[booboo]

Check out John Siracusa’s excellent article over at Arstechnica on 10.3 in general, but also the Finder's shortcomings in particular...

http://www.arstechnica.com/reviews/0...x-10.3-11.html

I have to say I agree, and it gave me an idea for a Haxie ;-)

Basically, it’s the schizophrenic nature of the ‘Classic’ and Brushed Metal Finder views that bugs me (and him) - with one view overwriting the other’s settings unpredictably.

A solution for me would be a Haxie to force the Finder to only ever display windows in ‘Classic’ view, i.e. spatially correct.

I could then use a 3rd party file browser for column and ‘browser’ views, thus separating the dual-personality Finder window views into two separate entities . . . Ideally, separate key-combo’s to make a New window in either ‘Classic’ style or in the File Browser of my choice . . . (as a side-bonus, this would also free me of brushed metal nightmare in the Finder altogether. . .)

(It’s not that I don’t like or use Browser view, it’s just the way it collides with Classic view settings/integrity that I don’t like . . .)

Anyway, I suggested it to the guys over at Unsanity. What does anyone here think?

[richf]

I recently switched from OS9 to 10.3 and everything he says completely articulates everything that bothers me about navigating in the new finder. Anything that could be done to force some sort of consistency would be great.

[booboo]

Panthwire. lol.

Or was that just an excuse fore a bump?

[nforcer]

I've been using Panthire for some time. Panthwire just sounds lame.

[lenox]

The loss of a spatial finder is one of the many things that os x is lacking from os 9. So many things are wrong with the interface, I just have to wonder, sometimes.

Heck, at least classic mac os was consistent. Apple did something very valiant (but much-needed) in completely rewriting their OS from scratch, but...these inconsistencies are not a good start, and I hope they don't stay so deep-rooted in the future.

[snerdini]

Originally posted by lenox:
The loss of a spatial finder is one of the many things that os x is lacking from os 9. So many things are wrong with the interface, I just have to wonder, sometimes.

[clarkgoble]

The problem with his comments is that he really wants a separate spatial Finder which is dominate and then a browser tacked on. But the "settings" for each would be independent. (i.e. icon location)

That's fine if you are one of the minority who feels the spatial Finder is the greatest thing ever. I personally don't like it and stay in column view most of the time. The only thing I wish it had was sorting in column view.

What's weird is that many problems I have with the Finder Syracuse mentions only barely in passing or not at all. For instance he doesn't address the selection color issues with the Finder nor the inconsistencies with the sidepane. (i.e. are they buttons or folders?) He also glosses over the issues with Samba.

Instead he focuses in on some frankly minor issues with the Finder that only affect people who use spatial Finder windows as their main interface.

I really liked his other reviews. This one really seemed superficial to me and missed a lot of criticisms that could have been made.

I added some comments to the discussion part at the end of the review. I'd be interested in people commenting there on my thoughts:

http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...901595&p=3

[msuper69]

Good Lord you people certainly like to obsess over this spatial Finder business. The Finder works just fine in everyday use.

[ApeInTheShell]

Well if you go from Mac OS 9 directly to Panther, of course there are going to be some inconcestencies.
Remember, the Finder is a file browser. Most people prefer column view because it saves space, provides quick navigation, shows previews and there isn't extra clicking like in the other views.

[booboo]

Remember, the Finder is a file browser. Most people prefer column view because it saves space, provides quick navigation, shows previews and there isn't extra clicking like in the other views. [/B]

Nobody is suggesting for 1 micro-second that a Browser or Column view should not be available. What is an issue is the unhappy collision of two different (and often incompatible) concepts.

Did you read the article?

[stew]

Originally posted by msuper69:
The Finder works just fine in everyday use.

So does the Windows Explorer. If I want a computer that works "just fine", I could use Windows instead. We want an OS that pays attention to the details, that's why many of us bought Apples in the first place.

[thePurpleGiant]

Although I never use the spatial Finder - when testing it out, I agree, it doesn't work well with the non-spatial one.

I say make the toolbar button just that, a button to hide/show the toolbar.

Then have an option in the Finder prefs for a spatial or hierarchical Finder view.

[booboo]

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
I say make the toolbar button just that, a button to hide/show the toolbar.

Agreed! But not locations, right? Just tools (app's)

Then have an option in the Finder prefs for a spatial or hierarchical Finder view.

I think a preference to have one view by default - always. And the other view requiring a key command,

If I could stop the Finder ever invoking metal windows, I'd be happier using Path Finder (at least in principle) for my column views . . .

[Brass]

To the people that say the column view is just fine as it is...

I almost agree with you, but did you read the article?

I love the column view and use it almost exclusively. The problem for me is that I cannot get the Finder to use only the column view.

For people that would prefer to use only a spatial Finder, there is not way to make the Finder do that.

It is a nightmare of inconsistencey. The main point that this iteration of John Sir's article is that you cannot reliably predict what the Finder is going to do. You may be able to predict most of the time, but then occasionally it will do something completely different.

Eg, I often create disk images. I mount the image, edit it (move files around, etc) all in the brushed metal icon view. I then unmount the disk image, convert it to read only, and mount the converted image, and it almost always comes up in the Aqua icon view! But not every disk image creation has this problem.

This wouldn't be so bad, but the Aqua window is a lot wider than it should be, and has a lot of extra space (to make up for the lack of the side bar. It looks terrible, it behaves badly! Which is something Apple used to very concerned about.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Apple really should let the OS 9 developers tackle the Finder and keep the NeXT developers on something else (speeding up iPhoto to mention a name)

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by msuper69:
Good Lord you people certainly like to obsess over this spatial Finder business. The Finder works just fine in everyday use.

Iffy agree. I understand why some like it, but iPerfer the new Finder.

[asxless]

Excuse me but....
One of the hallmarks of every Mac OS for nearly two decades has been a spatial Finder. Some people have even suggested that the spatial Finder is a critical component of the Mac's fabled 'ease of use'.

What _facts_ can any of the column view ubber alles folks provide to support the assertions that "Most people prefer column view...", that people who prefer the spatial Finder are in a "minority", etc.. While you are finding the link to those _facts_, remember that "most people" needs to include a lot of Macs/users that are still running OS 9.

-- asxless in iLand

[Brass]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
Iffy agree. I understand why some like it, but iPerfer the new Finder.

Again, that is in complete agreement with the article. Even if you do prefer the new Finder, you can't help but have the old-style Finder windows appear occasionally when you least expect it. There's no consistency, and you cannot rely on getting one kind of window or the other.

[asxless]

Originally posted by Brass:
...The problem for me is that I cannot get the Finder to use only the column view.

For people that would prefer to use only a spatial Finder, there is not way to make the Finder do that.

It is a nightmare of inconsistencey. The main point that this iteration of John Sir's article is that you cannot reliably predict what the Finder is going to do. You may be able to predict most of the time, but then occasionally it will do something completely different....

In general I agree. The issue is not whether column view or one of the spatial views (icon or list) is better. The problem is the inconsistency. But this inconsistency is not new in Panther. It has been part of the Finder since the introduction of 'browser window' functionality in OS X 1.0. What Panther added was the obvious visual queue of the brushed metal look for the 'browser window mode' when toggled via the "tool bar" button. AFAICT Apple got into this mess by linking the presence of the tool bar with 'browser window mode'. Then providing an option that allows you override it by checking "always open folders in a new window" even when the tool bar is visible. The issue is obvious when you look at the various 'tools' that can be on a tool bar. Some are clearly browser window tools (e.g. backward, forward, etc) but some aren't (e.g. view).

FWIW After nearly 2 decades as a Mac user, I prefer a spatial Finder view - smallest icons, snap to grid. In the Jaguar Finder I can _almost_ force the Finder to be consistent by always closing the toolbar AND un-checking the Finder preference to "always open folders in a new window". With the toolbar closed the Finder drops out of 'browser window mode' and opens folders in a new window anyway. Unfortunately Finder windows automatically spawned by the Finder (e.g. opening a folder from the Find results or mounting a CD/DVD, etc.) produces a Finder window with the tool bar open (and frequently with huge icons etc. that are not part of any preference I have ever set). Of course, this provides an opportunity for creating a spatial window inconsistency (e.g. size & location at a minimum). What is missing is a preference that establishes whether or not any new Finder window is in 'browser mode' and scrupulous honoring of the user's preference for "Any Window". This should work for both the left and right brained Mac users

-- asxless in iLand

[arekkusu]

IMHO:

The Panther Finder is totally ****ing ****ed. It is a piece of ****. I hate it.

The Finder has one task: LET ME MANAGE MY FILES. And it doesn't do it.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

When I first got OS X, like everyone else I made sure my drive icons were on the desktop, set it up to spawn new windows, ran ASM, all that stuff to make it feel like a "real" Mac. You know how long that lasted? I think about three days.

Users who are locked into a rigid 1997 mindset of how the Finder "should" work will continue to be dissapointed by OS X. The more they try to force a Classic Finder organizational scheme on it, the more frustrated they will become. I remember in the Classic days spending what seemed like half my day opening windows, organizing their positions, burrowing to and fro, just to access/organize files. In X, I have exactly one Finder window open at all times, only occasionally needing to open a second one, and file access is near instantaneous.

I don't experience most of the problems discussed here, because I don't try to force a mixed metaphor of how the windows behave (which I think is a mistake Apple is making in tring to appease the complainers). Of course it isn't perfect and there are annoying little inconsistencies, but I'm *much* happier in the OS X Finder than I was in Classic's.

Anyway, I find the self-righteous fumings of the greybeard Spacialists (Siracusa, thalo, et al) to be quite entertaining, so keep it up boys!

[asxless]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
In X, I have exactly one Finder window open at all times, only occasionally needing to open a second one, and file access is near instantaneous.

You must be one of those GUI wussies. Real OS X users just use the Terminal. ls is sooooo much more powerful

Anyway, I find the self-righteous fumings of the greybeard Spacialists (Siracusa, thalo, et al) to be quite entertaining, so keep it up boys!

Thats funny. I find the self-righteous fumings of the nouveau "Finder in browser mode" converts to be quite entertaining too. I find it particularly amusing to see how quickly they resort to the ploy of discrediting _ideas & opinions_ by denigrating the _people_ who disagree with them as "complainers" or whiners.

Like it or not, Different people prefer different methods of visualizing their file system -- the Terminal, Finder -- Column, List or Icon views, PathFinder, etc.. Some people are actually open minded enough to find _all_ of these methods useful for various problems. Of course individuals may have strong preferences but there is nothing inherently better about a Finder window in 'browser mode' than a spatial view of the file system for _all_ Mac users. Because different people think, remember and work differently. I for one would be sad to see these options reduced. I'd just like to see Apple straighten out the inconsistencies in the current Finder implementation.

-- asxless in iLand

[OAW]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
In X, I have exactly one Finder window open at all times, only occasionally needing to open a second one, and file access is near instantaneous.

Indeed. That was one of the things I disliked about the Classic Mac OS. The way it spawned a new window every time you opened a folder (in icon view that is). The window clutter was just ridiculous. Now I generally just have one finder window open. Usually in column view (though I do wish I could sort it by Type instead of Name). If I want to open another window I can. I can double click my Pictures folder and the contents are displayed in a new window in Icon view just how I specified. Double-clicking by documents folder displays a new window in List view just how I specified.

I suppose if one is still in that rigid "One Window for One Folder" mentality then OS X may be frustrating. I just think of the Finder as a tool to view, browse, and organize my files. Just like iTunes is a tool to view, browse, and organize my music. I'd rather put my most used folders in the Sidebar and have one click access to them rather than drill down through the folder hierarchy every time I needed a file. But hey, maybe that's just me.

OAW

[booboo]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:


Users who are locked into a rigid 1997 mindset of how the Finder "should" work will continue to be dissapointed by OS X. The more they try to force a Classic Finder organizational scheme on it, the more frustrated they will become. I remember in the Classic days spending what seemed like half my day opening windows, organizing their positions, burrowing to and fro, just to access/organize files. In X, I have exactly one Finder window open at all times, only occasionally needing to open a second one, and file access is near instantaneous.

I don't experience most of the problems discussed here, because I don't try to force a mixed metaphor of how the windows behave (which I think is a mistake Apple is making in tring to appease the complainers). Of course it isn't perfect and there are annoying little inconsistencies, but I'm *much* happier in the OS X Finder than I was in Classic's.

Anyway, I find the self-righteous fumings of the greybeard Spacialists (Siracusa, thalo, et al) to be quite entertaining, so keep it up boys!

Aaaaaaaaaaaarrghhhhhhh!

Post from Mr I Did Not Read The Article # 107

The issue is not about which view you prefer, that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

ENTIRELY!

What is relevant is unpredictability, unreliability and inconsistency of the Finder's window views.

The issue is the schizophrenic nature of how the Finder spawns windows in different views in a seemingly random way, how it's difficult to predict what style of window will appear - from a Disk Image, from an unstuffed download. Write a folder to CD with the windows in 1 view, and they come back in another.

It really doesn't matter whether you personally would rather stab yourself in the eye with a blunt pencil than use 'spatial' icon view. That is irrelevant.

I want:a Finder preference to nail down which is the default style of window. The key command would be Command N

I want to be able to call up the other view with a modifier key (say Option Command N)

These are two seperate non-transmutable views.

I also want the toolbar to be available on regular spatial windows - minus the functions that aren't relevant.

Essentially, I want to be able to force the Finder into some kind of consistency of behaviour.

Yes, it would probably be more consistent to drop spatial window views altogether (despite the fact that this is a demonstrably better metaphor for the more artistic types) and just be done with it.

If I could force the Finder into one view - and use a third party app for the other view, then I'd use that.

The inconsistency is anyway part of a much bigger problem anyway, the filesystem and how we're supposed to interact with it.

One option is that we use dedicated app's to view particular files: iTunes for mp3's, iPhoto for photo's etc. Each app's presents us with a virtual filesystem which may be quite good at its dedicated task, but is strictly limited to it.

I feel this is fine if you confine yourself to one app for mp3's and another for photo's, but it quickly becomes a file management nightmare if you want more control over your files than that app gives you. I hate the fact that files can be nicely organized named in iTunes, but their 'real' names, as far as the Finder is concerned, are completely different. This approach might make things slightly easier for the absolute beginner, but the next step - realizing this is only a virtual (and app-specific) view means the next level of understanding becomes a bigger hurdle than it need be.

Sure, it may be argued that iTunes file system is no more virtual than the Finder's, but the point is should we have to learn a new one with every new app?

The second option is that the Finder has some decent metadata handling abilities, and is able to give you the same kind of file information and editing capabilities that iTunes (for example) has for mp3's, but that there is then a consistency of file management across all app's AND the Finder. iTunes, and any other app that want it, would then display this metadata.

This is important and is related to a spacial view Finder in that I want to be able to open a folder of mp3's in the Finder - and have that window give me all the (meta) information I want about those files. It should be easy to set Windows to best display their contents, and these setting should be fairly robust - like the matter . . I want nice big icons for photo's, I want list view for my mp3's (and I'd ideally like to see their tag info too) and I don't want my settings seemingly randomly overwritten on a metal-window's whim.

I liked that last sentence so much I came back to re-write it:

Randomly overwritten on a metal-window's whim . . .

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by booboo:
[B]Aaaaaaaaaaaarrghhhhhhh!

Post from Mr I Did Not Read The Article # 107

The issue is not about which view you prefer, that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course it is; this is an evolving discussion, not a static one.

[clarkgoble]

As I mentioned on the Ars thread, effectively the only way to do this is to have two applications. One spatial and one not. They may actually reside in the same application proper, but effectively you have two different Finders. There will be no way to convert one window to the other or vice versa.

The big question is whether the browser should have an icon view. John Syracuse seems to think not. I think it should (and I do use it).

I'm not opposed to the spatial Finder, although I personally don't like it. I just think this is an example of a third party opportunity. Yet oddly no one wants to build a true Sys9 styled spatial Finder. I wonder why?

[MusicalTone]

WTF? This ars bloke is taking himself far far too seriously. A 1,000 times too seriously! What is with the obsesion with the spatial finder? I think the current finder is way way better than the OS9 "spatial" one.

[rezonate]

God, people need to get a grip on this, are we going to relegate finding our files as if we're on Amigas? I'll use the spatial finder ( over-used metaphor) for certain things, in fact, I'm not even going to call it spatial, list view without the side/toolbar. And I'll use the column view with all the gizmos for other things, it depends on how I want to find my files, and what I want to do with them. All these views are handy for me, thinkign it has to be one way, or the other, and if not, then Apple must be breaking some insane magical rule, is just nutso.

IMO

[rezonate]

In fact, this whole spatial finder argument reminds me of the 2/3 button mouse one. It's as if Mac users are too dumb to somehow come to grips with various, and dare I say it, new methods of interaction. I'd rather kill myself than have to use a 1-button mouse, and to go back to how the Finder windows of Classic worked, and nothing else, would be really backwards.

[Brass]

Originally posted by MusicalTone:
WTF? This ars bloke is taking himself far far too seriously. A 1,000 times too seriously! What is with the obsesion with the spatial finder? I think the current finder is way way better than the OS9 "spatial" one.

... and YET again, the issue the article is trying to make is NOT whether the spatial Finder is better than the browser Finder (although he clearly does have his preference). The issue is the unpredictability and the inconsistency of the Finder. NOBODY can get the view they wan ALL the time. THAT is the problem. No matter which paradigm you prefer, you cannot be guarenteed that the Finder will always use it.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by Brass:
NOBODY can get the view they wan ALL the time. THAT is the problem. No matter which paradigm you prefer, you cannot be guarenteed that the Finder will always use it. [/B]

Oh really? I prefer the Browser, and I always get it

[Brass]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
Oh really? I prefer the Browser, and I always get it

Like I said in an earlier post. You can get the preferred view most of the time, and indeed all the time if you limit your actions. But occasionally you will come across something that causes the Finder to show you the view you don't want. If it hasn't happened to you yet, it's just a matter of time

Have you read the article? have a look at the link which points to an incredibly complex matix of which events and settings lead to which view. And the table is not even complete.

Eg, I create disk images and edit them in browser view, then unmount them. When I remount them, they are in aqua view!

[Ron Goodman]

IIRC, Icon and List views were tacked onto OS X at the last minute, shortly before the Public Beta was released--OS X was originally supposed to have only Column view. I don't think they did a very good job of it and and there've been problems with the two ever since.

[asxless]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
As I mentioned on the Ars thread, effectively the only way to do this is to have two applications. One spatial and one not. They may actually reside in the same application proper, but effectively you have two different Finders. There will be no way to convert one window to the other or vice versa.

The big question is whether the browser should have an icon view. John Syracuse seems to think not. I think it should (and I do use it).

Even two different applications would produce the same/similar inconsitencies IF the 'Browser Finder' changed the directory's view settings used by the 'Spatial Finder' or visa versa. The trick is to do what (groan) Windows Explorer does -- have the browser mode of the Finder produce on the fly 'icon' (or 'list') views (in addition to column view) whose settings are a function of the browser mode preferences not that directory's stored view info. This could be implemented with one Finder application which had two modes-- browser and spatial. Any changes (e.g icon size, etc.) made while viewing a directory in 'browser mode' would only effect the view while in 'browser mode'. You could optionally open a separate 'spatial view' window that honored the stored settings for that directory.

I'm not opposed to the spatial Finder, although I personally don't like it. I just think this is an example of a third party opportunity. Yet oddly no one wants to build a true Sys9 styled spatial Finder. I wonder why?

Maybe Apple's Finder development plan secrecy and continued fiddling around with the Finder _design_ produces too much of a moving target for developers. FWIW it is dramatically simpler to produce a 3rd party "browser style" file manager (e.g. Path Finder) than a "spatial style" file manager because of the latter's requirement to store the spatial view settings in each directory (e.g. .DS_Store, Desktop DB, etc.). It's not impossible. Dave does it to provide Mac Finder views on Windows stores. But these hidden files are vulnerable to damage / loss by the host OS and/or 3rd party apps..

-- asxless in iLand

[booboo]

Originally posted by asxless:
Even two different applications would produce the same/similar inconsitencies IF the 'Browser Finder' changed the directory's view settings used by the 'Spatial Finder' or visa versa.
-- asxless in iLand

The trick is that neither View changes the other View's settings . . . ever. I.e. you always get your chosen default view, unless you request the other . . . they don't transmute.

2 app's, possibly, 1 wrapper, preferably . . .

[asxless]

Originally posted by booboo:
The trick is that neither View changes the other View's settings . . . ever. I.e. you always get your chosen default view, unless you request the other . . . they don't transmute.

2 app's, possibly, 1 wrapper, preferably . . .

I agree. That is what I was trying to say.

The 'browser Finder' mode should either...
1- Build any view it wishes 'on the fly' (like column view does now)
or
2- Store a separate set of view settings for icon/list views.

But the 'browser Finder' mode should not change the view settings of the 'spatial Finder' mode and visa versa.

Combine that with an overall Finder preference that specifies the default Finder window settings AND _mode_ (browser or spatial) that the Finder/OS uses if there is any doubt.

-- asxless in iLand

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

off-topic, but what's with this "asxless in iLand" business?

[asxless]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:
off-topic, but what's with this "asxless in iLand" business?

Its like most other tongue-in-cheek online handles (e.g. "Silky Voice of The Gorn")

FWIW my first online forum post (fall of '99) was a question about how to play Microsoft's .asx media files on a Mac, about the time Apple kicked off the iNaming fad (e.g. iMac, etc.) So when I posted that question I signed it...

-- asxless in iLand

[Big Mac]

The strangest thing to me is, during the developer build period of Panther, everyone was saying that the spatial Finder was alive and well. They enthusiastically said that by clicking the toolbar widget, you'd have your spatial finder. I thought it was too good to be true, and apparently it is; I haven't installed Panther yet to discover it for myself, however. I care about the spatial Finder, and I believe it should be restored. It's not a show stopper for me, because I've gotten used to the Finder's funky, unpredictable behavior. It would be so very easy for Apple to restore the spatial Finder completely, and then provide a preference in Finder Prefs: Standard Finder or Spatial Finder. Apple can't figure that one out for some reason-don't ask me why.

[booboo]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
The strangest thing to me is, during the developer build period of Panther, everyone was saying that the spatial Finder was alive and well. They enthusiastically said that by clicking the toolbar widget, you'd have your spatial finder. I thought it was too good to be true, and apparently it is;

No, the 'spatial views' Finder is still with us, erratically.

But this is something that Apple needs to sort out. I was just noticing h the Toolbar widget moves from aqua to metal views - like a bad FileMaker layout . . .

And yes, it maybe isn't a show-stopper for us, in fact we can work round all kinds of idiosyncrasies, but for those less computer-literate, these minor annoyances can be incredibly confusing . . . and I hate having to apologize for Apple implementations - it just shouldn't happen . . .

Also, as a side issue, maybe the column view would even improve if it were annexed from the other views - paving the way for a 'shelf' and other functionality that doesn't make much sense when tied in with the other views . . .

Incidentally, one thing about column view that has always annoyed me - why I can't open a document by double clicking its preview?

[mikerally]

It's pretty clear that the Finder browsing mode and Classic Finder spacial view need to be seperated.

The idea that the browser mode window could possibly spawn a spatial window, and vice-versa is totally inconsisant.

You expect to choose one way or the other, not both. The Finder cannot merge the two identities, it's an incredible UI disaster which I can't believe Apple has overlooked.

Apple seriously needs to reform the Finder development team, the fact they let the Finder go out to consumers in this state says a lot.

[Sal]

Just an FYI.

You can set the view method of every folder window of a directory’s hierarchy with this simple script:

Code:
tell application "Finder"
	close every window
	set the current view of the container window of home to icon view
	with timeout of 300 seconds
		set the current view of the container window of every folder of ¬
			the entire contents of home to icon view
	end timeout
end tell

Value options for the current view property are: icon view, list view, and column view

If you want to get more specific, take this approach:

Code:
tell application "Finder"
	close every window
	tell the container window of home
		set current view to icon view
		set icon size of the icon view options of it to 48
		set arrangement of icon view options of it to arranged by name
	end tell
	with timeout of 300 seconds
		tell the container window of every folder of ¬
			the entire contents of home
			set current view to icon view
			set icon size of the icon view options of it to 48
			set arrangement of icon view options of it to arranged by name
		end tell
	end timeout
end tell

Add the bounds property to determine the display window size and position for every window:

Code:
tell application "Finder"
	close every window
	tell the container window of home
		set current view to icon view
		set bounds to {132, 166, 867, 552}
		set icon size of the icon view options of it to 48
		set arrangement of icon view options of it to arranged by name
	end tell
	with timeout of 300 seconds
		tell the container window of every folder of ¬
			the entire contents of home
			set current view to icon view
			set bounds to {132, 166, 867, 552}
			set icon size of the icon view options of it to 48
			set arrangement of icon view options of it to arranged by name
		end tell
	end timeout
end tell

[Sven G]

What about making some form of "Script Bundle" available in Software Update? For the Finder/Safari and the iApps, for example: that would make life much easier for the "average" users - waiting for the integrated functionality that the scripts must currently surrogate for, of course (see incomplete window management, BTW: for example, double/split window view, "complete" maximization, etc. - in the Finder and Safari, but not only)...

P.S.: The excellent Script Menu would, of course, cater for the ready availability of all these scripts from the main Menu Bar.

[clarkgoble]

Originally posted by asxless:
[BLike it or not, Different people prefer different methods of visualizing their file system [/B]

This is true. However this is also why there are third party applications. Thus far no one on any platform has felt the need to write a spatial file manager. Even the alternative file managers on OSX by and large keep the UI of the new Finder and simply add features.

The question I asked John Syracuse remains: if there is this huge desire for a spatial finder, why doesn't anyone write one?

[clarkgoble]

Originally posted by asxless:
Even two different applications would produce the same/similar inconsitencies IF the 'Browser Finder' changed the directory's view settings used by the 'Spatial Finder' or visa versa. The trick is to do what (groan) Windows Explorer does -- have the browser mode of the Finder produce on the fly 'icon' (or 'list') views (in addition to column view) whose settings are a function of the browser mode preferences not that directory's stored view info.

I discussed this point with Syracuse in the Ars thread. The problem is that I personally use icon mode occasionally. Especially when using spatial relationships.

The problem is that characterizing this as spatial vs. non-spatial is incorrect. The OSX Finder has always held spatial data in the icon view. The one thing it doesn't hold is spatial window info. However since even in Sys9 windows scrolled, the old Finder also had two spatial "modes." The window spatial information and the window content spatial information.

To suggest that being able to manipulate the spatial content information is inconsistent really doesn't make much sense to me. The only problem is having a window where the window's position doesn't matter and then switching to a mode where it does. And John and others are right. This is jarring at times in OSX.

The solution of effectively having two applications does lead to slight inconsistency, as you note. But this is really more of an issue of missing the distinction of relative vs. absolute spatial information and conflating window content with windows.

[asxless]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
...
The question I asked John Syracuse remains: if there is this huge desire for a spatial finder, why doesn't anyone write one?

I think I already posted my 'answer' to your question but...

Maybe Apple's Finder development plan secrecy and continued fiddling around with the Finder _design_ produces too much of a moving target for developers. FWIW it is dramatically simpler to produce a 3rd party "browser style" file manager (e.g. Path Finder) than a "spatial style" file manager because of the latter's requirement to store the spatial view settings in each directory (e.g. .DS_Store, Desktop DB, etc.). It's not impossible. Dave does it to provide Mac Finder views on Windows stores. But these hidden files are vulnerable to damage / loss by the host OS and/or 3rd party apps..

A logically consistent spatial Finder has been a hallmark of the Mac OS until the advent of OS X. I suspect that developers see Apple as the 'natural owner' of and spatial Finder. And frankly the existing Finder is 'close enough' for many people as evidenced by the posts in this thread.

-- asxless in iLand

[booboo]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:


The question I asked John Syracuse remains: if there is this huge desire for a spatial finder, why doesn't anyone write one?

The answer is that the Finder does this perfectly. The limitations are all about how this view collides with (and whose settings are overwritten by) the metal other views. I.e. there isn't a problem so much with the Finder's own 'spatial' view handling, as much as how fragile and ephemeral these views can be . . .

Developers have addressed shortcomings in the Finder - Unsanity's Haxies addressed shortcomings long before Apple re-introduced their own Labels, for example. Several of Unsanity's haxies are more specific to 'spatial' views, I'd have though, so it's not as if there aren't people interested in maintaining or improving this aspect of the UI, and others interested in using it . . .

I guess a lot of us were hoping that things were going to bet better in Panther - that Labels were a sign of new metadata capabilities in the Finder, that column view was going to get column sorting, etc.,, but we were perhaps unprepared for an even more jarring collision of different window views . . . so inview of this, perhaps 3rd party fixes and alternatives will yet come . . .

[lookmark]

Well, it's "close enough" for me, as someone who spends most of his time in the Finder in browser mode, often column view.

And I think Apple is on the right track with the Panther Finder. The fact that the best praise Siracusa can muster for the Sidebar is "Apple considers [it] a feature" is telling, too. He's too busy with his crusade to absorb a smart, real usability improvement in the Finder.

I do very much respect Siracusa's Finder argument to some degree, though; the complexity introduced by trying to have both a browse-in-place file browser and spatially-savvy file browser in same app, and that changes from window to window, introduces a complete can of worms for predictability. You have to really concentrate at times to understand how a window's view come to be, and that's (to put it mildly) not a good thing. I'm not sure how it can be addressed, but I'd like some much simpler rules for understanding how a window will look if I switch back and forth between toolbar and no toolbar.

Meanwhile, as I see it, just a single option would make the Finder a much better place for the spatialists:

Under Finder Preferences, group (and add) the following options:

Classic File Navigation
[ ] Always open windows in a new window
[ ] Never show toolbar unless manually turned on

That's just about it, isn't it? People who use the Finder spatially will never see the toolbar unless they turn it on -- "toolbar on" settings will never stick for any single window-- and when they want to pull up a browser, they just click the Finder icon in the Dock, or hit command-N. (This window has a different set of view preferences than double-clicking the HD from the desktop, which the spatialists will no doubt use to browse spatially.)

This wouldn't put spatial navigation front and center in the UI, but it shouldn't -- I find it hard to believe that it's wanted by the majority of users in 2003. It would make it a viable option for those who want it.

[asxless]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
...
The problem is that characterizing this as spatial vs. non-spatial is incorrect. The OSX Finder has always held spatial data in the icon view. The one thing it doesn't hold is spatial window info. However since even in Sys9 windows scrolled, the old Finder also had two spatial "modes." The window spatial information and the window content spatial information.

To suggest that being able to manipulate the spatial content information is inconsistent really doesn't make much sense to me. The only problem is having a window where the window's position doesn't matter and then switching to a mode where it does. And John and others are right. This is jarring at times in OSX....

FWIW I generally agree. But Finder window location and size are not the 'only problem' that can be jarring. Your example assumes the use of only (or at least principally) Column and Icon views while in Browser Finder mode. In this case, I agree that users would probably expect any modifications made to the spatial arrangement, size, label location, etc. of the icons (i.e. content) while still in browser mode to be honored when that directory window is subsequently displayed by the Finder in spatial mode.

Unfortunately the current OS X Finder does not stop at just modifying the window _content_ while in browser mode or even . In some cases it not only stores the modified window location/size but also the view (e.g. List, Column) that was changed while browsing. This frequently occurs if the user inadvertently drops out of Browser Finder mode and into Spatial Finder mode by closing the tool bar and then closes the Finder window. The Finder info for that last directory gets updated in ways that the user may not expect. Luckily this Finder mode switch is now accompanied by the visual cue of Brushed Metal (browser) vs Aqua (spatial) in Panther. As I posted earlier, linking the switch between browser and spatial Finder modes to the toolbar toggle widget is IMO a logical mistake. The majority of the available 'tools' are not browser tools -- Find, View, New Folder, Delete, Path, Eject, Burn, Get Info, etc.

-- asxless in iLand

[clarkgoble]

asxless: FWIW it is dramatically simpler to produce a 3rd party "browser style" file manager (e.g. Path Finder) than a "spatial style" file manager because of the latter's requirement to store the spatial view settings in each directory (e.g. .DS_Store, Desktop DB, etc.). It's not impossible. Dave does it to provide Mac Finder views on Windows stores. But these hidden files are vulnerable to damage / loss

This isn't the case. Indeed so storing it seems like an inefficient way of doing things. The best way (IMO) is to store it in the applications' preference file and alternatively (for group use) store it at an arbitrary location (say a server). This would give you multiple benefits. First you could use a BTree to quickly find and utilize the memory. Secondly it would avoid conflicts with the Finder for those who want traditional OSX use.

The problem here is trying to recreate exactly the Sys9 way of doing things which, from a programming perspective, isn't a good thing. Even if you think the UI is perfect, one would hope one would recognize the problems in the Finder from an interoperativity perspective.

asxless: In some cases it not only stores the modified window location/size but also the view (e.g. List, Column) that was changed while browsing.

I agree that the window issue is jarring. It's a tradeoff with the UI Apple chose for switching between "modes." One suspects that to avoid this problem there should be a widget that closes the current view and opens the spatial Finder window. While this is somewhat jarring because one's browser disappears, it probably is a better way than the current carry over of the Jaguar widget.

The issue of view is more difficult. Since we are assuming that a folder has a default view. If I set a view while looking at that folder it seems reasonable to assume I'm setting the default view for that folder. However I can see making this a preference.

In effect what the current widget does isn't to switch to spatial view. Rather it is to set the current view pane in the browser to be the new spatial view. I think that a reasonable design choice, but I can see why some find it jarring. Especially since there doesn't appear to be an "obvious" way to open a folder in spatial view in the current Finder. Probably if there was one then I'd see your criticisms as less significant.

Ideally I think both options ought to be there. However Apple appears to prefer a streamlined interface with few options as opposed to the "make a preference for everything" view. It's the issue of consistency vs. customizability. Overall I agree with Apple on this point after using Linux. I think the more customizable applications should be 3rd party apps, like Pathfinder. (Which I ultimately don't like for many reasons, but I do appreciate its extra features)