Unlimited Ammount Of Plugins Dir

Well perhaps not unlimited but why is it limited to only two dirrs?

What about just having one initially, then when adding a dir another one becomes availible for input…?

Just a thought :)

Just to play’s devil advocate here, I’m gonna turn this around a bit. I currently have about 300 VST plug-in’s on my system. That’s a fairly modest amount compared to what’s actually out there, but it’s still quite a lot by most standards. I personally have them organised first by company, and then by product. Some prefer to organise by effect type or some other variation, but I prefer this way.

So for example:



And then all of these are stored very happily and conveniently within C:\VST\

From my point of view, I’ve never actually had a NEED for the 2nd directory option. I install everything to this central location and that’s that.

Now of course, every person’s needs are different, so that’s why I have to ask: why do you actually NEED more than 2? Having plug-ins scattered across more than 2 drives seems a bit unorganised to me. Would it not be a better idea to rearrange the files together into a more unified system? Is there some reason (perhaps related to system performance?) that you absolutely have to do it your way?

Just curious.

Yea there are issues releated to the scattering effect, most has todo with network drives and the sharing of instruments to save space. Some synths are really big. Also different programs assign different plugin dirs if your not careful, and i rather have to option to remedy the situation with a simple click then having to reinstall the program/vst-i/whatever.

But you are right, why have two when there should only be shown one when your only using one. :P

If there were only one dir tho i would be forced to move everything there, but when it shows 2, why not have it unlimited by one empty dir line added with one used, or atleast the ability to add a dir line if necessary.

I had no idea windows had symbolic links.

Very Awesome, Thanks Bantai!

Yes, i have learned this on my Windows 2000 Server workshop back in mid-2000.

The reason why this would not be published by Microsoft (or today:why they never published documentation about it) is what the linked document already explains:

Deleting Symlinks With Normal Windows Filesystem Tools Is Not Only Dangerous But Also Bizarre

So when you use this function, you must be very… very… very cautious!!

These are my expriences with this functionality:

Used in desktop images for company networks and some local admin removed a hardlinked folder with shift-delete which caused a harddrive MFT table to become inaccessible. Whatever the user had opened on that harddrive, could no longer be saved.

Used on my own laptop in a dedicated area, but was dumb enough to hardlink a subfolder that was already part of a hardlinked root. When removing the hardlinked subfolder the “safe way”, the hardlinked root no longer was accessible including the data that was in it also due to an MFT table corruption.

When initiating a CHKDSK /F after a reboot, it corrected the MFT table, but removed the complete entry to the root folder so any existing file in there got lost.

In short words:The drive management system that keeps track of the MFT entries, does not know that you are fooling around in his area and misjudges the situations that you manually created.

If you are lucky, the system will complain that it can not execute your process because some file is still being accessed in one of the folders, but in less fortunate situations, you can loose data.

A pity the document does not clarify that part of the dark site actually.

Don’t even think about using CHKDSK or the system defragmenter ever if you use symlinks, you can say goodbye to these tools if you invoke symlinking and god forbid the MFT table gets corrupted by an external process of which CHKDSK starts to complain during your neext bootup.

My advise:just organize your folders using one root folder and don’t even think about symlinking to other drives, you really have no idea what kind of mess you can get yourself into.

It is a lot cheaper and time saving to buy a bigger harddrive and replace a smaller harddrive for it in your system then to get you out of some mess where you even don’t know where to start fixing it.