I see cautions about treating network drives as looking like lettered drive. Can you turn it on its head?
So. What are the cautions about mapping a drive to a your-choice-of-name share in the usual way. For example share name "01-D-drive". In file explorer under network (for my local machine) I now have another "neater" more logical way to access my drives (shared with appropriate permissions) that gives me ordering and naming possibilities. Cautions might be raised that the performance is not the same--is it prohibitively expensive? Another step might be to map these "local" shares to a network path so I have top level access in file explorer to the "drives" e.g. define network resource to this local path //my-local-computer/01-D-drive. Where will this break down? Here's an example:
Open share on //my-local-computer to see (and use). --note: lettered drives are still there in file explorer
my-local-computer
01-zdrive
02-any-name-any-order
03-hey-system-drive-should-not-be-shared
04-why-not?
don't want to open share (surely even more overhead??) and reference in c
//my-local-computer/01-zdrive
etc, etc and so forth. this silly editor is trashing my paragraphs--try adding a blank line