It's set up to default to the public folders so you can access the skins from any profile on a PC. A lot of folk only have one PC and have multiple user profiles for everyone in their household. If the skins are in one shared location you don't have to waste drive space by having individual installs under each profile.

Makes sense. However I don't think Microsoft is forcing people to use the public folders.

Why not during install ask the question for this user or all users/ I know some programs already ask this question.

Oh, to have such a simplistic and uncomplicated take on things!   However, that's where we're different!  I refuse to accept mediocrity [the default Win UI] and therefore dress my desktop to suit my personal preferences.

As for moving my skins, don't you think I would if I could?  As Doc rightly stated, if the skins are moved then the apps do not function... period.

Again, wrong!  MS wishes its partners and other developers to default to the Public folders.. and what MS wants it gets, it's as simple as that.  So, kona, if you ever decide to install a 3rd party app which is required by MS to install its program extras to the public folders, and you have deleted them, then you're going to have all sorts of fun and games and would likely be on here seeking advice as to what went wrong.   They're there for a reason, whether or not we agree with it, and to delete them [they're actually system folders] would be foolhardy

Sadly, no, not in Vista or Win 7.  It was with the advent of Vista that things changed, and MS required developers and users alike to utilise the public folders... so ALL users could access files, etc.... though making it the default on a single user PC makes no sense at all, particularly with smaller capacity SSD's emerging as the preferred OS drive for many users.

Now this is a suggestion that actually makes sense... because it gives 'single' users the option to install to locations other than the default 'shared' location. However, I think the preferable method would be for MS to give users the option of single OR multiple users during the Windows installation, so that if I tick the single user option I have NO public folders and I can install items of my choosing to locations of my choosing.

There is NO public on my PC to share with, so I resent the fact that MS deemed it appropriate to even place public folders on my single user PC by default... and to make them the default repository for a range of files that I share with absolutely no-one is downright rude, if not dictatorial.  So yeah, I want MS to start listening to me as a user, everyone else who despises it,  and remedy this horrible public folder by default situation to suit US

Starkers - I have loads of 3rd party software. Only one ever installed something to the public folders and that one was trial ware that came with the PC. And if I delete the public folders they are simple to re-create.

Besides my point was that Microsoft isn't forcing anything upon you. You don't have to use Windows, or a version that has public folders.

Like I said before, how nice to have such an uncomplicated life and simplistic view of things.  Obviously you don't have libraries of things that Microsoft deems you should share with everybody, so yes, your public folders are/would be empty.  Again, kona, my skin files ARE placed in Public Documents because Microsoft REQUIRES 3rd party developers, such as Stardock and WinStep to default them there.  So, if I want to skin my UI because the default UI is butt ugly, Microsoft is in fact forcing me to install and maintain public folders I would rather NOT have.

Okay, here's another, slightly different but still related, one.  If I want to stream music or videos to other devices in my home, I have to place them in the corresponding public folders, otherwise my devices cannot access them. I prefer, due to the limitation of size on my SSD, to store my music and video files on another physical drive, but when I do so my devices upstairs do not see them.  In other words, they MUST be placed IN the public folders for me to stream them to MY media players elsewhere.  Now that, kona, no ifs buts or maybes, is me being forced by MS to store shit in public folders that I would rather not have, period.

No they are not. You can choose to install Linux or use a Mac. No one is forcing you to use Windows. You choose to do so. By choosing to do so you also choose to do things their way by default. As for the public folders, I think that's more of a programmer's choice that something Microsoft is doing. I'm pretty sure the developers of windowblinds could change the program to install skins in a different location. After all, XP didn't use public folders and windowblinds worked just fine.

As for your other issue, I have no problems streaming music from a plugged in external source. No need to use public folders.

Perhaps, but to choose Linux would restrict or eliminate many of my current options.... and a Mac at this time is not within my budget.  So while there may be other OS options, Windows is still the OS of choice because it is more widely developed for and therefore more likely to cater to my needs/wants.  Still, that does not mean I have to like changes MS has made to Windows since XP...  one being the installation of public folders that actually detract from my user experience because choices inconvenient to me have been made for me.

Yes, Win 7 is a big improvement on XP in many respects, but the advancements in OS technology should be about choice and empowering the user, not removing choice and hindering his/her user experience.  I also agree that 3rd party devs should give MS the finger and allow users to install their libraries to locations of their own choosing, but I don't know of too many developers who would take such a bold step when MS has the power and clout to make or break them.

Okay, so did you misunderstand what I said.... or did you deliberately put that bass ackwards so as to continue arguing?

Orright, I'll put it another way!  Okay, so I have my main computer downstairs, and on that computer I have a 2tb internal HDD named F: Media Files... and on that drive I store my music, home videos, etc, etc.  Following me so far?  Right!  So, upstairs I have an Emachines netbook which is networked to my main PC downstairs.  Okay?  Now if I wish to view a video that's stored on my downstairs PC, I must first place that video in Public Videos folder on the main computer... why? because the netbook upstairs only has access to the public folders and cannot see F: Media Files.

I also have a network enabled Beyonwiz PVR and a LG BluRay player with a network enabled media player that can play files from my PC, but guess what?  Neither can see F: Media Files.  They can, however, see the public folders, and that's where I have to move files if I wish to view them on other devices.  And no, placing a shortcut to access the media drive from the public folder does not work

As for viewing/playing files from an external plugged in source, well yeah, I can do that too.... I just network it to my main PC and bang, everything on that device is shown in an opened folder. 

So kona, whatever your understanding of things may be, or what is a given situation for you, it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone else, okay?

they could but MS change it back in XP's time to not have WB skins in the C:\Program Files\Stardock\Windowblinds(\themes or Skins) don't remember where on XP they went now cause I don't have XP installed ... but in a way you could say it was a Public folder just not named Public  think it might be All Users

which is odd beings I don't have to have my Dreams use the default folder I can tell it what folder I want it use

and I use my Slave Master (F:\)  (F:\ObjectDeskTop\DeskScapes) Just like Windows Media Player I tell it to look here at my Slave Master (F:\)  (F:\Music)

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/leading-pc-makers-confirm-no-windows-8-plot-to-lock-out-linux/4185

Snips -

In an e-mail exchange and a follow-up phone conversation, a Dell spokesperson told me, “Dell has plans to make SecureBoot an enable/disable option in BIOS setup.” (That’s exactly what the FSF is demanding.) Dell plans to move to the UEFI version that includes Secure Boot in the Windows 8 timeframe, although the spokesperson told me it’s far too soon to provide any further details about the company’s plans for Windows 8 PCs.

I also contacted HP’s PC division, where a spokesperson had to scramble to find anyone within the organization who was even familiar with the issue. Although engineers are busy working on Windows 8 plans, product managers and senior executives are still focused on building and selling the tens of millions of PCs that will be sold with Windows 7 in the next year.

The spokesperson confirmed for me that HP has no plans to participate in any conspiracy against a non-Windows OS: “HP will continue to offer its customers a choice of operating systems. We are working with industry partners to evaluate the options that will best serve our customers.”

Those comments are on top of a statement from a spokesperson for leading BIOS maker AMI, who told me last month that ”AMI will advise OEMs to provide a default configuration that allows users to enable / disable secure boot, but it remains the choice of the OEM to do (or not do) so.”

Speaks for itself really - my favorite bit next

No, the real goal of the campaign against Secure Boot is to whip up antipathy toward Microsoft and its hardware partners. And it’s already working.

Dell:

Interesting. It doesn't say what will happen if you enable secure boot - because then it will boot 8 only (and have MS Cert).

"the spokesperson told me it’s far too soon to provide any further details about the company’s plans for Windows 8 PCs." means what? It's not saying you'll have a choice, though.

HP:

“HP will continue to offer its customers a choice of operating systems. We are working with industry partners to evaluate the options that will best serve our customers.”

Which means what? That spin is like wet cardboard, savyg. There's nothing that says, "You will be able to choose what you want, and we will explain your options and what they mean clearly." Again, if you choose W8, will you be able to have a dual boot? I think not, unless they allow a "non secure boot", and when they phrase it that way, who'll understand what they're talking about and opt for it? Need I remind anyone what the knee jerk response (especially in America) to that type of question will be?

AMI:

 ”AMI will advise OEMs to provide a default configuration that allows users to enable / disable secure boot, but it remains the choice of the OEM to do (or not do) so.”

Which means? Exactly back to the beginning. This will be in the hands of the OEM's... as I said.

Not my goal. Mine is to inform people and to make a plea for an open choice. If it turns out as you think it will, fine! Great! I find little reassuring in those quotes... they are extremely non-committal. 

So alternative OS users are too dumb to know how to turn secure boot off eh?

Seriously don't see the problem there.

As far as HP, standard PRspeak.  I doubt they've really given the issue much consideration...it's not worth worrying about when there isn't even a beta to build and test machines against.

You're right, I do think it'll work itself out.  Either way there's really nothing to be done but wait and see.  IMO people are getting worked up over nothing.

Not talking about them. Talking about the folks who don't know other possibilities even exist.

That's your take, and your right to believe or not, as you see fit. I'm less trusting.

I'm not favoring passivity in this. I believe the computer customers should make themselves heard.

you know, i'm rather mystified why for casual users, it has to disable secure boot, as opposed to making it also work with certain brands of linux, or making linux work with it.

Yes you can but they will copy themself into the default directory when you run one. Then you have one in your default directory and one in your chosen directory.