Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Vista and the Finder

Vista and the Finder
Thread Tools
clebin
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 11:04 AM
 
I have to say, Vista's Explorer does look very nice indeed. It makes the Finder look very old fashioned. Microsoft are also adding the little things, and the polish, that we Mac owners tend to admire.

The beautiful little folder icon previews, for example. XP has had folder icon previews for ages, which gave Apple a big window to come up with something like what you see in Vista. Something a bit more stylish. But they didn't. I couldn't help liking the little bar next to the disk icon that shows you how full your disk is. Again, this is exactly the sort of thing we like to see.

Even XP was much better at showing you useful previews and file information in the same window, and Vista shows that Microsoft are moving further in that direction. We still have to Get Info, and the window is still (perhaps subjectively) ugly and awkward to use. Vista gives you more useful previews, more file information with no-clicks or one-click, and a better choice of views on your filesystem (column view excepted).

This isn't a discussion about XP vs OS X. It's just one aspect where Microsoft is way ahead and Apple have not being paying attention to Microsoft or us. Their "integration" of Spotlight into the Finder says to me that they don't have a real idea of what they want the Finder to be, and that's worrying.

10.5 is an opportunity to put this right. The Vista preview should be a bit of a wake up call even if years of "Fix The F*cking Finder!!!" hasn't been.
     
Judge_Fire
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
Even XP was much better at showing you useful previews and file information in the same window, and Vista shows that Microsoft are moving further in that direction. We still have to Get Info, and the window is still (perhaps subjectively) ugly and awkward to use. Vista gives you more useful previews, more file information with no-clicks or one-click, and a better choice of views on your filesystem (column view excepted).
I agree. If there's one thing that's better in Windows, it's the user-friendliness of the file browser.

This is the one app where task-based operation makes sense. When viewing a file, displaying related information and providing a way to edit that data is good design. Conversely, in Mac OS X you need to:

1 Know that a 'tool' called 'Get Info' exists for this purpose.
2 Know where it can be found
3 Call it up everytime it's needed

This approach fails in informing the user of this possibility and is a lot of work, actually.


In a similar fashion, when viewing a folder full of images, it's IMHO appropriate to enable direct operations, tasks such as 'Print this image', or 'View these images as a slideshow.'.

Once again, in Mac OS X you need to start with the tool (iPhoto, Preview), bring in the media, blah blah. The halfbaked 'Slideshow' feature in Tiger's Finder hints at Apple thinking about this, too.


I'm not a big fan of 'task-based-stuff-everywhere', but for the simplest operations on files, such as inspecting them, viewing, organizing, printing, playing back etc. I appreciate the file browser being able to do that. I really don't enjoy having iPhoto and iTunes pretending to be specialized mini-Finders with their built-in personal quirks.

IMHO, Apple could well find a way to merge iPhoto and iTunes with the Finder for a more seamless experience.

/rant

J
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 12:52 PM
 
How ugly can an interface be?

http://www.vistaarticles.com/

This isn't a discussion about XP vs OS X. It's just one aspect where Microsoft is way ahead and Apple have not being paying attention to Microsoft or us. Their "integration" of Spotlight into the Finder says to me that they don't have a real idea of what they want the Finder to be, and that's worrying.
Amen to that!
     
GaelDesign
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 12:53 PM
 
Hmm, I don't feel this way at all. One of the #1 reasons why I like OS X better than Windows is because of the Finder. I may be one of those strange people who actually LOVE the OS X Finder. Column View is incredible, the interface is lean, the Sidebar works great, I don't have to have all kinds of task-based crap getting in my way, and it has just the right mix of metadata info and brevity. The only thing missing is Safari-style tabs: if I had that, I'd be in heaven.

The Vista Explorer looks promising -- especially with those breadcrumb menus -- but then again, anything is better than the slow, clumsy, bloated, annoying POS that is the XP Explorer.

Jared
President and Art Director of GaelDesign
Member of Distant Oaks - Celtic and Early Music Ensemble
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 01:12 PM
 
That search bar in Vista is great. They flip the magnifying glass horizontally and stick it on the other end of the text box. It's an obviously icon and metaphor for such a thing, but it's funny that lots of things like this are just "reversed" in Windows. Much like its ease-of-ue.
     
outsourced
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 02:05 PM
 
<deleted>
( Last edited by outsourced; Jul 28, 2005 at 02:06 PM. Reason: deleted)
Did Schroedinger's cat think outside the box?
     
Salty
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
Why do you need something else to tell you how full your HD is, mine tells me at the bottom of any window I open that I have 5.66gigs left. If you start telling people that they have X% of their HD filled odds are they're going to become paranoid about keeping it not terribly full or something which is dumb.
As well... how much info do you need about a file... you probably created it, it has the icon for the app it belongs with, or it's obviously a graphic file that has it's icon showing what it looks like...

The only time I use Get Info is when I want to change an icon though I honestly use IconCM a great contextual menu item I found, which honestly I think should be built into every OS X install.

I don't see how this information will serve to help the basic user like my mom... I see how it would save me one hot key that I don't mind hitting...

That said I do think that the iTunes music library should get it's own type of interface similar to iTunes, as well the iPhoto library should be similar to iPhoto's interface. And folders full of photos should have the same option of slide show as Xp offers only without it sucking as badly as XP's does.
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Salty
That said I do think that the iTunes music library should get it's own type of interface similar to iTunes, as well the iPhoto library should be similar to iPhoto's interface.
Why not go fully spatial about it?
In my book, the iTunes music library should exist in iTunes and iTunes only. If iTunes is a music browser, optimized for browsing music, why use the Finder?

iTunes isn't probably up for the job 100% the way it looks and is organized today, but it's the thought that's important: spatial interfaces don't have to be limited to the domain of the Finder.

The same thing goes for the iPhoto library, or any image folder: It should open in iPhoto. Seamless.
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
Their "integration" of Spotlight into the Finder says to me that they don't have a real idea of what they want the Finder to be, and that's worrying.
Interface design is an iterative process, and in Apples case, we are their test dummies. In the end, we get to decide whether Spotlight is here to stay, as with smart folders, burn folders, smart mail boxes and so on.

I don't know about that. Software companies ought to wake up and realize there's a difference between user-friendly and beginner-friendly.

Nevertheless, I've had the same awkward feeling as you. Some of the stuff Apple's been throwing at us lately just doesn't seem goal directed. No aim. I can't see what their getting at.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 05:50 PM
 
I definitely prefer OS X's finder. Although this may even be the one area where I almost prefer OS 9. I almost never use the Finder, and when I do it's to access something that I already know what and where it is. Column view is pretty much the only 'new' feature that i actually care about. The side bar I could take or leave, although it is nice to have if you don't have disks and servers and all show up on your desktop (which I don't, I like to keep my desktop completely clean).
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 06:07 PM
 
I very much prefer the OS X Finder to the Windows explorer, especially with column view and Exposé. It doesn't have an equivalent to the side bar and navigation is more cumbersome imho.

I don't know about Vista's Explorer, but in spirit, it doesn't look much different.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 06:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Judge_Fire
In a similar fashion, when viewing a folder full of images, it's IMHO appropriate to enable direct operations, tasks such as 'Print this image', or 'View these images as a slideshow.'.
I don't think we have anything to lose in letting task-oriented design pervade our user interfaces, although I think the user should define the tasks through atomic and consistent actions, instead of having the interface constantly suggesting where to go from here.

In the case of printing above, "desktop printers" would be an example.
     
Hi I'm Ben
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 09:26 PM
 
I prefer it to current XP but I think too many transparent windows may get annoying. Certain things are better with transparencies, however not everything. Although I'd take this GUI over the finder. I hate the finder. It's horrid ugly.
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 28, 2005, 09:35 PM
 
I guess I'm just one of those crazy deranged people who think that the finder does its job great (except for handling network file stuff) -- but as a SYSTEM file browser, it's GREAT.

Reasons I HATE Windows explorer:
1. The "task interface" -- I don't think 1/4 of my file browser window needs to be dedicated to telling me how big my files are and all the details about them
2. Icons -- Xp's icons are gaudy, keep it simple..
3. Info info info -- Again, Microsoft is going all out with their crazy "by nerds for nerds" approach, you can either have 50,000 details about a file or none at all. If I want 50,000 details of a file, fine.. but why can't I just have 1 simple line saying the most basic things, especially if that's all I need?
4. Windows Explorer becomes Internet explorer. Piece of *(@)#&%
5. The system folder restrictions -- stupid.
6. "Hidden files" different than OS X's "hidden files" -- OS X seems to make more sense with this one..
7. Spotlight: Utterly awesome, uses the iTunes style interface that Apple's had for YEARS now -- in fact, the search system was in place before MS revealed longhorn, how about that? And here's Eug Wanker to tell me all about MS being more innovative than Apple..
8. The Windows Explorer is overkill for a file browser. Period. For some reason, in OS X I have every single option I could possibly want interface wise (icons in toolbar or icons in sidebar or who knows what in both) -- yet it doesn't look nearly as ridiculous in the task... I think it's because they don't peddle you so much crap to begin with.
9. "22 items, 43.256GB available" -- at bottom of window.. could be made better by clicking it to see how much space is occupied by folder (and recursively by folder) -- but not necessary since get info does that too.
10. Connect to is (IMHO) just as fast and useful as having a location bar that I'd never use anyway..
11. For all else, there's spotlight and quicksilver.. the dream team. Even MS admits that one..

I don't get it, I'm hearing the finder is ugly? I just think that the underside of the finder was poorly made -- they need to re-address the network filesystem handling, specifically over SMB and FTP (come on already) -- once they get rid of dumping those .files (can't remember the name right now) on remote file shares, I'll be cool -- two way FTP would be good to see as well.. Otherwise, the finder works great for me. FWIW, I see plenty of both daily to the point where well, I can't exactly say my points aren't not true (for me, atleast)
Aloha
     
clebin  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 06:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Link
I guess I'm just one of those crazy deranged people who think that the finder does its job great (except for handling network file stuff) -- but as a SYSTEM file browser, it's GREAT.
It's the system that's great.

Reasons I HATE Windows explorer:
1. The "task interface" -- I don't think 1/4 of my file browser window needs to be dedicated to telling me how big my files are and all the details about them
3. Info info info -- Again, Microsoft is going all out with their crazy "by nerds for nerds" approach, you can either have 50,000 details about a file or none at all. If I want 50,000 details of a file, fine.. but why can't I just have 1 simple line saying the most basic things, especially if that's all I need?

I disagree with this. The devil may be in the implementation, but this is a very good thing. Apple could combine with the sidebar, or place it on the bottom of the Window like in Vista. It doesn't take 1/4 of the window anyway.

If people are going to use metadata there needs to be a strong interface to it. Something that shows users what metadata there is, and let's them edit it if they want to. If people don't see this data, Spotlight is just a full-text search. Apple have only implemented part of the interface to metadata - the search part. Did I mention how much I *hate* the Get Info window?

5. The system folder restrictions -- stupid.
I don't know what you mean by this. You do have to click to show the items in the Windows folder, but given that folder is such a mess, it's worth reminding beginners to steer clear. IT departments may restrict your access, but they do that withs Macs too (if they know how!)

I don't get it, I'm hearing the finder is ugly? I just think that the underside of the finder was poorly made -- they need to re-address the network filesystem handling, specifically over SMB and FTP (come on already) -- once they get rid of dumping those .files (can't remember the name right now) on remote file shares, I'll be cool -- two way FTP would be good to see as well.. Otherwise, the finder works great for me. FWIW, I see plenty of both daily to the point where well, I can't exactly say my points aren't not true (for me, atleast)
Most of what makes the Finder good is the OS underneath. For instance, Microsoft are struggling to make applications in the Start Menu intuitive. The huge menus were not working, so they're trying to embed a kind of browser thing in the menu. This sort of thing makes you want to hug the Finder.

But it's not really Explorer's fault. There is no nicely organised Applications folder with app bundles to browse in Explorer. There's nothing quite a simple as a Home folder to browse in Explorer. The Finder is a very average app which is lucky to be sitting on top of a great OS.

I agree about SMB and FTP. I really want to be able to share any folder to Windows and Mac users - it's a killer for me in a Windows network. We should be able to write to an FTP (or SFTP) drive by now.
     
sieb
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Under Your Stairs
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 06:14 AM
 
I just use Total Commander on all my 'doz boxes. I have MuCommander for my mac but I hardly use it in favor of Finder (kind of a throwback to using Midnight Commander on my linux servers). Usually the MyDocs folder is the only one I use Explorer with..
Sieb
Blackbook
(2Ghz, 2GB, 100Gig, week 21)
     
clebin  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I very much prefer the OS X Finder to the Windows explorer, especially with column view and Exposé. It doesn't have an equivalent to the side bar and navigation is more cumbersome imho.

I don't know about Vista's Explorer, but in spirit, it doesn't look much different.
Can you imagine if you could run the Finder in Windows instead of Explorer? No Dock, Exposé, Home, Applications or any of that OS X stuff. Instead a Start Menu, task bar and Windows directory structure... How good an app would the Finder be then?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 08:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
Can you imagine if you could run the Finder in Windows instead of Explorer? No Dock, Exposé, Home, Applications or any of that OS X stuff. Instead a Start Menu, task bar and Windows directory structure... How good an app would the Finder be then?
You have a home directory and an applications directory exists as well. I have a very good idea, as it is my job (for some extra cash) to administrate and fix others' Windows machines. The navigation is very cumbersome with the explorer as it is. The closest thing to column view isn't helping much either (directory tree on the left-hand side).

I think (since there is no way to prove this) having the Finder instead of the Windows explorer would speed up my work. Obviously, it wouldn't be as effective as in OS X, because you miss all the things you mentioned.

Windows could do it better. The Start menu as it is is pretty hard to work with as each and every app usually has an entry there. Most of the time, they are not even sorted alphabetically – try to find something in that mess.

To put another way: how useful do you think would the Explorer be on OS X with all those nice OS features?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 09:05 AM
 
The reason why the Finder sucks so much is because it's a 1984 file browsing tool when file management was simple in nature (due to floppy disk and HD sizes).

If Apple had to "Fix the f*cking Finder" they'd remove it altogether in favor of specialized tools such as iTunes, iPhoto, iMovieLibrary, iWorks.

The Finder would only exist as a physical all-purpose media browser.

Spotlight would be used to bridge all the apps together. All apps would individually manage the file formats they're supposed to handle. Each app would be able to communicate with other apps to import what they need.

This exists right now...Apple is working towards it. Rome wasn't built in 1 day. Look no further than iWorks and iLife to see how apps interact with iTunes/iPhoto, and other apps such as iCal that interacts with Address Book. They all handle one thing but they also go out and talk to other apps when they need their help. It's a beautiful modular design.

I expect Pages and Keynote to eventually have some sort of browser for text documents and presentation documents ala iTunes/iPhoto/Font Book/Address Book.

Using the Finder to find files is becoming less important.

How many here still categorize their music or photos by hand in the Finder? As metadata becomes more predominant, all of this categorization can happen automatically and tweaked more easily within a specialized app.

I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Finder was still around in 3-4 years as the main OS X browsing tool. I think Apple will make it a standalone app (like any other app) for the anal retentive types that absolutely want to retain control of the physical location and categorization of their files.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Jul 29, 2005 at 09:14 AM. )
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 09:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Judge_Fire
I agree. If there's one thing that's better in Windows, it's the user-friendliness of the file browser.

This is the one app where task-based operation makes sense. When viewing a file, displaying related information and providing a way to edit that data is good design. Conversely, in Mac OS X you need to:

1 Know that a 'tool' called 'Get Info' exists for this purpose.
2 Know where it can be found
3 Call it up everytime it's needed
Not at all. There's file info and previews in column mode that works exactly like the browser in Vista and displays it more in a more logical place relative to the file.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
CaptainHaddock
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Nagoya, Japan • 日本 名古屋市
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 10:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
The reason why the Finder sucks so much is because it's a 1984 file browsing tool when file management was simple in nature (due to floppy disk and HD sizes).

If Apple had to "Fix the f*cking Finder" they'd remove it altogether in favor of specialized tools such as iTunes, iPhoto, iMovieLibrary, iWorks.

The Finder would only exist as a physical all-purpose media browser.

Spotlight would be used to bridge all the apps together. All apps would individually manage the file formats they're supposed to handle. Each app would be able to communicate with other apps to import what they need.

This exists right now...Apple is working towards it. Rome wasn't built in 1 day. Look no further than iWorks and iLife to see how apps interact with iTunes/iPhoto, and other apps such as iCal that interacts with Address Book. They all handle one thing but they also go out and talk to other apps when they need their help. It's a beautiful modular design.

I expect Pages and Keynote to eventually have some sort of browser for text documents and presentation documents ala iTunes/iPhoto/Font Book/Address Book.

Using the Finder to find files is becoming less important.

How many here still categorize their music or photos by hand in the Finder? As metadata becomes more predominant, all of this categorization can happen automatically and tweaked more easily within a specialized app.
Interesting idea. The only problem I see is that if a program insists on obfuscating the file and folder structure of the data it maintains (like iPhoto, say), then it gets really difficult to use multiple programs for the same kind of file.
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
I think Apple will make it a standalone app (like any other app) for the anal retentive types that absolutely want to retain control of the physical location and categorization of their files.
What a clueless comment. You need to get more in touch with people who use their computers to do real work, as in “content creators”.
You know, not everything in life is renaming the latest Hanson song you got off Limewire.
     
Dog Like Nature
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:06 AM
 
Great! Looks like Vista still has stupid filenames
They're such a bunch of clowns.... and what's up with that frosted glass title-bar look?
╭1.5GHz G4 15" PB, 2.0GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 100GB 7200rpm HD, AEBS, BT kbd
╰2.0GHz T2500 20" iMac, 1.5GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 250GB 7200rpm HD

http://www.DogLikeNature.com/
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by mAxximo
What a clueless comment. You need to get more in touch with people who use their computers to do real work, as in “content creators”.
Don't you mean, how you use your computer? Although I suppose you can be so arrogant as to claim to speak for all content creators, that doesn't mean you're correct in doing so. We've been over this many times in the past.
You know, not everything in life is renaming the latest Hanson song you got off Limewire.
No, but that is not the only use of Spotlight.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:27 AM
 
The Start menu as it is is pretty hard to work with as each and every app usually has an entry there.[/QUOTE]
The Finder's Application Folder as it is is pretty hard to work with as each and every app usually has an entry there.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Most of the time, they are not even sorted alphabetically – try to find something in that mess.
Even if it was sorted alphabetically, this argument applies to whatever isn't organized. In such cases, the user has to know the name and exact path of what is sought - not the best starting point for building a mental model.

Today's user interfaces revolve around applications to a great extent, rendering the organization and accessing of applications critical for smooth interaction.
OS X's solution is customizing the Dock (among other things).
Window's dito is customizing the Start menu (among other things).

The introduction of Dashboard is another attempt of wrestling the application problem, in which applications are divided into heavy (conventional) and light-weight (Dashboard widgets).
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
If people are going to use metadata there needs to be a strong interface to it. Something that shows users what metadata there is, and let's them edit it if they want to. If people don't see this data, Spotlight is just a full-text search. Apple have only implemented part of the interface to metadata - the search part. Did I mention how much I *hate* the Get Info window?
Most of the time, for the majority of users, metadata is simply Too Much Information. They don't need to see that data all the time, and placing it there just means that more stuff changes onscreen every time they do something. Besides this, in icon view you're dealing with screen real-estate issues; there's to little space to put much metadata under or beside the icon, but a sidebar has too much space for most of the metadata in files, and so it's all wasted.

For those who need to see all their metadata all the time, there's List view, which also lets you sort items based on this metadata. In fact, it's very similar to the interface we see now in Spotlight. I would hope that if Apple moves to integrate more metadata into the Finder, they do so by refining List view rather than cluttering up Icon or Column.
But it's not really Explorer's fault. There is no nicely organised Applications folder with app bundles to browse in Explorer. There's nothing quite a simple as a Home folder to browse in Explorer.
Actually, there is a Home folder in Windows, under "cDocuments and Settings". However, it's not terribly well laid out -though it seems Vista will be improving this- and Microsoft hasn't made it the virtual "center" of the user's interactions with the filesystem, as OSX has.

The lack of app bundles in Windows is a problem, but there's even an Applications folder, under "cProgram Files". Without app bundles, of course, users are treated to more of a view of the app's structure than they really need most of the time, and once again makes things seem more complex than they actually are. OSX does it better: if you need to get at an app's structure you can, but almost all of the time you just want to run the app, so it abstracts the whole thing into a package.

By the way, notice these multi-word folder names under Windows. I believe this is a problem, not because of the issue with typing spaces in the command line (certainly this is an annoyance, but it's not that big of a deal), but because they're being overly wordy for no real reason. It's the old English rule, "Never use a big word when a diminutive one will do". They may think they're making things clearer, but in their quest for simplification they've taken concepts which can be explained with one word each and unnecessarily expanded the names, implying more complexity than there really is. Functionally, there's no real difference between /Users on OSX and "Documents and Settings" in Windows -both folders exist to hold your documents and settings, after all- but Windows' naming implies that there's somehow more to a user's interaction with the system, more things which users have which shouldn't go there. What is a "document", anyway? Are music files documents? What about movies? Even experts can get into long arguments about this. Ordinary users, on the other hand, get confused, and end up just dumping everything on the Desktop.
I agree about SMB and FTP. I really want to be able to share any folder to Windows and Mac users - it's a killer for me in a Windows network. We should be able to write to an FTP (or SFTP) drive by now.
No, we should not. SFTP and FTP are not designed for file sharing, and are not suited to the task. What Apple needs to do is improve its SMB support so that the kludge of "FTP file sharing" can go away. These things should never have been built into the Finder in the first place.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
clebin  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
You have a home directory and an applications directory exists as well.
I know that, it's just not what we understand by the terms. Program Files and Documents and Settings are inhospitable places for users. I've also done Windows server support in the past and it's not all bad.

I honestly think Explorer would fit into OS X ok. If nothing else, there's a lot of nice things which Apple could borrow and possibly improve on for the Finder.

As I've said before I don't buy into the Finder-less direction completely. Incompatible APIs and a general lack of standards for communication and organisation, over-specialised interfaces that must be learnt individually.... I will shut up now because it's off-topic, and because someone who only sees in black & white will call me backward, anally retentive or something....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:45 AM
 
#1 reason why Windows file explorer sucks: CAN'T DISPLAY FOLDER SIZES. WTF ?

-t
     
clebin  (op)
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Cardiff, Wales
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Most of the time, for the majority of users, metadata is simply Too Much Information. They don't need to see that data all the time, and placing it there just means that more stuff changes onscreen every time they do something. Besides this, in icon view you're dealing with screen real-estate issues; there's to little space to put much metadata under or beside the icon, but a sidebar has too much space for most of the metadata in files, and so it's all wasted.

For those who need to see all their metadata all the time, there's List view, which also lets you sort items based on this metadata. In fact, it's very similar to the interface we see now in Spotlight. I would hope that if Apple moves to integrate more metadata into the Finder, they do so by refining List view rather than cluttering up Icon or Column.
That's what Preferences are there for. I'd like to see a decent Preview of my files when I click on them and some metadata. The preview in column view is a start, but I don't use column view much.

Actually, there is a Home folder in Windows, under "cDocuments and Settings". However, it's not terribly well laid out -though it seems Vista will be improving this- and Microsoft hasn't made it the virtual "center" of the user's interactions with the filesystem, as OSX has.

The lack of app bundles in Windows is a problem, but there's even an Applications folder, under "cProgram Files". Without app bundles, of course, users are treated to more of a view of the app's structure than they really need most of the time, and once again makes things seem more complex than they actually are. OSX does it better: if you need to get at an app's structure you can, but almost all of the time you just want to run the app, so it abstracts the whole thing into a package.
Like I said before, this is not Explorer's fault, but the fault of the underlying OS. We both know there's no comparison there.

No, we should not. SFTP and FTP are not designed for file sharing, and are not suited to the task. What Apple needs to do is improve its SMB support so that the kludge of "FTP file sharing" can go away. These things should never have been built into the Finder in the first place.
I apologise on behalf of everyone who uses FTP. Should we be using SMB over the internet? I think not. FTP exists, people use it. Some people need an easy way to upload a file onto an FTP server without working out which FTP software they need to download, paying the license fee, etc. Sorry abotu that.
( Last edited by clebin; Jul 29, 2005 at 11:55 AM. )
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:00 PM
 
As a switcher, I have to point out that Get Info has never been a big problem for me; I use a two-button mouse (mainly because I'm used to them and because Apple mice co$t too darn much). It's just natural for me to "right click" on stuff, and lo and behold! There's a menu for files and folders that includes "Get Info."

One thing that would be nice to add to Finder that Windows Explorer does have is the "hover" tip window. When you "hover" your mouse pointer over a folder or folder name, a tip window pops up with the size of the folder and its contents. When you hover over a file, you get all the metadata available on that file-for example, on a PDF you get the author, size and creation date; for a program you get company, description, version, creation date, and more.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock
Interesting idea. The only problem I see is that if a program insists on obfuscating the file and folder structure of the data it maintains (like iPhoto, say), then it gets really difficult to use multiple programs for the same kind of file.
Yes, the idea is an extension of spatiality. Using multiple applications for accessing the same object breaks spatiality. Just as being able to view the same Finder content in different windows, or even different views, breaks spatiality.

In this world, navigating to /Users/<username>/Music would open iTunes, /Users/<username>/Pictures would open iPhoto.
Simarly /Users/<username>/Documents/Pages would open "the Pages browser".

Now, the only remaining question is: would this pose a good user interface...?


Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Finder was still around in 3-4 years as the main OS X browsing tool.
I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Finder wasn't still around in 20 years. Consider how "far" we've gotten over the last 20 years...

Originally Posted by Dog Like Nature
Great! Looks like Vista still has stupid filenames
Yes, and confusing users with volume names (C:, D:, E is still going strong.
Imagine your mom saying "Yeah, I put in on C:".
It's just embarrasing to live on the same planet.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by cla
Yes, and confusing users with volume names (C:, D:, E is still going strong.
Imagine your mom saying "Yeah, I put in on C:".
It's just embarrasing to live on the same planet.
Those are NOT volume names; they're drive letters (logical or physical-makes no difference). This is a paradigm that works and makes sense in an historical sense, but needs to be tweaked to ensure that it continues to make sense; users need TRAINING before they can make effective use of the paradigm.

It takes a couple of seconds to NAME a volume (right click on a drive/volume, select "Properties" and then type a name in the box next to the little drive icon). It's the fact that nobody (in general) tells newbies about this that is the problem.

My dad took a class in computers so that he could stay in touch through email and so on, and that class DID explain things like volume naming. But to a lot of Windows users, the drive letter is as useful as a volume name, so it's no big deal for them. And it is THEIR problem when they confuse the stuff out of mom when they try to tell her where the recipies or pictures or whatever are.

Oh, and shared documents should go into the Shared Documents folder on a multiuser Windows XP machine... but again users don't get much instruction on this and thus they hose up their machines. I have stopped telling most people that I have a clue about computers because many of them will ask me over to clean up their computers, and that is a definite NO!

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
As I've said before I don't buy into the Finder-less direction completely. Incompatible APIs and a general lack of standards for communication and organisation, over-specialised interfaces that must be learnt individually....
Incompatible APIs and the lack of standards are "mere" technical limitations. The overspecialised interfaces you're referring to are necessary to some extent: Rotation applies to images, printing to text, listening to sound a s o.
However I think you're right: the organization of files would for instance pose a common denominator, which as a part of the user interface must be 100% consistent.
Today's use of meta data is also a common denominator, as pure text still is the only medium of defining meta data.

Originally Posted by clebin
I will shut up now because it's off-topic, and because someone who only sees in black & white will call me backward, anally retentive or something....
Too bad, it's an interesting discussion =]
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 12:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
This is a paradigm that works and makes sense in an historical sense, but needs to be tweaked to ensure that it continues to make sense; users need TRAINING before they can make effective use of the paradigm.
The sole use of labels makes sense to me. Why refer to the external disc with "F:" instead of the label "External Disc"? Or the partition containing applications by "Applications" instead of "D:"?

I believe introducing the use of abstract drive letters to a new user serves no purpose other than that of confusing. The reason new users are still tought this obfuscating practise is because drive letters are already there.

Apple realized this and gave their drives a default label. "Macintosh HD" is still the label of many Macintosh hard drives - but as ghporter pointed out, user training is the issue here.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
That's what Preferences are there for. I'd like to see a decent Preview of my files when I click on them and some metadata. The preview in column view is a start, but I don't use column view much.
The problems with this approach come even before you make it an option: where do you put the preview and metadata for people who turn it on? A preview and metadata are too big for the icon and too small for a sidebar. Where else could they go? Options are only good if all of the options are good.
Like I said before, this is not Explorer's fault, but the fault of the underlying OS. We both know there's no comparison there.
About the only thing that would have to change on the OS level is modifying the names of the two folders, and that's one line of code each (it might even be doable as part of the Registry, in which case there would be no code needed at all there). Package support and centering the UI around the Home folder would all be tasks that had to be done in Explorer.

As for FTP, all you have to do if you need it is use a separate FTP client. This is not hard to do, and it keeps a clean separation between real filesharing technologies (SMB, WebDAV, and so forth) and basic transfer protocols (FTP and SFTP). Clean and tidy, with no bloat and no inappropriate features.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Timan
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:41 PM
 
This is all apple needs to do, and have it be an option for people to have it on or off. Or have it in one of those sliding panes.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2...derinfo8ua.png
- Tim
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by cla
The Finder's Application Folder as it is is pretty hard to work with as each and every app usually has an entry there.
But that's what you got the Dock for. It's meant to be a short-cut for apps you use a lot. Ditto for the Start menu, but it's a mess menu right now.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by clebin
I know that, it's just not what we understand by the terms. Program Files and Documents and Settings are inhospitable places for users. I've also done Windows server support in the past and it's not all bad.

I honestly think Explorer would fit into OS X ok. If nothing else, there's a lot of nice things which Apple could borrow and possibly improve on for the Finder.
Like what?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by cla
I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Finder wasn't still around in 20 years. Consider how "far" we've gotten over the last 20 years...
But, really, how far have we really gone with the Finder? Tell me. I hardly see any difference between Finder 2005 and Finder 1984. The only big changes I've seen are extremely recent is the loss of spatiality and Smart Folders (which is a weird hack at the moment since it doesn't act like a true folder limiting it's functionality).

And please don't bring trivial changes like switching from the old 1 level hierarchy system System 1 had, and B&W to color or even spring-loaded folders...those are very tiny evolutionary changes.

The Finder is not very helpful at all unless files are systematically and manually categorized. Sure, there will always be people that have an uncontrollable urge to micromanage file categorization...but this is rapidly becoming a tedious and long process with the growing number of files on people's HDs.

The Finder might still be around...but it won't be the default tool that is auto-launched at startup and remains un-quittable without some hacking. It'll becoming just another app/tool like iTunes but it's purpose will be general as opposed to specialized that can be launched or quit at any time.

I never use the Finder when I need to find pictures, music, mail, contacts, fonts, webpage bookmarks...why? Because there are better tools available. If Pages had a 'text documents browser', if Photoshop had a 'Photoshop document', if app X had a X document browser, what use would the Finder be?

The Finder is rapidly becoming less needed. The only reason why it's still around is to maintain a sort of compatibility with document apps that can't manage their own documents. When all apps start using Spotlight to find all the documents that belong to it, what use will the Finder be to people who have zero interest in categorizing things?

The only people that will mourn the loss of the Finder as the default file browser will be those that believe the Finder is the 'Mac experience'...if you had asked me this 3 years ago, I would have said "yes, the Finder is the Mac experience", but in the last 3 years I've seen Apple going through a shift by introducing apps that manage their own documents better than the Finder ever could. These apps are mini-turbocharged-Finders. And once Apple drops support for OSes below 10.4, all these apps will be using Spotlight technology to find their own documents and manage them
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Jul 29, 2005 at 02:18 PM. )
     
Timan
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
But that's what you got the Dock for. It's meant to be a short-cut for apps you use a lot. Ditto for the Start menu, but it's a mess menu right now.
Yes, but see here the user must first go into the app folder and drag the apps they want into the dock. Imo there should be a sync (ex dashboard manager that apple added in the recent patch). that syncs the application folder, and alerts you when a new app has been put in there if you want to put a shortcut in the dock, if you press no it will not bug you again till the app is updated.
- Tim
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timan
Yes, but see here the user must first go into the app folder and drag the apps they want into the dock. Imo there should be a sync (ex dashboard manager that apple added in the recent patch). that syncs the application folder, and alerts you when a new app has been put in there if you want to put a shortcut in the dock, if you press no it will not bug you again till the app is updated.
That would annoy me pretty quickly. That's what I hate about windows, I don't want it in my Mac.

IMHO, how can you expect of people who aren't organized in the physical world to be organized in the virtual world?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
legacyb4
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vancouver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 03:41 PM
 
It's better than that godawful "silver" XP interface which is only marginally better than the candycolored standard XP colors; having said that, they've gone overboard with the transparency effects (hope it can be disabled like the fade-in menus).
Macbook (Black) C2D/250GB/3GB | G5/1.6 250GBx2/2.0GB
Free Mobile Ringtone & Games Uploader | Flickr | Twitter
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by Timan
This is all apple needs to do, and have it be an option for people to have it on or off. Or have it in one of those sliding panes.

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2...derinfo8ua.png
Interesting. Your current mockup, though sacrifices enough screen space to display four icons, and returns only the metadata for one object. This doesn't seem like a very good trade-off. When people want to see metadata, they usually want to see it for many files at once. As far as that goes, List view wins.

By the way, there's an Explorer-like file browser for OSX: Macintosh Explorer. You'd have to disable or ignore the tabs, but otherwise the interface is pretty similar. Give it a try and see how good it really is.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
cla
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
But, really, how far have we really gone with the Finder? Tell me.
I wrote Consider how "far" we've gotten over the last 20 years....
Far within quotes was ironically meant.

The answer is nowhere at all, as you pointed out yourself.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by cla
The sole use of labels makes sense to me. Why refer to the external disc with "F:" instead of the label "External Disc"? Or the partition containing applications by "Applications" instead of "D:"?

I believe introducing the use of abstract drive letters to a new user serves no purpose other than that of confusing. The reason new users are still tought this obfuscating practise is because drive letters are already there.

Apple realized this and gave their drives a default label. "Macintosh HD" is still the label of many Macintosh hard drives - but as ghporter pointed out, user training is the issue here.
Many-maybe most- factory built PCs come with their hard drives labeled. But it is relatively trivial to add a haard drive or another optical drive to most desktop PCs so a lot of them wind up with letters and no labels. And they aren't "introducing" anything today; this is stolen STRAIGHT from Unix. Further, how many "External Disc" drives do you have? I have two USB flash drives, and I've labeled them differently so I can tell which one is which onscreen. It's not "less advanced" or anything, it's just a different paradigm, like driving on the left or right side of the road.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 06:32 PM
 
*grin* Like gphorter, I 'switched' -- back in the days of 10.0.4 and all that jazz though.. and I actually find get info pretty useful instead of having too much info constantly dished out in front of me..

Yes you should be able to update meta data more easily through it, but having a whole damn sidebar would get on my nerves -- maybe they could make an "info piece" to the sidebar like the ones in itunes (for CD covers) and in iphoto for EXIF data..

Timan: Your idea reminds me of windows.. "You've plugged in a new device! We're installing drivers for it!" taskbar popups...
NO NO NO ABSOLUTELY NO!

Please never suggest that idea again.
Aloha
     
Timan
Forum Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 06:41 PM
 
well link... have you ever plugged something in to your mac, and wonder if its working or not? I know when I plugged my printer in, I got no indication that it is working, there has to be some sort of alert to let us know things are working.

Least on windows it says your device is ready to use in a little tooltip down at the bottom right.

Could have like one of those transparent boxes (like the volume, eject) with a printer (example) and a small check box, that fades in then fades right out. To let you know things are working and are ready to use.

PICTURE TIME - http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/2285/printcheck4we.jpg

And about sacraficing screen space... most pc these days are starting to come with somewhat of a widescreen, yet apple and ms keep adding crap to the top and bottom of the screens, but not the sides, what is the reason for this? You guys can sacrafice a few damn pixels for a info box, if not when you have the get info box it takes more...
( Last edited by Timan; Jul 29, 2005 at 07:03 PM. )
- Tim
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 07:21 PM
 
negative timan, the mac way is to assume it is working, an alert will tell you if it isn't
     
himself
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Live at the BBQ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Many-maybe most- factory built PCs come with their hard drives labeled. But it is relatively trivial to add a haard drive or another optical drive to most desktop PCs so a lot of them wind up with letters and no labels. And they aren't "introducing" anything today; this is stolen STRAIGHT from Unix. Further, how many "External Disc" drives do you have? I have two USB flash drives, and I've labeled them differently so I can tell which one is which onscreen. It's not "less advanced" or anything, it's just a different paradigm, like driving on the left or right side of the road.
I tend to wonder, why show the C:, D:, E: etc drive designations at all? This is something I always thought should be hidden from the user. It is akin to a Mac using a "disk0s10" designation or the "/Volumes/drive label" path as the default to identify a volume. It's way too technical than it needs to be, and novice users are likely to be confused when they see that a volume has more than one designation, when one name will do. Also, why show the "External Disk" (or any removable media) when there is no volume mounted? Windows Explorer could do a better job in this regard of showing the user only what volumes are actually available, and allowing access to renaming mounted volumes, as well as hiding extraneous volume designations. (this is starting to sound a lot like a file browser all of us are already familiar with...)
"Bill Gates can't guarantee Windows... how can you guarantee my safety?"
-John Crichton
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2005, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Millennium
Don't you mean, how you use your computer? Although I suppose you can be so arrogant as to claim to speak for all content creators, that doesn't mean you're correct in doing so. We've been over this many times in the past.
Yes, dad.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,