[kgmessier]

Is anyone out there using Path Finder? If so, what do you find most useful about it? Is it worth the $34?

- Keith

[osxrules]

I don't think it is worth the price as I find that I use it very little. The features I like are the ability to turn viewing invisible files on and off with one menu item. Also, you can edit permissions easier and file attributes like type/creator. I only really used Path Finder for viewing and renaming invisible files. For that functionality, I wouldn't pay $34. Nowadays I use File Buddy for that stuff, which is a purchase I would recommend.

Things I don't like about Path Finder are that it takes a long time to launch but then you are supposed to leave it running so I guess that's OK. But I find the interface quite ugly. They use a lot of drawers. I've never really liked the look of drawers - I much prefer a sidebar that fits inside the window. Even if they made it extend outwards.

Plus it's slower than the Finder at going through your files and I actually think the Finder is pretty slow sometimes. The older versions were also unstable if you did one thing in the Finder and switched back to Path Finder.

In a way it is a more functional Finder. But it is slower and the extra functionality isn't worth the price. Tabbed finder browsing should be coming in a newer version but some developer just needs to get off his ass and make a program that acts as a Finder front end to tabulate finder windows into one. Something like iterm does for the terminal.

In short save $34 and don't buy Path Finder, which is slow and useless and instead buy File Buddy at $39. Of course, if it's for use on one machine, they actually have a system for you to get it for just $24. Features include:

editing invisble files, permissions, attribute bits etc. - faster than Path Finder does it.
find files using advanced search criteria including duplicate files. This is great for sorting image collections where duplicates are quite common. You can even find files that have resource forks to see if an image program has added a resource to a file and is wasting space.
Another handy feature is the ability to take hard drive snapshots so if you install a dodgy installer, File Buddy can tell you what you did and what has changed.

[Maflynn]

I tried it for a while myself. I just didn't really see the need for the added functionality that they advertise. Most of the stuff, I can do without spending money. The finder seems to handle just about anyhting I need.

Mike

[timmerk]

I finder it faster then the Finder and love it. The only problem is that some things start up the Finder if you have quit the Finder and use Path Finder exclusively.

[Macanoid]

Pathfinder is very powerful but also a bit slow, however, version 4 is just around the corner and will introduce new features I personally can't wait for/ Just check out this link :: http://www.cocoatech.com/pf4/

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Macanoid

Pathfinder is very powerful but also a bit slow, however, version 4 is just around the corner and will introduce new features I personally can't wait for/ Just check out this link :: http://www.cocoatech.com/pf4/

Ah great...it's getting more bloated every release. Cool.

[dru]

Try it out. I'm pretty sure they still have a downloadable trial version. I found it way too cluttered when I took it for a spin. I hate the Finder but Path Finder was a too much of a mess.

Worth the money? Not in my opinion.

[neilio]

Ah great...it's getting more bloated every release. Cool.

I agree that Path Finder does a lot, but I've always been confused by the "bloated" complaint that people have levelled against Path Finder. Do people call Photoshop bloated? (Well, some people probably do, but the general consensus with Photoshop is the more things it can do, the better.).

The way that Path Finder is designed none of the features affect each other, so if there's something in the application you do use, you can safely ignore it and it won't affect your usage of the application.

That said, I totally agree that there are some things in there that should be pulled out. The developer is a "eat his own dog food" kind of developer, so everything that goes in is something he feels he needs. I suppose it's partially my job to rein this in a bit and make sure every new feature gets vetted first.

A perfect example for me is the screenshot feature - it works, but it seems kind of silly to add this in when the OS does a perfectly good job.

That said, we have something planned for the upcoming Path Finder 4 release cycle that will address the bloated complaint hopefully once and for all...

I found it way too cluttered when I took it for a spin.

On that I totally agree. From a design perspective there were definitely some major issues with how things were laid out in Path Finder, especially the preferences. I've been working with the developer to clean these up a bit and abstract things better and I think this is improved in PF4.

Thanks for the feedback everyone - good or bad, it's all grist for the mill.

Neil

[delete]

I've used PF for a long time and think it's great. If you don't like the added features, don't use them. At least there is an option of customizing the way I want things to look and act. I'm not left with the way Apple (Finder) has decided I should interact with my files.

[threestain]

I'm giving it a spin at the moment, and I'll see what I think of 4 when its realised and released.

[moonmonkey]

I don't want to have to ignore features, I just want to be able to turn them off.
Pathfinder is cluttered and lacks style, every inch of the window is covered with buttons

[delete]

So if you don't want features, just use the Finder!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by delete

So if you don't want features, just use the Finder!

You see, there are ways to add features and not make the GUI look like a total mess. Sure, it takes a lot of R&D to pull it off but it's possible. Obviously, the Path Finder author doesn't have the money for very much R&D, so I can't blame him for the interface but, as I said, it's entirely possible to add all of Path Finder's features and not sacrifice general usability in the process.

Hopefully Apple will come up with something but right now the Finder is simple...and is *not* amazingly usable.

So some of us are stuck between two choices that suck...the Finder and Path Finder.

I'm actually surprised the Path Finder author didn't go boldly where no one has gone before by breaking the mold (current way of browsing files) to something a bit more forward-thinking (metadata)...sure, he's added Spotlight integration, but all Path Finder is is a Finder with lots of bells and whistles attached to it. But essentially, it's still the old crummy Finder that's been around since 1984.

[delete]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

You see, there are ways to add features and not make the GUI look like a total mess.

You're right about that and I do have UI issues with PF. Having said that there are at least ways to make it more palatable where as in the Finder you're just kinda stuck with how Apple wants you to see things. Once PF4 is released the GUI issues will be addressed further.
I think with this incarnation of PF the author just wanted to make something stable and fast that would deal with the changes Apple put into 10.4. While I like the idea of a paradigm shift when it comes to file management I have a feeling a lot of people would ignore it unless it came from the "mothership".

[neilio]

I'm actually surprised the Path Finder author didn't go boldly where no one has gone before by breaking the mold (current way of browsing files) to something a bit more forward-thinking (metadata)...sure, he's added Spotlight integration, but all Path Finder is is a Finder with lots of bells and whistles attached to it. But essentially, it's still the old crummy Finder that's been around since 1984.

Metadata is only available if Apple exposes it in the file system and makes it available to developers. Up until 10.4 most of the metadata in the OS was locked up (hell, 3rd party developers couldn't even access Finder comments without having to resort to slow and painful Applescript), so there wasn't much we could do about this.

If Apple doesn't provide the metadata, then the application developer needs to add it themselves - something which can be a huge endeavor, especially when you're talking about dealing with the filesystem.

10.4 is better here, but the big issue is that Spotlight is still a bit of a pig, and quite a few people deactivate it... which means that all of that metadata isn't available. So while I think this is a great idea, it's not going to happen unless there's a more stable, efficient way to gather this data on a filesystem level.

The biggest issue we have with Path Finder is that there are two types of PF users: power users who want to control ever single aspect of the application, and people who just want a better Finder.

In the past, the developer has aimed PF more at the first group. Part of this is because we needed to differentiate Path Finder from the FInder, and providing an abundance of choice was part of that. Part of the issue before, also, was that Cocoa was still quite immature and didn't allow for the breadth of functionality that Carbon did, so the developer had to find other ways to make PF valuable in a Finder world.

With PF4 and 10.4 we're starting to move the other direction where we're trying to make PF more streamlined and accessible to the second group of users. The issue now, of course, is making PF more accessible without alienating our first group of customers. I know a lot of people find PF unwieldy right now, but we do have a lot of customers that really like it as it is...

<marketing hat on>All I can say is that if you've been interested in PF but found it to be too much, keep an eye on the development over the version 4 release cycle. We have a lot of ideas and plans to make Path Finder a more compelling choice for those who just want a "better" Finder.</marketing hat off>

Thanks!

Neil

[neilio]

(sorry, double post and I can't see a "delete" button in the advanced editing screen.)

[delete]

What would be nice is for Path Finder to mimic of all things.....Transmit. That app has such a nice, simple interface. Although it has drawers (which some people dislike-I like) it handles UI things nicely, simply and quickly. You can change volumes to just icons like the Finder (PF couldn't do this in v3) and you can add folders like the PF shelf plus it handles bookmarks well (supposedly in PF4). All in all it looks like a nice foundation for a Finder-like app that looks and acts more like OSX than PF does. Add a few of the PF options and you might have something.

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by delete

So if you don't want features, just use the Finder!

I want some of the features, not all of the features, it looks like Darth Vaders bathroom.

[delete]

That's a scary thought-heavy breathing, magazines and extraneous GUI.