Say you are not Apple or Microsoft.
You have your own hardware/software company.
Microbananasoft (MBS).

This company uses its own hardware and its own software.
It doesn't need hardware and software from third parties.
MBS manufactures all the computers including all components.
It also writes all the software programs.
(Like many linux based software, the code for all sotware is open source for editing and sharing.)

While MBS makes the main software, for its computers, anybody can make any software for these computers.


The question is about folders.
I figure that a hard drive would have 3 folders.
1. OS files.
2. Program files.
3. Executable shortcuts.




So here is what happens when you install your applications.
1. All of the OS files will go into the OS folder.
2. Each application will have a single folder go into the PrograFiles folder.
3. Executable shortcuts will go into the Shortcuts folder.
4. Certain applications that have to run in the background. Therefore, OS files in the OS folder would need to be changed.
There will be a warning message when installing the application telling the user that system files need to be changed.

These types of software that change installation files should be software that runs in the background like aintivirus/firewall/antispyware.

Are there any types of software that would need to adjust the OS folder?

Depends on what you mean by OS files. Does the operating system consider a hardware driver to be part of the core OS? If so, guess where your printer software gets installed.

Really, it varies from system to system. "Executable shortcuts" don't really exist in Unix (links do, but I don't think this is what you mean), and OS files and program files are pretty much indistinguishable, with the exception of the kernel. On Mac systems, most applications put their "program files" inside the "executable shortcut" (Executable files with the .app extension are actually folders that can be treated specially by the OS; legacy Mac systems recognize "resource forks" in binary files, where most of those data are usually stored.)

In current architecture the software that would "Adjust" the OS's folder structure is usually devised by user input unless a poorly written installation system or overall "Hack".

It's difficult to balance a completely fictious OS against those that already exist though since it doesn't necessarily fit to to the same constraints considering OS's that are built will find areas where boundries exist (i.e. folder/file limits), a fictious one does not.

The reason why for instance my computer has more folders than just C:/windows, c:/program files, a shortcut to my documents and a few root files is because each user installed progam might have data that it wants to be distinguishable to the overall mould, thus each program or task can generate it's own folder.

If anything an OS has to maintain Flexibility otherwise the users will find it "Inflexible" and less likely to use it.

I'm not talking about random software. I'm talking about making software specific to this computer.
I'll try to explain this clearer.

MBS creates Software X for their MBS computer.
Software X is instellad.
A "Software X" folder goes into the program files folder. Perhaps a shortcut goes into the shortcut folder.

No adjustments are made to any of the files in the OS folder. That means no adjustments have been made to the system files.

The only thing that changes after the installation is complete is that there is a now a "Software X" folder with its files in it. Nothing else changes.


This will be the process for all software Made by MBS for their MBS computer with few exceptions.
Anti virus and security software.
Drivers.


Currently, much software in Windows is not installed like the fictional Software X. Many times they make actual changes to system files.
They do this for various particular reasons depending on the software. System processes change and resources change.

With the installation of Software X, notihing is changed. If you delete the program files folder, as well as the short cut, there are not traces of Software X left.


My question is if this is possible for a complicated software. I can see why a security software would need to do change system files to run in the background, but I do not see this as necessary for high end word processors or photo editors.

As long as your only doing photo editing, and no internet stuff, and other extra stuff, does a photo editor for doing straight forward photo editing on the computer really need to make changes to system files?

Windows package management is a fucking mess. It probably does need to edit a "system file," at least (but of course not limited to) your registry.

Lix: To answer your question directly...there is theoretically no need for a program to alter any OS file at all. There are lots of programs that are simply one self-contained executable file.

The main reason this system file management/sharing/access came about is that MS is not open source as is Linux. Thus, MS placed within Windows extensions such as DirectX that would be a "common point" for certain programs and their developers.

To extend this fairly simplified example: a varied group of programs can now access the Windows graphics/multimedia subsystem via DirectX without the programmers actually knowing the full Windows code; and thus create their program to share same. When these programs evolve with versions of DirectX and require version updates that's when you have programs changing system files.

There are of course further detailed examples such as the registry, but let's not get into that mess :)

4. Certain applications that have to run in the background. Therefore, OS files in the OS folder would need to be changed.

Why is that?

Could they not be tied in the bootstrapping?

If the theoretical system is designed well, then IMO, no change to the OS files should be required. However, by keeping files that would otherwise modfy the OS apart, providing hooks to them in your OS instead, you incur a performance penalty. (To explain this better, instead of a windows boot screen mod actually modifying the Windows OS files, it could instead drop a .BMP into a particular location, and Windows would be intelligent enough to look for a .bmp in that location before displaying it's default image).

Windows is notoriously bad about keeping user and application files seperate from the core OS, pure micro-kernel OS's are the best. The most effective reality usually lies somewhere in between the two.

The main reason this system file management/sharing/access came about is that MS is not open source as is Linux. Thus, MS placed within Windows extensions such as DirectX that would be a "common point" for certain programs and their developers.
You mean MS inentionally limited the capability of their operating system to protect their source code?