritable permsions from current user. No lock.

    Where is that?  I can find include inheritable permissions from parent object... but not from current user.

    Your right - "include inheritable permissions from parent object".

    Gents... how exactly is this relavent to this thread?

    may I suggest you start a new threat if you want to discuss your issues with the padlock icon
    Thats not the subject of this thread

    thankyou

    Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:08 AM
  • I notice that Mr. Li marked this question as "answered" after only two days, when judging from the (still) flooding commentary on this, none of it good...it seems to most certainly not be answered. I hadn't noticed it on my personal Win7 laptop, because I don't use a lot of shared folders on it. However, now that it's been brought to my attention, Microsoft can of course kiss any upgrade money they'd receive from my school goodbye. We'll be staying with Windows 2008 (service pack 2) on our file servers until this is taken care of.

    As many have pointed out, it's not a (horribly) big deal on personal systems, but there's no way I will ever ever use a server OS that does not have simple visual cues for a function as basic as "is this folder shared" or not.

    Mr. Li, I suggest you remove that "marked as answer" button from this question; otherwise it will be difficult to take you seriously.

    I agree entirely.
    But to be honest the helpers on this forum always do that....

    I think the person who made the post originally can 'unmark' it as answered.

    I feel pretty strongly about this decision to remove the shared folder overlay.

    You may also want to take a look at this thread, on the issue in window 2008 R2. Here MS have been equally glib in their response.
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsserver2008r2general/thread/09aba76f-7d9f-49ee-a005-23de8937b288/

    I think its quite innovative that MS took so many ideas from children and familiies, even single parents and pensioners in Win 7 product development. They really seem to give these people what they want, huh?

    I'm just curious how the wishes of a 14 year old can take precendence over those of £50m pan european PLC.

    Windows 7 definitely wasnt my idea!

    But explaining to the board that this product is more hype than substance, and that its costs far outweigh the benefits....

    ...that was my idea

    :)
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 9:25 AM

  • Tony,

    Thanks for the insight into your design rationale. It's helpful to see how these decisions are made.
     
    Nonetheless, I hope you're hearing the feedback. For some of us, the ability to identify shared folders at a glance is much more helpful than any minor reduction in visual clutter.

    Please give us a way to enable the overlay.
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 3:05 PM
  • Gents... how exactly is this relavent to this thread?

    may I suggest you start a new threat if you want to discuss your issues with the padlock icon
    Thats not the subject of this thread
    I think it's relevant because one of the original "defenses" of no share icon is that it would confuse users.  How is that a valid explanation, when we have these lock icons randomly appearing, which ARE confusing, and which require jumping through hoops to remove?  If we can manually remove them (after unintentionally auto-adding them) we should CERTAINLY be able to manually add a shared indicator.  That I agree with.
    Thursday, November 05, 2009 6:54 PM
  • I think it's relevant because one of the original "defenses" of no share icon is that it would confuse users.  How is that a valid explanation, when we have these lock icons randomly appearing, which ARE confusing, and which require jumping through hoops to remove?  If we can manually remove them (after unintentionally auto-adding them) we should CERTAINLY be able to manually add a shared indicator.  That I agree with.

    I see your point. And I agree entirely.

    MS say that they want to avoid cognitive overload, but they add this completely useless and pointless 'padlock' overlay which annoyingly appears whenever we unshare folders...and we have to manually go in and edit permissions to make it go away...
    .... in the meantime, the perfectly useful shared folder overlay icon has been taken away!

    It makes not sense at all.

    I agree with the person who wrote it before: This is microsofts attempt to justify a blatant design mistake with a claim it was really by design. I dont buy that for a second. I cant believe anyone would be so stupid.

    Either way, they've totally fracked this up!
    Monday, November 09, 2009 3:29 PM
  • The only way you can set the normal share icon show up on individual folders is: 1. Open the Customize tab in the folder's Properties 2. Click change icon, then browse to and select c:\windows\system32\filemgmt.dll - the shared folder icon is the 2nd icon in that file. But you would have to do every shared folder like that... :^(
    Friday, November 13, 2009 8:29 AM
  • I've got a call open with PSS at the moment, and I've submitted a DCR (Design Change Request)... giving detailed reasons as to how this affects us in the enterprise and why it should be brought back, and how much it costs us in terms of extra man hours etc...

    I urge all of you who have interest in this problem to open a case with PSS and do the same. The more good quality DCR's they get, the more likely they are to change this behaviour.

    Think about how exactly the removal of the shared folder icon affects you.
    Think about how this is impacting you financially.
    Remember, the stronger the rationale the better are the chances of this being rectified.

    BRIEF DESCRIPTION:
    (Provide a high-level summary of the problem, including descriptions of the affected user scenario and the user experience when the problem occurs)

    IMPACT AND BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION:

    IMPACT APPLICABILITY:

    OPPORTUNITY - What change would you like to see to remedy this

    Also, does this issue have any strategic, political, or press considerations?

    WORKAROUND
    (Are there any? They are unsatisfactory, because...?...)

    I'm going to cross post this in the Server 2008 R2 forum thread also. Because while this threat is the most active, i believe the problem is more serious in a server OS than a client, just because we have more shares there
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/windowsserver2008r2general/thread/09aba76f-7d9f-49ee-a005-23de8937b288

    Many thanks

    B
    Friday, November 13, 2009 11:29 AM
  • I found this thread when I became cognitively overloaded looking for reasons why my shared folder did not appear to be "shared" after I'd just set it that way.

    This is the SECOND useful "at a glance" feature I've seen removed in my less than 24 hours with Windows 7 (the first was the horrible networking icon - no at a a glance blue ball to show internet connection).

    At least have these settings re-instateable for those of us who would like to be cognitively overloaded the correct way. (Why do I want to use this horrible "homegroup" thing anyway? Especially as the other pcs on my network are Vista, Vista & XP-Pro.)

    Bring It Back!
    Saturday, November 28, 2009 7:35 AM
  • MS doesn't care a damn about users. They're justifying it here: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2009/12/09/9934348.aspx XP FTW.

    Thursday, December 10, 2009 8:04 AM
  • MS doesn't care a damn about users. They're justifying it here: http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2009/12/09/9934348.aspx  XP FTW.

    as indicated by boxingsurfer above, CONTACT MICROSOFT through whatever support channels you have, or, by contacting Advocate@microsoft.com

    If you plan to do so, please search these forums for all the other threads that decribe usability / interface changes (folder behaviors, not remembering positions, etc) and include any of those that also impact you in your comment.  Obviously a person who has more than one 'tiny' problem with the interface, and who can document them, will be more impactful than just a bunch of posts here in this forum.

    John
    Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:20 PM
  • I agree....I just got it with a new computer and so far I'm not impressed. I'm considering going back to XP. If you have XP stay with it. This OS is weak.
    Thursday, December 31, 2009 10:08 PM
  • No share icons?  Oh come on!   "reduce large cognitive loads on users" and increase it for us professional IT people.  Yeesh.  I just had to scroll over dozens of shares on a Windows 2008 R2 server ONE by ONE and wasted a ton of my time.   Microsoft - you screwed up on this one.   However made this decision needs to have their heads examined for a total lack of cognitive perception - a common issue with Microsoft.   

    Another tic on the wall for a Mac.  

    Dale J.

    Saturday, January 02, 2010 5:55 AM
  • No share icons?  Oh come on!   "reduce large cognitive loads on users" and increase it for us professional IT people.  Yeesh.  I just had to scroll over dozens of shares on a Windows 2008 R2 server ONE by ONE and wasted a ton of my time.   Microsoft - you screwed up on this one.   However made this decision needs to have their heads examined for a total lack of cognitive perception - a common issue with Microsoft.   

    Another tic on the wall for a Mac.  

    Dale J.

    I think they reduced the cognitive overload on the 7th grader who helped design the interface... the programmers were trying to explain shared folders and simlinks and the 7th grader blacked out... LOL

    This is just one of 4 or 5 "FAILS" in this OS for me.
    Rather than understand why Businesses - the CORE of the XP community - did not migrate en-mass to the Vista OS, they decide to go further down the path of 'changing the way you do your job'.... *sigh*.
    Dale - they've made this MORE mac like, much to the dismay of users who like to have a choice in how they use the OS...  They don't want you to use folders and share them individually anymore, they want you to dump all your data onto this terabyte disk and let Libraries figure out what you should do with the files...
    Saturday, January 02, 2010 12:35 PM
  • "reduce large cognitive loads on users" and increase it for us professional IT people.

    We need to face the fact that "users" outnumber "professional IT people", developers, etc. by like a hundred thousand to one.  With these odds for a clearly marketing-driven product its amazing we can find any usefulness remaining in it at all.

    What Microsoft seems to have forgotten in their bid to [over]simplify Windows is that an option to display the sharing icon, set off by default but available for professionals, would provide the best of both worlds.

    Without professional users, developers, etc. Windows will die, no matter how many just plain "users" there are by comparison.  WE are the people making applications.

    Steve Ballmer:  Please STOP letting your Marketing people make the majority of the decisions in setting product direction!

    -Noel
    Saturday, January 02, 2010 8:44 PM
  • Noel, I agree.

    What Microsoft is negelecting is that the "professional IT people" often make the decisions, or have input to the decision makers, as to when to upgrade software on the computers of the corporate users.

    And then there are the servers.  Does anyone really think that the typical administrator is going to try to convince TPTB that the company needs to buy Windows 2008 Server R2 for all their Windows 2003 servers?
    Saturday, January 02, 2010 11:07 PM
  • So please contact microsoft PSS, open a case, and submit your DCR.  See one of my earlier posts about that.

    This is the only real way you can likely instigate change.

    Microsoft will only remedy this if they see that a 'critical mass' of customers are demanding the change in the context of a buisness case
    These forum posts - while they do convey a sense of anger, frustration and incredulence from the user community, do not constitute any real impetus for MS to do anything.

    ....but its definitely interesting to see how many people out there are kind of in a state of disbelief about the removal of this feature.

    :)
    Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:53 AM
  • Done and done.
    Use the advocate@microsoft.com channel as well...

    They really made a mess of 7.  They might be able to force this on users through every new PC purchase at Best Buy, but they cannot force the corporate user where all the $$ comes from...
    Sunday, January 03, 2010 2:40 PM
  • They really made a mess of 7.  They might be able to force this on users through every new PC purchase at Best Buy, but they cannot force the corporate user where all the $$ comes from...
    My newly built machine at home has Windows 7, and i think its OK as a home OS. I'm enjoying using it. Its definitely better than Windos Shista.
    Its stable and responsive and its pretty slick....

    ... but that counts for little in the enterprise where we're concerned about other things.... like productivity, manageability and TCO

    For every new thing thats been improved over XP, i find something else thats been removed, fudged or unecessarily re-worked thats going to make my life and the lives of the staff more difficult and increasse our TCO.
     
    When comparing benefits & drawbacks or pros & cons of these OS's, I think there really arent any 'killer features' or 'killer fixes' that might streamline our operations and therefor give us a reason to migrate at this time. A Win 7 deployment project is a costly project. There would have to be some fairly major benefit. At the moment i think we would be slightly worse off after the deployment. And thats a shame.

    I definitely DO NOT think that XP and Server 2003 are perfect. There are plenty of annoyances there, but Win7 / 2K8 R2 dont really address them. At best MS have introduced a bunch of new ones. I dont feel that they have really taken the business 'package' to the next level....

    I hope that SP1 for Win7 / 2K8 R2 addresses these kind of issues and makes the Win7 / Server 2008 R2 combination 'enterprise ready' because right now, its not.
    Sunday, January 03, 2010 3:27 PM
  • I find it interesting that the discussion seems most often centered on whether to upgrade from XP (not Vista) to Windows 7.  In my small company we actually made the leap to Vista, and benefited from it.  Vista can be the basis of a dynamite work environment if managed well.  It's somewhat inefficient, but modern x64 computers offset that.

    A question for all:  If Windows 7 Explorer had turned out differently - if had all the features we love, was really cleaned up, a real home run, the best thing since sliced bread - and NOTHING ELSE ABOUT WINDOWS 7 WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW...

    Would that alone be enough for you (e.g., IT managers) to start the paperwork to justify to management to spend $$$ and make the leap to Windows 7?

    I think it would.

    -Noel
    Sunday, January 03, 2010 4:17 PM
  • Interesting question, Noel.  As I've heard many times before, though "IF" is a very big word. 

    I am not against all the fluff and useless gimmicky aero garbage, per se, but when they rip out the functional innards in order to build that cr4p in, it gets very annoying (using a slight euphemism, here).  And when they change things that worked fine, just for the sake of selling more training classes, books and manuals, and then making things take more clicks and shticks just to do the same old things, I feel that's counter-productive.  I also wonder how many M$FT employees are writing 3rd Party Apps these days to give us back certain omitted functionalities ... which raises the price of a full install to well over the $200US retail price.

    But I'll bite on this question and say, "Yeah ... if they put in the fluff AND left usability alone, left in the things we're used to, in the way they were done before (even if as user-selected options), I would be one who would be proselytizing Seven."  But in it's current state, I could never recommend this to anyone as an "upgrade" to XP.  NEVER!
    Monday, January 04, 2010 3:49 PM
  • I find it interesting that the discussion seems most often centered on whether to upgrade from XP (not Vista) to Windows 7.  In my small company we actually made the leap to Vista, and benefited from it.  Vista can be the basis of a dynamite work environment if managed well.  It's somewhat inefficient, but modern x64 computers offset that.

    A question for all:   If Windows 7 Explorer had turned out differently - if had all the features we love, was really cleaned up, a real home run, the best thing since sliced bread -  and NOTHING ELSE ABOUT WINDOWS 7 WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW...

    Would that alone be enough for you (e.g., IT managers) to start the paperwork to justify to management to spend $$$ and make the leap to Windows 7?

    I think it would.

    -Noel

    Noel -
    You've seen some of my posts.  ALL of them have to do with ODD ____ that they did to Explorer.  Some of those things were actually WORSE than Vista's changes.  Folders not remembering their size / positions; too much wasted white space in details view; automatic resorting of folder lists DURING copy / file processes; Remove of "explore" from the right click context menu to open a new window at that location.  Remove of "Open command prompt here".... the list is LONG...

    I hate all the extra chrome, and the inability to get rid of that bar that contains the organize options.  The inability to rearrange the tools / address bar...

    Yes, if EXPLORER had not removed ALL the functionality that they spent the previous 6 versions adding in and enhancing (from win 3.0, 3.1, NT, NT4, Win2k, XP...) - ____, they even took out the ability to have a different background for each folder! (yeah, I actually used that...).

    They GUTTED it so that libraries would / could work.  That's my opinion.  Libraries have ZERO use in business (IMHO), so Business won't like 7 very much at all...

    So, to directly answer - YES.  If Explorer worked like it did in XP, and everything else about 7 was the way it is, it would be a great OS, I think!

    John

    Monday, January 04, 2010 7:31 PM
  • I'm seeing the same issue with Windows 7.  I only see State: Shared if shared with a homegroup.  If I share a folder with everyone, the state does not show up.  :(
    Thursday, January 21, 2010 9:56 PM
  • Guys you can request the Classic Shell developer to fix it by writing an overlay handler shell extension. The more requests he gets, the more are the chances of this getting fixed.
    Anonymuos
    Friday, February 12, 2010 9:37 AM
  • I was annoyed with Vista when it first came out but I agree that it's far and away a better OS for a work environment and frankly a home environment. I had no idea how good Vista was until I tried Win7. It's far more configurable than Win7 since it has the options to make it essentially look and feel like XP.

    In 7 they took out those options leaving only one way for your UI to look and feel. Not only that they took out some things like the search wildcards and replaced them with SQL command line search which seems like one of the largest steps backward in OS history. Vista at least let you do a rational search without having to learn a search language. Something as important and essential as search is basically broken in 7. I tried, really tried to like Win7 but it was just so unfriendly an OS that the disk that came with my computer is all but a coaster.

    XP was a workhorse. Vista is a workhorse you could put lipstick on if you really wanted it. 7 is all lipstick no horse.
    • Edited by glacia Thursday, March 04, 2010 8:36 PM
    Friday, February 12, 2010 6:36 PM
  • Great now some developer is making $20 off this omission: http://www.fortop-digital.com/product/win7-shared-folder-icon/index.htm
    Anonymuos
    Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:45 AM
  • Microsoft will buy him out and use his code to re-add it in a Service Pack as they've forgotten how to do it ;-P
    Thursday, March 04, 2010 7:56 PM
  • I also agree with others here that this shouldn't have been changed. The "hand holding a folder" icon in XP was quite subtle and really not confusing.
    Friday, March 05, 2010 1:40 PM
  • With regard to Microsoft choosing to remove the overlay, I believe Michael Jackson could summarize it the best:  It's ignorant.  Period.

    And I'm not afraid to put my real name behind that statement.
    Thursday, March 11, 2010 6:13 PM
  • I've seen some evidence that the new HomeGroup networking has made the internal functions that provide indications about whether a folder is shared not return the proper values in all cases, which (if Microsoft had left the "hand" overlay on the folder) might have caused quite a bit of confusion.

    I'm fond of thinking the "hand" has been removed in the released code because it was found not to provide accurate data at the last minute during testing, and may reappear in an Update or Service Pack.

    We can only hope.

    -Noel


    P.S., I have also heard that a certain popular free Explorer enhancement program will put that little "hand" overlay on shared folders in an upcoming release.
    Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:31 PM
  • It's not as annoying as losing the ability to select several files with the same ACLs and right-click\props\security change them all in one go but we had to do some work moving our home shares around the other day on 2008 R2 and it was beyond painful trying to work out what was shared or not at a quick glance...

    And speaking of the Security tab, Gods but I hate it now, you have to do so many extra clicks to do what you could before!
    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 12:46 AM
  • I'm fond of thinking the "hand" has been removed in the released code because it was found not to provide accurate data at the last minute during testing, and may reappear in an Update or Service Pack.
    I also suspect this is a bug.

    Note that if you share a folder, the "people" overlay *does* appear over the folder immediately afterwards, but then vanishes when you push F5.

    (Alternatively, if the overlay was intentionally removed then it seems they missed a place.)

    Re all the other complaints about Explorer in Windows 7, I agree, but I also think using Explorer as a file manager is like using MSPaint as an image editor or Notepad as a text editor. Explorer has always sucked and I think it's *good* that it got worse in Vista and even worse in Windows 7 because it encourages people to investigate the alternatives and discover what they've been missing for so long. :-)

    Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:08 AM
  • It was intentionally removed:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2009/12/09/9934348.aspx

    And fixed by Ivo Beltchev in his powerful shell extension, Classic Shell:
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/
    Install the latest version and the overlay icon is back.


    Anonymuos
    Sunday, March 21, 2010 6:40 PM
  • the overlay icon is back

    That is, unless it conflicts with another one, such as say the status overlay icons added by Subversion.

    -Noel

    Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:15 PM
  • There can be a conflict but very unlikely as there's per image list limit of 15.
    Anonymuos
    Tuesday, March 23, 2010 7:32 PM
  • Hello,
    You can get a list of the shared folders by:
    on the start menu, right click computer and choose manage
    This brings up the computer management MMC.
    Choose shared folders and under that choose shares.
    That will give you a list of the shared folders, the share name, the location of folder, the number of connections, and a description of the share.
    Thanks, Darrell Gorter This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights

    That's great, another MS f*ckup. Did you people ever think of taking a step forward instead of going back in time? And no Darrell, we don't mean taking four steps fopr what used to take one.
    Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:43 PM
  • ..we believe that a majority of users’ content will be shared.

    [...]


    I hope this helps your understanding of why this changed in Windows 7.

    Sincerely,

    -Tony Mann


    Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner

     

    Tony 2 things:

    First, I sincerly hope that you guys really don't think that removing a very visual indicator that OTHER PEOPLE CAN GET TO YOUR STUFF is a good idea.

    Second, as others have said, this is a dumb dumb dumb thing to do.  Just put it back already.

     


    Lively Consulting
    Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:29 AM
  • Just to explicitly state what I hinted at before:

    The freeware ClassicShell package by Ivo Beltchev now provides a "sharing" overlay for shared folders.  Yet another case where a great 3rd party development effort has restored greatly coveted Windows functionality that was removed by Microsoft.  And you don't need to install the classic start menu piece to get it to work.

    http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

    Microsoft:  You need to re-evaluate your entire Shell Team management and engineering structure.  They have NOT done good things by dumbing-down Explorer.

    -Noel

    Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:30 PM
  • I have to agree with all the many posters here. Removing this feature was a very dunderheaded move. ESPECIALLY FROM THE SERVER OS. I mean what were you guys thinking? Clearly the person who made that decision has never worked outside of MS or in IT in the real world. That has to be ranked up as one of the dumbest decisions over there since Windows ME.

    PUT IT BACK in BOTH SERVER and CLIENT OS’s. Or at least give us the option to enable it!

     

    I smell a service pack “feature enhancement!”

     

    Wednesday, April 14, 2010 1:14 PM
  • Microsoft, We need the feature back. It is causing a lot of unnecessary pain for administrators!

    Monday, May 03, 2010 7:54 PM
  • Tony,

    I'm sure you've heard this already, but here it is again:  

    Reducing large cognitive loads on users is a good goal to strive for.  But when you MANDATE the reduction of available visual data, then you're really just dumbing down the O/S, effectively removing an "advanced feature" for the sake of those who wish to <George_Carlin_Voice> "reduce their cognitive load".

    Look, if I wanted a Mac, I would be typing on one right now.  I'm not.  There is a reason:  The Windows UI was *founded* upon the idea of MANY ways to do things.  Menus, hotkeys, icons, thumbnails, etc.  Whatever works for you, the end user.  If Microsoft wants to continue to "reduce large cognitive loads" on users and, say, have a "Mac-mode", then by all means, go ahead and have "Mac-mode"!!!  Just leave me my "Windows-Classic(XP)-Mode" alone, ok? 

    I'm speaking somewhat generally here, but it applies to this situation greatly.  In this case, the "hand of sharing" should be there for ANY shared folder, no matter how it's shared.  And, if Microsoft wants to "expand the hand", it could even color-code the hand to indicate different permission groups, etc...   Or, how about putting sharing information into a column or two?   (yes, we know about net share)

    There are a myriad of ways to solve the problem without resorting to alienating those who may take pride in handling large cognitive loads.   Think about this:  Every time you take away a useful "classic" feature, you take away value from your product for someone.  Usually, in the case of a "classic" feature, it would be a long-time customer.  Do you really want to alienate long-time customers who enjoy handling large cognitive loads?

    In short:  Just don't throw away perfectly good functionality for the sake of dumbing the UI down for other people, ok?  Put the stuff into an unchecked checkable feature, classic-mode, whatever, we don't care, we'll find it.  That's how we roll.

    Thanks.

    And P.S., thanks for all the good features.  They're not lost on us.   Can I get a roar for partition-resizing in W2K8?  Outstanding!

    Thursday, May 13, 2010 2:53 AM
  • With such a big title wou should be aware of the needs of the users.

    A "higher cognitive load" is one of those fancy words that does not say anything to sysadmins. Sysadmins tend to be people with higher cognitive cpacities than normal users... that is why they are sysadmins. If we want the details, we know where to find them.

    The little hand icon tells us in a snapshot what is shared and what is not. And this is critical. Put the icon back.

    And at home, shared environments are very simple and we usually do not need complex permissions setups. Just "shared with the kids" or common family music". The little hand icon is enough to tell us if everything is as it should be.

    Friday, May 14, 2010 10:41 AM
  • There are a myriad of ways to solve the problem without resorting to alienating those who may take pride in handling large cognitive loads.   Think about this:  Every time you take away a useful "classic" feature, you take away value from your product for someone.  Usually, in the case of a "classic" feature, it would be a long-time customer.  Do you really want to alienate long-time customers who enjoy handling large cognitive loads?

    That was the best said paragraph I've seen written in a LONG time.  It succinctly states what many of us have been feeling.  Very well put, Clint!

    -Noel

    Saturday, May 15, 2010 12:59 AM
  • And here I was convinced it was just a silly bug that surely would be fixed soon, perhaps in a service pack.

     

    This can't possibly be anything but a tragicomical attempt to cover up the fact that Microsoft must have had a hard time solving this BUG, and finally came to the conclusion that it's simpler to do it the Apple way: remove the feature and pretend it's intentional, trying to convince people that the removal of the feature is really a very nice feature in itself. Denial, denial, denial and a load of bollocks.

     

    Put the bloody icon overlay back already. It's caused me more problems than you can imagine, you dumb f***s.

     

    "A single sharing overlay can’t provide details about how an item is shared"

     

    Yes. BUT THAT IS NOT THE POINT! The overlay is an EXCELLENT way to know what is shared and not. And quit blaming it on "higher cognitive load", you make me laugh and cry at the same time.

     

    Atleast provide a checkbox in the folder settings to display the overlay, and default it to off. This way everybody is happy.


    Sunday, May 16, 2010 1:06 PM
  • Shortly after this forum thread started, the feature team responded with the rationale behind this design change. Since then there has been a large amount of activity on this thread and we’re thankful to everyone who took the time to write thoughtful, constructive responses that explained why the workarounds discussed did not meet their business requirements.

     

    Takeaway items included the fact that the details pane is only useful for viewing sharing status of a single folder at a time, the Share and Storage Management snap-in is not convenient for viewing a hierarchy of shares and that it is important to see the relative location of the share on the folder tree for context (particularly since ACL inheritance is often used to add layers of permissions down the tree).

     

    The multiple downsides to using overlays have been discussed in various locations including this blog post by Raymond Chen.

     

    It is important to set expectations that we cannot promise any future product changes at this point. Having said that, we’d like to start a discussion about whether adding an optional column showing sharing status in explorer would be sufficient to unblock the scenarios that are important to people affected by this change. The column would contain values specifying either ‘shared’ or ‘not shared’ (consistent with the states that the overlay used to convey). As with other Explorer columns, it would support sorting and could optionally by shown or hidden based on user preference.

     

    Again, we want to be clear that we are using multiple data points to research future product considerations including but not limited to feedback from forum threads as well as direct interaction with a cross section of customers (medium generalist IT pro, large enterprise etc.).

     

     

    On a side note, this blog post might be of interest to those who would like to know more about how the Windows team handles customer feedback in the engineering decision making process.

     


    Laura Zhang - MSFT

     

    Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:05 AM
  • In short: putting the overlay back would be an admission of the big mistake we made, so we are trying to put something there that will give you more or less the same information without admitting we made a mistake.

    Thursday, May 20, 2010 3:53 PM
  • Customers,

     

    Shortly after this forum thread started, the feature team responded with the rationale behind this design change. Since then there has been a large amount of activity on this thread and we’re thankful to everyone who took the time to write thoughtful, constructive responses that explained why the workarounds discussed did not meet their business requirements.

     

    Takeaway items included the fact that the details pane is only useful for viewing sharing status of a single folder at a time, the Share and Storage Management snap-in is not convenient for viewing a hierarchy of shares and that it is important to see the relative location of the share on the folder tree for context (particularly since ACL inheritance is often used to add layers of permissions down the tree).

     

    The multiple downsides to using overlays have been discussed in various locations including this blog post by Raymond Chen.

     

    It is important to set expectations that we cannot promise any future product changes at this point. Having said that, we’d like to start a discussion about whether adding an optional column showing sharing status in explorer would be sufficient to unblock the scenarios that are important to people affected by this change. The column would contain values specifying either ‘shared’ or ‘not shared’ (consistent with the states that the overlay used to convey). As with other Explorer columns, it would support sorting and could optionally by shown or hidden based on user preference.

     

    Again, we want to be clear that we are using multiple data points to research future product considerations including but not limited to feedback from forum threads as well as direct interaction with a cross section of customers (medium generalist IT pro, large enterprise etc.).

     

     

    On a side note, this blog post might be of interest to those who would liek to know more about how the Windows team handles csutomer feedback in the eningeering decision making process.

     


    Laura Zhang - MSFT

     


    Hey, has anyone seen the share folder icon lately? :>
    Thursday, May 20, 2010 4:34 PM
  • Dear Mr. Microsoft.

    I'm one of those very senior IT professionals that run the IT structure for very large hi-tech companies.  I have a message from my me and my staff. We have two printable words for the change as regards to share folder icons;  UNBELIEVABLY DUMB.   I couldn't believe the response about " cognitive loads" as the reason.  We just rolled our eyes. Want to reduce such a load?  Fire the twit who put this design change into this operating system, and the Piled Higher and Deeper (PhD) who ok'd the changes to the network interface while you're at it.  And there's more but it's just too much of a congnitive load for me to detail. 

    Yeesh, give us a break...please.  Do you think we're all that stupid?

    And the previous post on columns - YES - and make it the DEFAULT setting.  

    DJ

     

     

    Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:05 AM
  • "Fire the twit who put this design change into this operating system, and the Piled Higher and Deeper (PhD) who ok'd the changes to the network interface while you're at it."


    Sunday, May 23, 2010 12:13 AM
  • I can understand why you may want this on the client OS but how about giving the End user the option of deciding whether or not to have shared folder icons displayed instead of removing the option completely. Or maybe an option to display only user created shares? But on the otherhand removing this freature entirely from the server OS is just asinine.
    Wednesday, May 26, 2010 7:57 PM
  • In short:  Just don't throw away perfectly good functionality for the sake of dumbing the UI down for other people, ok? 


    Included here, although somewhat off-topic, would be:

    1) The well-known and intuitive menu interface in MS-Office (the ribbon is not intuitive at all, and is causing everyone to re-learn what they already knew ... for absolutely no purpose.  There is NO advantage to the ribbon, and it takes up too much vertical screen real-estate)

    2) Multi-processing in Windows Phone.  I've been an avid user of WinMobile devices, and will never sink low enough to buy an iPhone.  But from what I am seeing, I will never own a new MS phone, either, as the first rendition gives the entire show to iPhone.  MS has thumbed their noses at corportate users, and is trying to entice an entirely different audience (music, facebook, myspace, youtube, and other entertainment lovers instead of their corporate following).  It's a sad day for me, but Andriod looks to be picking up where MS left off, so THAT's good.

    MS seems to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater ... losing features and followers as they run down the hill to catch Apple.  If only MS advertised their PDA's like Apple did, then folks would have known how many of the things iPhone can do were implemented years ago by MS.

    Sorry for the rant,

    -pvs


    Window 7 Home Premium Retail - 64-bit version --- Dual Booting With --- Windows XP Professional - 32-bit version =========================================================== PC: Custom-built, SuperMicro MB - Dual Nocona Processors - 800 MHz FSB - 6GB DDR2 RAM - Approximately 5TB of internal storage on six assorted (Seagate and WD) drives using 3ware RAID Solution - ATI FireGL 7100 Video Card
    Thursday, May 27, 2010 5:19 PM
  • And the previous post on columns - YES - and make it the DEFAULT setting.  

    DJ

    Personally, I dont think adding a 'shared' column into explorer would address the main problem of not being able to view shares in a hierarchical context. I dont think it would really be any improvement on the current method of displaying share information in the details pane.

    The reason I say that is becaue; if we have a column in explorer, the column would only be visible in the main explorer pane. Not the navigation pane. It would therefore only display share information for the list of folders in the currently selected level of the folder hierarchy.

    In my opinion, the only way to fix this is to put the overlay back like it was and just make it user selectable. I dont understand what the difficulty is there. It would of course mean microsoft have to turn tail and admit they were wrong to take this out. I would imagine that would be the biggest obstacle here. Its a P.R. problem, not a technical one.

    Apologies for the 'pseudo' cross-post from the Server 2008 R2 forum thread on the same subject.

    Many thanks

    Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:58 AM
  • The part that is absolutely amazing is the misguided belief by Microsoft that IT administrators, who are responsible for the management of scalable, manageable, and structured file services, are the same exact audience as a family using a few computers at home to share movies and pictures with each other.

    In other words (this question is directed at Microsoft): When it comes to computer management, share management, and file management, and general use of Explorer, why are the same UI design decisions being applied to both a home user operating system and an enterprise server system designed for business critical file management as if they were the same product targeting the same end-user?

    Do you honestly believe that "HomeGroup" and "Libraries" are the ways that business IT departments should be managing file sharing setups? I don't necessarily have a problem with you making it easier for home users to share their pictures, music, and movies between the different home computers and a Windows Home Server by implementing things like HomeGroup and Libraries and even by changing up the way sharing is managed and indicated to the home user.

    I can't for the life of me, however, understand why you would apply the same design considerations into an enterprise server operating system. It is absurd that you could have two separate products, designed for entirely different purposes, contexts, and environments, yet act like the same UI design, system manageability, and target audience apply to both products.

    Lemonade stands handle this better.

     

    Saturday, June 19, 2010 7:10 PM
  • The part that is absolutely amazing is the misguided belief by Microsoft that IT administrators, who are responsible for the management of scalable, manageable, and structured file services, are the same exact audience as a family using a few computers at home to share movies and pictures with each other.

    In other words (this question is directed at Microsoft): When it comes to computer management, share management, and file management, and general use of Explorer, why are the same UI design decisions being applied to both a home user operating system and an enterprise server system designed for business critical file management as if they were the same product targeting the same end-user?

    Do you honestly believe that "HomeGroup" and "Libraries" are the ways that business IT departments should be managing file sharing setups? I don't necessarily have a problem with you making it easier for home users to share their pictures, music, and movies between the different home computers and a Windows Home Server by implementing things like HomeGroup and Libraries and even by changing up the way sharing is managed and indicated to the home user.

    I can't for the life of me, however, understand why you would apply the same design considerations into an enterprise server operating system. It is absurd that you could have two separate products, designed for entirely different purposes, contexts, and environments, yet act like the same UI design, system manageability, and target audience apply to both products.

    Lemonade stands handle this better.

     


    couldnt agree more

     

    Wednesday, June 23, 2010 10:33 PM
  • Personally, I dont think adding a 'shared' column into explorer would address the main problem of not being able to view shares in a hierarchical context. I dont think it would really be any improvement on the current method of displaying share information in the details pane.

    Agreed: Adding this column would do nothing because 7 would decide that the folder contained videos or something and remove the column anyway! :-D


    If you buy three cars and the same wheel falls off all three, do you contact the person who sold you the cars or the person who made them?
    Tuesday, July 27, 2010 4:23 AM
  • Microsoft bring back the share icon overlay, or at least give us IT System Administrators the option to choose!

    Have also posted suggestion at https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsServerFeedback/feedback/details/591126/missing-share-icon-in-2008-r2

    What use it will do who knows but you can vote and someone at MS will deal with if it hits the threshold.

    Thanks

    Monday, August 30, 2010 4:22 PM
  • Please note that the following hotfix is now available for download (also included in SP1) that may help mitigate this scenario for some users:

    The shared type icons do not appear when you use Windows Explorer to view the sharing status of some shared folders in Windows 7 or in Windows Server 2008 R2

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2291175

     

    We’re aware that the columns by themselves are a stop-gap measure that won’t completely address the issue for all of our users, but we expect that the change should provide some relief for a number of users based on the feedback received.

     


    Laura Zhang - MSFT

     

    Monday, September 13, 2010 1:06 AM
  • Thanks, Laura, this column would probably restore some faith for most of us except I just installed the hotfix as a test, rebooted, turned the column on and it's saying that several folders are shared when in fact they aren't...

    ...the problem appears to be if the parent folder or drive is shared, certain sub-folders randomly appear as shared=yes and also, some files do too!

    Monday, September 13, 2010 1:52 AM
  • can you please hotfix ALL the functionality that was REMOVED from win7 back in?  Classic mode start menu, folders remember where they were opened, different sort types and icon sorting for each separate folder, you know... those things that made life easy with XP?
    • Proposed as answer by Brian Borg Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:10 PM
    Monday, September 13, 2010 11:17 PM
  • "folders remember where they were opened" - I dream of those old days. I am sure that Windows 7 has been deliberately written to wind people up by always forgetting these settings.
    Tuesday, September 14, 2010 8:30 PM
  • will test the hotfix however will also post what I posted on the feedback page at https://connect.microsoft.com/WindowsServerFeedback/feedback/details/591126/missing-share-icon-in-2008-r2#tabs

    Shoked to find that sub folders under shared folder are also shown as Shared in details pane. Yes the sub folders are in a shared folder but they are not shared.

    Now the only method I have to determine the truth is to go back to DOS and use the NET SHARE command or use Server Manager which isn't exactly quick at loading and involves numerous clicks + wait times whilst it works out what to display.

    Microsoft we are going backwards not forwards.

     

    Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:47 PM
  • KB2291175 does not fix the shared folder icon, but instead provides new column options to show if the folder is shared. Ok, somewhat useful I guess, but still LAME!

    Stop screwing around and just bring back the fricking icon.

    Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:06 PM
  • FYI, this is why there is slow progression for end users or businesses to want to start using windows 7 when they are so used to the "classic" features and appearance that have been available since the 90's. I've spent 15 years working with the the classic interface and now you go and force me to start all over again. I work in IT and I have seen some stupid mistakes made (yup, add the Office ribbon to this catagory) and the removal of the entire classic interface is a complete failure. All your doing is creating headaches for everyone and revenue for 3rd party vendors to fix what should be there by default.
    Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:18 PM
  • Additionally, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2291175 only affects the detailed view explorer option. The original icon would be visible in any of the view options.

    FAIL

    Tuesday, September 28, 2010 8:31 PM
  • Additionally, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2291175 only affects the detailed view explorer option. The original icon would be visible in any of the view options.

    FAIL


    agreed

    this 'hotfix' just changes the problem Arguably it makes things more confusing!. It doesn mitigate it or fix the problem it in any way shape or form.

    MS: this is total ineptitude! Its beyond dumb.

    FAIL

    Tuesday, September 28, 2010 10:12 PM
  • I don't like it that in all of Microsoft's wisdom, they decided to remove tihs feature from Windows 7.  I do tech support and I need to quickly tell which folders are being shared out.  I can't be clicking on every single folder until I find one that says SHARED.  Every single time I need to see what's being shared out quickly, I also can't be trying to find the new window that Microsoft has moved to a different spot, which used to show which folders are being shared and what share name it has.

    This is yet one of the dumb changes that didn't need to be done, yet is done just to ____ off people.

    Monday, October 11, 2010 1:48 AM
  • Thanks for the insight into your design rationale. It's helpful to see how these decisions are made.
    I just can't stop shaking my head. How do you rationalise it with a decision that makes things more difficult? It isn't even that cluttered yet they add other clutter anyway!?!?
    Thursday, November 18, 2010 3:54 AM
  •  How do you rationalise it with a decision that makes things more difficult?

     

    All together now (in decreasing order of importance to MS)

    1 - Because they don't care that their OS is inferior: you just bought it, didn't you?

    2 - Because they don't have to fix their OS: you'll buy the next one, won't you?

    3 - Because they don't know it's more difficult: they've never asked anyone, have they?

    4 - Because they will never know it's more difficult: they will never ask a customer.

     

    So in short, they aren't rationalising anything because they don't know there's a problem and couldn't care less if they did know. The good news is, they are going to fall on their arses trying to create a mobile OS that can compete with e.g. competent developers who are in touch with their customers.


    Working in C++ reminds me that some things are almost as illogical as Microsoft
    Wednesday, January 05, 2011 4:13 AM
  • Yes they will lose money for this and other flaws and I could care less, only thing is when some business have no choice but to use Microsoft.

    Wednesday, January 05, 2011 7:14 AM
  • So, what you're saying, Anthony, is that in a directory that contains 100 other directories, I must highlight all 100 directories, individually, to determine which are shared? That's one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard (especially when the desired behavior existed in previous versions of Windows). The only other option of which I'm aware is to use the Computer Management snap-in, but that's a privileged application. What are regular Users to do? Ridiculous.
    Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:21 AM
  • This is Feb 22nd, 2011, one year and a half later and I still see this as an issue and hasn't been fixed.

    So my simple question still is, what kind of drugs are you folks at Microsoft on?

    ---

    The only proper answer so far is what Gordon said:

    1. Open the Customize tab in the folder's Properties

    2. Click change icon,

    3. Then browse to C:\Windows\System32\ 

    4. Select filemgmt.dll

    5. The shared folder icon is the 2nd icon showing.

     

     

    Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:45 PM
  • Another valid question is what reasoning did manager(s) at Microsoft decide that Enterprise versions of Windows need to look and feel like the dumbed down home user versions and not have the option for a classic version everyone has been using for the past 13 years?

    Or which marketing guru at Microsoft decided that Windows 7 Professional, being sold on many laptops all over the place, do NOT come with bitlocker?

    Many Mom and Pop businesses cannot afford Enterprise licenses nor qualify per se.

    What was the reason for bitlocker again? 

     

    A serious drug rehab program is needed at Microsoft me thinks.

    Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:51 PM

  • I share the same frustration as an admin of a large company. But I've managed to calm myself down after hours and sometimes days of research of trying to resolve what Microsoft loves to undo good things and put new purty little bows on failures and call them "new features".

    So, this time while attempting to manage a complex folder sharing matrix I managed to find a util that will give us back what we admins needed in our daily toolbag so we can perform our daily job properly and efficiently without adding to our "cognitive oveload" ;-P

    Guys, give try this:

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/classicshell/files/Version%203.0.0%20general%20release/ClassicShellSetup_3_0_0.exe/download

    I've not tried on 2008 R2 but please let me know it does.

    Remember, imagine yourself like a river and "flow" around the "rock" - life's too short. Let's share our solutions and leave those headaches behind.

    Pay it Forward,

    ;-)

    Saturday, March 19, 2011 11:11 PM
  • This reply (from Tony Mann) comes over as self-serving marketspeak. Come on, Microsoft, LISTEN TO YOUR CUSTOMERS! Your assumptions about the impact of removing the visual cue on shared folders was totally wrong. If you think it has (had?) relevance in the "home" environment, change that only - you have diffrent editions, after all. Man up, admit you were wrong, and fix it.

     

     

    Friday, April 08, 2011 3:58 AM
  • Its true, giving priority to statistical feedback, Microsoft is now blindly trying to follow Apple in over-userfriendliness. In fact removing the "hand under folder" icon is an increased cognitive load on the user because when he needs to see which folders are shared, he cannot readily see them. If he wants to share a folder temporarily, he has to put an alarm in his clock to remind him to unshare it. But Microsoft decided to sport a padlock icon for folders which are shared with nobody! Irony? In the near future, get ready to see msconfig.exe, regedit.exe, ipconfig.exe and the command prompt to be removed too! Because according to stats, very few people use them, and they increase the cognitive load on users.
    Saturday, May 07, 2011 10:36 AM
  • "Cognitive overload"? What a steaming pile of BS. "Cognitive overload" is having padlock icons randomly on some unshared floders.

    I've been following this thread for almost 2 years and been using Classic Shell to have the shared overlay icon on Explorer, but felt compelled to voice my opinion.

    Thursday, May 12, 2011 3:28 PM
  • I know this doesn't solve the icon problem, but in this case you could open a command prompt and type 'net share' it will tell you exactly what folders/drives are shared on the machine.
    Friday, May 13, 2011 8:23 AM
  • Erm, can we mark this answer as Off Topic/Irrelevant post?

    This feature is pretty much required in an Enterprise environment and that answer, I'm afraid, is totally unacceptable.

    Ok, so I can maybe understand removing this function in Windows 7 Home editions, but to leave it out in both Win7 Enterprise and Win Server 2008 R2 is insane.

    I await a proper response from MS on this.

    Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:42 PM
  • The share icon is a very POWERFUL, QUICK & EASY to use feature.
    It shows the IMPORTANT share status in the right CONTEXT.

    Now we have to jump through hoops or go on an insane, frustrating click frenzy...

    It's unbelievable this important feature was removed.
    I'm amazed really.

    Please, please, please bring it back.
    Or something with equal functionality.
    Both to the folder tree & list.


    (And fix the backspace behavior while you're at it)



    • Edited by Bananskal Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:41 PM Rephrase again.
    Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:22 PM
  • BUMP.

    It has been ANOTHER two weeks. Any other software developer would at least have lied about a deadline by now.


    Working in C++ reminds me that some things are almost as illogical as Microsoft
    Wednesday, June 15, 2011 6:17 AM
  • Im waiting too
    Friday, June 17, 2011 11:11 AM
  • As stated in several posts above, consider installing ClassicShell's ClassicExplorer component.

    Voila, you have shared folder overlays.

    -Noel

    Saturday, June 18, 2011 12:33 AM
  • I can't believe this. it SO F'IN STUPID.

     

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:17 AM
  • GIVE US THE ICON BACK OR AT LEAST MAKE UP A BETTER EXCUSE!
    Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:19 AM
  • WOW it gets even stupider. No icon when shared BUT you get a stupid lock icon if you select share with nobody.  Then the lock icon is a major pain to remove!

     

    Was sharing a personal folder for the last YEAR, didn't know since the icon didn't show it as shared.  Selected share with nobody and got a lock icon, had to go into properties,security then delete and add items until matches a normal folder. 

     

    SOLUTION, new step whenever sharing a folder, you always select your sharing, then properties,customize, CHANGE ICON MANUALLY.

     

    Only person with a cognitive load was the moron that made these decisions. W.T.F.

    Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:59 PM
  • I find it ironic that if you share a folder with NFS, it does show a different icon.

    This is with the NFS that is a part of the Subsystem for Unix Applications (SUA) that can be installed as a Feature in Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2.

    Monday, August 08, 2011 8:52 PM
  • Microsoft won't listen to us. They never do. They just wonder around in their dreamy little fairy world completely oblivious to the pain and anguish they cause us all. I've worked in IT for almost 25 years. They have always been like this. They always will.
    Monday, August 08, 2011 9:00 PM
  • Just want to add my voice to the list of those who think this was a very poor decision, and complicates workflows unneccessarily.

     

    A long list of people over the last 2 years.

     

    Hello? Workaround, please!

     

    I understand the performance reasons for disabling things like last accessed date updating, etc. but this was going too far.

    Friday, August 19, 2011 3:12 PM
  • Hello? Workaround, please!

    Already given, in this very thread. ClassicShell's ClassicExplorer component.

    -Noel

    Saturday, August 20, 2011 12:37 AM
  •  

    Personally, I find that my cognitive load is being excessively burdened by the fact that what I expect to be there based on 20 or so years of experience, is now not there.  I find that my mouse clicking finger load is also being excessively burdened by the fact that I now need to either click on each folder and check this details pane or go digging around in Administrative Controls.  It makes my cognitive load very unhappy when I have to resort to digging around on google and scanning through pages and pages of angry posts from fellow users in order to find a solution to a problem that MS created for it's massive customer base.

    I have to say, with each new version on Microsoft Software, I see changes that are "intended" to make using the software easier, faster, etc.  However the result in my situations is that it's always more confusing, frustrating, and time consuming to deal with.  Take for example MS Words obsession with changing what I just typed to what IT thinks I meant to type.  Or taking a nice streamlines menu system and dividing it into several tabs each having big giant pictures to represent words.

    I understand the need to evolve and develop the interfaces of MS software to make it accessible to people.  But consider making drastic changes OPTIONAL rather than default, or even worse...the only option.  I love options!  I also usually enjoy seeing how software progresses and improves from version to version.  Sadly Microsoft is very very bad at making these decisions, and only seems to make things more and more rtarded with each release.

    I've been an XP user until recently, and I completely avoided the whole Vista fiasco.  Now I'm using Windows 7 and it's UI is frankly disappointing in many ways.  Having read reviews and watched videos about Windows 8...I can tell you that windows 7 may well be the last Windows I ever buy.  Metro....LUL!  No one wants their desktop PC to work like a dumb little smartphone...that's some backwards thinking.  Wasn't the goal to make phones work more like a PC?

    My suggestion is this:  When you make a noticeable change to an existing product, consider making that change an option to be enabled rather than a problem to be worked around.  If you want to make Windows for Chimpanzees, then go for it...but consider your existing user base and what they want.
    Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:38 PM
  • I agree with you, but it seems kind of too late...

    Don't look now but Windows 8 is going in a "bold, reimagined" direction, and the implications of what we're seeing in the developer preview build are disturbing to say the least.  Microsoft may figure the existing user base will just stick with Windows 7 like they did with XP while they go out and try to redefine what an "operating system" is.  Meanwhile they'll sell half a billion more copies of Windows 7 to XP users.

    Oh, and on the Windows 8 Aero Desktop there are still no sharing icon overlays in Windows Explorer.

    -Noel

    Thursday, September 22, 2011 9:46 PM
  • We could but hope for the sharing icon in Windows 8/Server edition would make a return. Come on Microsoft help us Enterprise Administrators out?
    Friday, September 23, 2011 6:10 AM
  • Time to kick MS and embrace linux i guess
    Saturday, December 10, 2011 2:23 AM
  • I found this thread while searching for a solution to this issue.  I knew about the columns in explorer, but not that the list of shares is in the MMC (although I do use it for other things) so this was useful to find. While it is certainly not ideal, I find that a combination of the explorer columns and the MMC just about works for me. But most users aren't going to know about the MMC.

    Some context from a user's perspective: I don't use Homegroup; I don't trust it. I don't want everything to be shared by default, and not all my computers are Windows 7 (2 are on Win7, 1 is XP and one is a Mac). So I store all my documents on a secure wireless NAS.  I use the old Workgroup to link the machines rather than Homegroup. In some cases though I do need to share PC folders on the network; I try to keep these to a minimum as and when the need arises just in case of the unlikely event that someone does get into my network. When the requirement is over, I unshare. So I do want to see a list of all shared folders so I can keep track, and ok the MMC does this but they should make this a lot easier - why on earth isn't there a function in the "Network and Sharing Centre"? You'd think there would be for goodness sake, wasn't there a list of shares in the old "Network Places"? Or, if they really can't do share icons on folders, there should be a "Shared Folders" section (list) in the explorer navigator - there's Libraries, Homegroup, Network etc. so why not Shared Folders? It just doesn't make sense and unreasonable to expect normal users to find the MMC.

    (O/T but the padlock icon seems obvious - it's for Private folders which cannot be accessed by all User Accounts on the machine?)

    So that's my view as a home user. These changes made my MS seem to make it harder to manage a home or small business network, not easier. And although unlike many on this thread I'm not an IT pro, I consider myself a power user, having used Windows since the first version and DOS before that (oh the days of config.sys and autoexec.bat!) and I program in VBA when the need arises. My point being, it's hard enough to keep tabs on security with 4 computers, a wireless NAS and kids 'testing' the system without MS making it still harder by (in their minds) making it easier.

    And why on earth did they get rid of "net send"...

    Friday, January 20, 2012 12:27 AM
  • The Shared Folder Icon is such an important and useful information which at a Glance we know which folders are shared and not shared. This is so important for security and privacy reasons. The Win 7 method of checking whether shared or not shared is confusing, hard, and it took hours to figure out. Lots of features in XP which are very good are not present in Win 7. Good features should be retained, not thrown away.

    Is there a way to get the Shared Icon back automatically?


    Saturday, February 18, 2012 4:25 PM
  • One way is to Install ClassicShell's ClassicExplorer component.

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my new eBook: Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options

    • Proposed as answer by Brian Borg Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:07 PM
    Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:50 PM
  • Hi, I also feel that icon overlay for shared folders is very useful.

    An alternative is, to add in an extra column named "Shared". It will show "Yes" (shared) or "No" (not shared). Just right click on the column header, choose "More...", then scroll down the list to find "Shared", tick it & press OK.

    Sad to know win8 still did not include it. Hope Microsoft can consider it & add it back to win7 by release a windows update.

    Monday, March 05, 2012 2:30 AM
  • I just ran into this issue when i attempted to share a folder on windows 7; at first i was wondering if the folder was shared or not as the icon did not change; but i could see the folder on the network on another computer; i then thought this must be sometype of glitch... maybe i need to reboot to correct.

    I then did a internet search and found this thread.  MS removing the file share icon is a move in the wrong direction and makes things more confusing.  As far as cognitive overload, i have more cognitive overload trying to resolve the issue of the missing file sharing icon than if MS would of just left this feature alone.   And as far as family or home networks, this makes things worse and more confusing for those that share files across a home network.  I share numerous directories across my home network and i like to know which files/directories are being shared.   A 12 year old could of figured out before which folders were shared or not shared with the file sharing icon; but not any more; now due to MS thinking that the file sharing icon causes cognitive overload.... a 12 year old would be hard pressed to determin which files are shared or not shared.... its gotten very confusing....( im also confused in general with the homesharing option as im unclear exactly what is being shared (thats another issue though; and one i have to read up on more as im new to windows 7).

    Anyway, bring back the file sharing icon as it makes life easier  .... whether your running a small or large network.  


    • Edited by hello77 Sunday, August 05, 2012 6:42 PM
    Sunday, August 05, 2012 6:41 PM
  • It is but a tiny, tiny move in the wrong direction that they have now steered their entire corporation into.

    Do yourself a favor and install ClassicShell.  It can be instructed to add that particular icon back.

     

      

    -Noel


    Detailed how-to in my eBooks:  

    Configure The Windows 7 "To Work" Options
    Configure The Windows 8 "To Work" Options

    • Proposed as answer by GeraldCough Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:18 AM
    Monday, August 06, 2012 5:42 PM
  • i can understand a lot of things, i can also agree with many things but for gods sake: how is it possible to complicate things to the point of turning something ok into garbage. it looks like developers @ MS are retarded.

    see for yourself. in any folder you want, choose one and share it. then choose from collumns "more..." and check "shared" and "shared status"

    the result is amasing:

    shared = yes

    shared status = shared

    WHAT???

    is shared status is not shared than shared can still be yes?

    or if shared is not than shared status can be shared?

    and of course all of these are in the price of the OS. developers must be paid so you guys are the sponsors for these...

    iddiots... 

    Friday, August 31, 2012 11:51 AM
  • Good call, Noel! I just installed ClassicShell and will report back with my findings. Thanks for pointing-out this very useful utility.
    Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:20 AM
  • Let me add one thing..

    This is part of the long process that wants all users stupid andmore stupid.

    Giving to the users as less info as possible, makes easier to lose their data..

    When one of my technicians intervene onsite, very often the user do not know where his/her data are.. when we have to replace their workstation it's a nightmare

    Monday, October 28, 2013 3:41 PM
  • Lovely!

    Sunday, November 03, 2013 10:25 AM
  • I very much want the icons for my shared folders to indicate the shared property.

    I'd suggest two different icons, one for read-only, the other for write.

    The icon would represent the "greatest" privilege granted, so it would be a "write" icon, if ANYONE has write permission (other than someone who always does, such as the owner).

    This information overload regarding shared folders is absolute poppycock, as far as I'm concerned.

    I find the absence of such information on the icon to be VERY annoying.

    Sure, I can determine which folders are shared by reading the details pane.

    IF I CLICK ON EACH AND EVERY FOLDER AND READ THE PANE FOR EACH ONE.

    That's a joke.

    The decision to not provide this information iconically was ludicrous (and that's being kind).

    Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:02 PM