[chris v]

Originally Posted by reader50

More user control of when a Preview appears in column view. It's ok for JPEGs and other documents, but stupid for video files. Who is going to watch any video file in a Finder thumnail? And it's really stupid if the file is an xvid or divx format video. The Finder beachballs while QT reads the whole file, then QT has to contact the Apple servers looking for a codec. Since it never finds one, and never will, it keeps trying on every preview. In about 30 seconds, it finally shows a blank preview with a slider control. It gets even better if you aren't connected to the internet at the time, then you sometimes get a dialog box. This is really a QT problem, but the Finder could take control here. Give a list of file types that don't get automatically previewed. Should be useful for other situations too, like large PDF documents.

And G*d forbid you should accidentally click on a video file with the preview column on while browsing your iDisk. I've had this totally beachball my finder for up to 5 minutes, as it attempts to load the damn thing over the internet. Can we at least get a "command+." to make it stop loading?

Argh.

Also, How about Used AND Available space when viewing hard drives in a finder window? That's an OS 9 thing that's gone missing.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by JLL

Right click -> Move to Trash

A control-click too for those with no right mouse button , or Apple Delete.

But thanks for the tip

[outsourced]

OK. I'll play.

1. multiple Finder instances (Views, Desktop, whatever you want to call them) from which other apps can run. Note that this is NOT a different user login.

2. 64-bit Apple menu! (kidding)

3. eye candy: "live" desktop background (like clouds moving, water rippling, etc) ala Core Image.

4. batch rename (why bother with Automator or CLI?)

5. a better way to move files and folders. Sidebar is a good start, but it's inefficient. (Or maybe I'm just a 'we todd.')

6. Desktop Palettes (mini-Dock?) that are located (mainly) on the right side of the screen. This is kind of like the old tabbed folders of OS 9, and would help somebody like me to organize files on my desktop. Some Adobe apps implement this type of setup with the palettes. And the "mini-Dock" or palettes or whatever we call them should be just as customizable.

I'm sure there are many other improvements that can be made regarding stability and process handling.

Making Finder work better is great, but is Finder really necessary? It just seems that the Finder has always been the bottleneck in the OS. Maybe there's something else that can eventually supplant it.

[Weyland-Yutani]

@outsourced

A rhetorical question: What would you replace the Finder with? As you have questions about the viability of the Finder you have perhaps an idea of a replacement?

Start a thread about it, it would be way off-topic in this one.

A real question: Has the Finder been neglected for so long that people are questioning why it exists at all or did anyone feel like this before Mac OS X?

cheers

W-Y

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by outsourced

OK. I'll play.

1. multiple Finder instances (Views, Desktop, whatever you want to call them) from which other apps can run. Note that this is NOT a different user login.

2. 64-bit Apple menu! (kidding)

3. eye candy: "live" desktop background (like clouds moving, water rippling, etc) ala Core Image.

4. batch rename (why bother with Automator or CLI?)

5. a better way to move files and folders. Sidebar is a good start, but it's inefficient. (Or maybe I'm just a 'we todd.')

6. Desktop Palettes (mini-Dock?) that are located (mainly) on the right side of the screen. This is kind of like the old tabbed folders of OS 9, and would help somebody like me to organize files on my desktop. Some Adobe apps implement this type of setup with the palettes. And the "mini-Dock" or palettes or whatever we call them should be just as customizable.

I'm sure there are many other improvements that can be made regarding stability and process handling.

Making Finder work better is great, but is Finder really necessary? It just seems that the Finder has always been the bottleneck in the OS. Maybe there's something else that can eventually supplant it.

5. YES!!! I can't agree more. currently moving files between 2 folders is a huge pain in the ass.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

5. YES!!! I can't agree more. currently moving files between 2 folders is a huge pain in the ass.

For some reason I'd have thought copy/pasting them would be the obvious thing to do in this browser oriented Finder we have.

In a spacial Finder moving files between two folders is a breeze. I never had any issues with it until the OS X Finder.

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

A real question: Has the Finder been neglected for so long that people are questioning why it exists at all or did anyone feel like this before Mac OS X?

Yes, many of us do. I used OS9 last about three, four months ago (faulty harddrive, so I took my Silverlining Pro CD). It was much more messy than the OS X Finder, it was quite cumbersome to move/copy something from my OS X volume to my external harddrive -- especially when the screen uses only 800x600 (that was actually the resolution of my last OS9 machine).

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

5. YES!!! I can't agree more. currently moving files between 2 folders is a huge pain in the ass.

I've gotten used to using Exposé in one of the hot corners and it works quite well for me. If I have to sort tons of files, I temporarily put the folder in question in the side bar (e. g. when I have downloaded tons of .pdfs or so).

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by leperkuhn

5. YES!!! I can't agree more. currently moving files between 2 folders is a huge pain in the ass.

I know what you mean. I hate it when I open up one folder and then open up another folder that I can drag some files from one to the other.

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by midwinter

I know what you mean. I hate it when I open up one folder and then open up another folder that I can drag some files from one to the other.

Not a big deal on my 20" monitor, but on my 14" ibook it's irritating.

Better use of the sidebar might help, but it requires me to think backwards, and find the destination folder first.

Usually i find something that's out of place. then i need to put it somewhere. Maybe I just need to use spring loaded folders better...

[Horsepoo!!!]

Well, I suppose the Finder can continue exist/improve for legacy purposes and for people stuck in the OS 9 mentality of 'single-userness' and 'spatiality' but Apple has to bring in a new app for the future of file management.

Because home networks are becoming more popular and because corporate networks are a mess, something new has to supplant the Finder as some people here are suggesting.

My mother is a person that likes things to be tidy...she'll even go as far as to pick up after someone else. If I so happen to invite my mom over to my house and turn my back on her for half an hour, she'll have re-organized the place in such a way that it would take me days to find some of the things she moved. And every time, I tell her to stop doing things like that...spatiality is a fact of 'real' life, if someone moves my things around in a way I wouldn't have thought, it becomes very difficult to find these things. We can't help but live in a 3D spatial world with solid physical objects. This spatiality should not extend to the computer world where we're not bound to physical objects that can only exist in a single place at any one time.

As far as spatiality goes, I suppose every user of the computer could have their own little spatial/hierarchical area...but as soon as files extend beyond this area and become public to other users of the computer or to a network of computers, spatiality just isn't efficient.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Yes, many of us do. I used OS9 last about three, four months ago (faulty harddrive, so I took my Silverlining Pro CD). It was much more messy than the OS X Finder, it was quite cumbersome to move/copy something from my OS X volume to my external harddrive -- especially when the screen uses only 800x600 (that was actually the resolution of my last OS9 machine).

That was an answer, but not to my question. I specifically asked if anyone had any problems with the Finder *before* OS X came out. Was anyone questioning its right to existence *before* Feubuary 24th 2001.

Opinions *today* of a piece of software that was discontinued five years ago are less interesting. I hope you are not falling into the trap of not reading my posts before replying to them once again OreoCookie

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That was an answer, but not to my question. I specifically asked if anyone had any problems with the Finder *before* OS X came out. Was anyone questioning its right to existence *before* Feubuary 24th 2001.

Opinions *today* of a piece of software that was discontinued five years ago are less interesting. I hope you are not falling into the trap of not reading my posts before replying to them once again OreoCookie

cheers

W-Y

I did read your posts, but you probably don't know about my state of mind back then.

Just before the public beta went `public', I was toying with Linux on my Powerbook (which was premature, as it didn't even support energy management at that time), because of I was unsatisfied with quite a few things of OS9, including the Finder. I was saved when I saw OS X for the first time, I saved all money I had to get an OS X-ready machine (my G3, was the only one not supported by OS X ).

So yes, even back then, the OS9 Finder was a reason why I wanted to switch. So yes, one of my problems was the cluttering with windows on such a small screen (12.1" tft, 800x600). With column view, that problem is a non-issue. To copy a file, no matter how different the paths are, I need two windows tops. In OS9, I usually used the spring-loaded folder feature to move around. Sometimes I misplaced the object, so I dove into a wrong sub directory and I had trouble finding the mother folder in time, especially on a small screen, it'll be cluttered by windows pretty quickly. After some time, I would end up with a cluttered Finder, and I usually closed all windows then and started all over again.

I hope that clarified my earlier post. (I do and did have criticism to OS9 in general, but this is not the issue right now.) So what I experienced a few weeks ago was just a reminiscent of what I had endured earlier. So even though the contrast between a brand-new operating system and one which hasn't been updated for basically over five years now has highlighted criticism, I was of the same opinion (but lacking a better alternative) when I used OS9 as my primary OS.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Yes, that clarified things. Thank you OreoCookie. OS 9 in 800x600 res is no picknick although I started to use System 7 in 640x480 and liked it

Good times.

cheers

W-Y

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes, that clarified things. Thank you OreoCookie. OS 9 in 800x600 res is no picknick although I started to use System 7 in 640x480 and liked it

Just to add one more comment: my machine was a PowerBook G3 (the very first one), so there was no way of getting a bigger screen. The largest supported resolution was 1024x768, I think, but no video spanning, I could do only either-or (or mirroring at 800x600). It was actually `the' reason why I almost didn't buy the machine, despite the fact that its specs were opulent to say the least.

[mAxximo]

My quick list to FTFF in 10.5:

—Global Preferences to set up the default look and functionality of all windows, as in “no metal, List View, Sort by Date, Newer files at the top, Geneva 9, etc. All current and future windows would respond immediately to this set of preferences. It would also let the user modify the grid, fonts, etc.

—A new set of preferences to deal with the Dock that include the possibility of getting rid of it altogether and replace it with a Mac-style application switcher in the top right corner of the screen, as well as the option of making it “virtual” much like Command-Tab works now. Option-Tab would bring the Dock in the same manner, for example. The current option of hiding it just takes ages to come up and down so it doesn't do it for me...Dock hiding is probably one of the less “snappy” things in OS X.

—Spring-loaded folders should work in the Dock.

—Labels. I need Labels, really. One of the things in OS 9 I miss the most. No, the OS X implementation of Labels is one of the most retarded things I've seen these guys ever do, and that's a lot to say. I can't even talk too much about them.

—Tabbed folders a.k.a. Pop-up folders was one of the Mac functionalities my workflow used to rely upon the most. Being that the Dock doesn't even support Labels or Spring-loaded folders it's no wonder I'm still waiting for tabbed folders to get implemented in OS X. This would be used along with the option of turning the Dock into a “virtual” Option-Tab kind of thing like I described before.

—Crap, I have to shutdown the machine....will continue later.

[cla]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

people stuck in the OS 9 mentality of 'single-userness'

That'd be me.
Although it's not the mentality of 'single-userness' that's missing.
It's the design revolving around 'multi-userness' that I find bad.

Seriously, I don't get the point of implementing 'multi-userness' the 'Windows way'. Perhaps things weren't perfect the way they were (OS 9), but I really fail to see how OS X is an improvement.

When I'm "in the desktop" I can "Go" to the "Computer", find nothing that makes any sense, and from there go to "Users", <myself> and yet again find my "desktop", only located in a window...
It just doesn't make any sense.

When did a 1:1 mapping between the OS X physical file system and the interface's virtual file system become more important than usability?
Why let users see there's a root at all? It's not like it's for storing average stuff...
I can see how that would make someone feel they're not in control of their own computer.

Furthermore, when I "Go"->to my "Home" folder, I'm confronted with TWO application folders, and no hint whatsoever as to why and which app goes where. I don't know, but before OS X came along, did we have the substantial problem of not wanting to share our applications with other users on the same computer?

And what's with the "Shared" folder? Why aren't the "Shared" applications in the "Shared" folder?!

[Jim Paradise]

Honestly, I don't mind the Finder as it is except I want it to be Aqua again instead of brushed metal, or at least to be one of the new "unified" variants (or whatever the **** Apple's calling their other themes now)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by cla

That'd be me.
Although it's not the mentality of 'single-userness' that's missing.
It's the design revolving around 'multi-userness' that I find bad.

Seriously, I don't get the point of implementing 'multi-userness' the 'Windows way'. Perhaps things weren't perfect the way they were (OS 9), but I really fail to see how OS X is an improvement.

When I'm "in the desktop" I can "Go" to the "Computer", find nothing that makes any sense, and from there go to "Users", <myself> and yet again find my "desktop", only located in a window...
It just doesn't make any sense.

When did a 1:1 mapping between the OS X physical file system and the interface's virtual file system become more important than usability?
Why let users see there's a root at all? It's not like it's for storing average stuff...
I can see how that would make someone feel they're not in control of their own computer.

Furthermore, when I "Go"->to my "Home" folder, I'm confronted with TWO application folders, and no hint whatsoever as to why and which app goes where. I don't know, but before OS X came along, did we have the substantial problem of not wanting to share our applications with other users on the same computer?

And what's with the "Shared" folder? Why aren't the "Shared" applications in the "Shared" folder?!

I completely agree...Apple has messed up on usability there. Things have got to change...and the sooner the better, IMO. Nobody 'cept the admin should be able to see the system files...in fact, the system files should be hidden by default from the admin. Apps, like files, should be shareable or not. But the way Apple has set this up is confusing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I completely agree...Apple has messed up on usability there. Things have got to change...and the sooner the better, IMO. Nobody 'cept the admin should be able to see the system files...in fact, the system files should be hidden by default from the admin. Apps, like files, should be shareable or not. But the way Apple has set this up is confusing.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here … I thought Apple did precisely that. Shared applications belong in the /Applications folder, user applications go in the /Users/[user name]/Applications folder.

[kent m]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

User-definable (and predefined/default) metadata tags that allow finding/categorizing applications easily.

Man, only if this can TURNED OFF. I can see this getting really annoying, having to dig through two or three or more directories to get at something. Besides, this can already be hacked by just adding sub directories to your directories.

[SMacTech]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here … I thought Apple did precisely that. Shared applications belong in the /Applications folder, user applications go in the /Users/[user name]/Applications folder.

Exactly. My wife has no idea the WebGrazer application is installed in my ~/Applications folder. Not that she cares, but she would never launch it.

[spiff72]

I don't know if this was mentioned earlier, but I would just like to have an option in the Finder to allow you to list Folders first, then files. (I got so used to this in Windows, I really miss it).

[cla]

...in column view?

[spiff72]

Originally Posted by cla

...in column view?

Yep.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here … I thought Apple did precisely that. Shared applications belong in the /Applications folder, user applications go in the /Users/[user name]/Applications folder.

Sorry, what I meant is that new users don't quite understand what is their space and what is not because Apple, in its infinite wisdom, decided it would be fun to allow users to wander outside their Home directory.

Apple needs to fix this.

Firstly, everything outside the Home directory should be off-limit to anyone without admin access. Even admins shouldn't, by default, have access to it (most admins are normal users that just want to control other people's accounts. They have no interest in what could be going on in /Library or /System). The option to view the entire HD should be available to admins but shouldn't be on by default.

Secondly, public applications should be available within the Home directory...how the public applications and files are presented to the user is up to Apple to figure out. But a clear distinction has to be made between what is private and what is public to the user.

I don't know if Apple can fix all this with the Finder or if they have to change the way the whole OS works but they have to do something about that.

I and many others have no use for the root directory with the Users, Library, System, and Applications folder (and other stuff that gets dumped there by misbehaving programs.) Yes, I did have to manually install, on a few occasion, plugins to software in /Library but these directories should never really be touched by 99% of users...installers are supposed to install stuff there so you don't need to. The ability to even view any of these should be off by default to all users including the admin and an option to the admin only.

And the /Library and ~/Library folders are a mess...developers and even Apple use them sloppily. Sometimes developers will drop stuff directly into ~/Library instead of using ~/Applications Support...it's a mess, it's gotta be cleaned up and made more user-friendly...right now these directories should almost be off-limit to normal users too since they're ugly as sin to look at and confusing to many. Heck...when OS X Public Beta was released, I almost put some e-books in 'Library' thinking it was a continuation of the 'Movie, Music, Documents, Pictures' theme Apple had going.

[kent m]

General:
~Mouse Over Focus support, without having the windows jump to #1. Once you get used to this it's necessary. Right now it's implemented haphazardly in the Finder and apps - some have it some don't, some wheel support some not, which is annoying.

~I'd like to see the click-through standard be universal. Whatever I can see I can click and activate. I hate having to click to define focus on something and then click again to activate it. Hey, it's right there in Apple's Standard Sheet.

~Multiple Desktops support, although Virtual Desktops already does a kickass job of this...


Finder Windows:
~Tabs. Basically, dynamic bookmarks of locations...
I resisted this at first in Safari (or Opera or whatever) but now I find it indispensable for web browsing. I want this for the Finder too. I guess the alias' in the Finder Window Toolbar does this same thing, but Tabs just seem more suited to disposable bookmarked locations.



~The option to show a path field in the Finder windows and navigate with it.
This would function similar to the way it works in Windows, but would actually work and allow navigation. I think I'm pretty much alone on this one... I can see reason why this shouldn't be allowed, that commands that can be executed in the terminal windows couldn't be executed in this one and this would confuse people... but it sure would help out with quick nav at times. Shift-Cmd-G is not the same because it doesn't allow quick dynamic navigating...


~The ability to sort 'by date' in the Finder Windows. Currently it's only 'by name'...

~A recent change to the finder has Renamed Items remain in their current position until the window is refreshed (An attempt to woo Windows users by playing to their comfort behaviors?). I'd prefer the items would jump to the correct sorting position immediately.


Dock:
~The ability to drag items into nested directories of directories in the Dock. Currently you can only drag items onto a Dock item. So... when I drag something into a folder icon in the Dock I'd like to navigate into folders within it, the same way you can when you click-select a directory in the Dock.

~If you click-select a directory in the Dock that has a lot of items in it there can be a bit of a wait before it displays the contents. Is there a way that directories in the Dock can be pre-cached, perhaps at log-in, so that I don't have to wait for the system to catch up with me?


Exposé:
~Exposé's 'All Windows' mode would allow windows to be organized by dragging, and the windows should always shrink to the Same Position (unless new windows are added to the mix...). I don't know how the organizing would work, with the dynamic resizing and and all, but I'd like to be able to do this.


Spotlight:
~More definable options for Spotlight prefs. ...ability to set the default number of found items to display, etc. Add the ability to move the icon from the Right-most position on Menu and drop the color.

~Spotlight starts searching as soon as I start typing. This usually causes a bit of a hang where I can't type because the system is busy searching. I ask that Spotlight not start searching until I've paused from typing for, oh, I don't know... a quarter of a second.

Me:
~I'd prefer that the term 'User" is dropped in favor of "Accounts". "User" just seems so negative... :-)

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by kent m

General:
~Mouse Over Focus support, without having the windows jump to #1. Once you get used to this it's necessary. Right now it's implemented haphazardly in the Finder and apps - some have it some don't, some wheel support some not, which is annoying.

~I'd like to see the click-through standard be universal. Whatever I can see I can click and activate. I hate having to click to define focus on something and then click again to activate it. Hey, it's right there in Apple's Standard Sheet.

~Multiple Desktops support, although Virtual Desktops already does a kickass job of this...


Finder Windows:
~Tabs. Basically, dynamic bookmarks of locations...
I resisted this at first in Safari (or Opera or whatever) but now I find it indispensable for web browsing. I want this for the Finder too. I guess the alias' in the Finder Window Toolbar does this same thing, but Tabs just seem more suited to disposable bookmarked locations.



~The option to show a path field in the Finder windows and navigate with it.
This would function similar to the way it works in Windows, but would actually work and allow navigation. I think I'm pretty much alone on this one... I can see reason why this shouldn't be allowed, that commands that can be executed in the terminal windows couldn't be executed in this one and this would confuse people... but it sure would help out with quick nav at times. Shift-Cmd-G is not the same because it doesn't allow quick dynamic navigating...


~The ability to sort 'by date' in the Finder Windows. Currently it's only 'by name'...

~A recent change to the finder has Renamed Items remain in their current position until the window is refreshed (An attempt to woo Windows users by playing to their comfort behaviors?). I'd prefer the items would jump to the correct sorting position immediately.


Dock:
~The ability to drag items into nested directories of directories in the Dock. Currently you can only drag items onto a Dock item. So... when I drag something into a folder icon in the Dock I'd like to navigate into folders within it, the same way you can when you click-select a directory in the Dock.

~If you click-select a directory in the Dock that has a lot of items in it there can be a bit of a wait before it displays the contents. Is there a way that directories in the Dock can be pre-cached, perhaps at log-in, so that I don't have to wait for the system to catch up with me?

Agreed with the above. Well said, good mockups.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Sorry, what I meant is that new users don't quite understand what is their space and what is not because Apple, in its infinite wisdom, decided it would be fun to allow users to wander outside their Home directory.

Apple needs to fix this.

Firstly, everything outside the Home directory should be off-limit to anyone without admin access. Even admins shouldn't, by default, have access to it (most admins are normal users that just want to control other people's accounts. They have no interest in what could be going on in /Library or /System). The option to view the entire HD should be available to admins but shouldn't be on by default.

Secondly, public applications should be available within the Home directory...how the public applications and files are presented to the user is up to Apple to figure out. But a clear distinction has to be made between what is private and what is public to the user.

I don't know if Apple can fix all this with the Finder or if they have to change the way the whole OS works but they have to do something about that.

I and many others have no use for the root directory with the Users, Library, System, and Applications folder (and other stuff that gets dumped there by misbehaving programs.) Yes, I did have to manually install, on a few occasion, plugins to software in /Library but these directories should never really be touched by 99% of users...installers are supposed to install stuff there so you don't need to. The ability to even view any of these should be off by default to all users including the admin and an option to the admin only.

And the /Library and ~/Library folders are a mess...developers and even Apple use them sloppily. Sometimes developers will drop stuff directly into ~/Library instead of using ~/Applications Support...it's a mess, it's gotta be cleaned up and made more user-friendly...right now these directories should almost be off-limit to normal users too since they're ugly as sin to look at and confusing to many. Heck...when OS X Public Beta was released, I almost put some e-books in 'Library' thinking it was a continuation of the 'Movie, Music, Documents, Pictures' theme Apple had going.

I disagree that the two (or three) Library folders, Application folders, etc. are confusing, they are necessary. It's a necessary complication to be able to share applications or not at all. E. g. to be able to copy an app into the computer-wide applications directory, you need admin privileges to change the folder.

I agree you could argue hiding /Library and /Network/Libary might be a good idea for regular users. I tend to agree with you on that.

However I do think you need to access your personal ~/Library folder. Things like prefs, system-wide sounds and mails are stored there.

To solve you applications problem, you simply have to create a smart folder scanning for all applications in certain directories and boom, done. Maybe Apple could make this a default, but works for me.

[kisol007]

Well, even though this thread hasn't talked about what I thought it was going to I'll add my two cents while I continue to watch some football...

My 10.5 (can anyone say OS 11?) Finder wish list:

Things that have been mentioned I would also like to see...
>Global Preferences (that actually stay set!!)
>More useful contextual menu options (such as arrange by; create new file; move file to; etc)
>trash can on desktop!
>fix the network mess and include active FTP uploading!
>And I really liked the comments box in save dialogues idea
>spotlight indexes EVERYTHING... and gives more control on sorting...

As a recovering Windows user (six years now) I've always been a little confused by the Finder; the Start Menu/ Desktop/ Windows Explorer combo worked for me... but what always pissed me off about Windows (and still does) is it trys to tell me how to use my computer. So the balance between "usability" (a windows anthem) and "control" (one reason I switched) is a hard one... I lean towards control... I like the ability to root through all my files and see where they are physically period. Spotlight will bring more "usability" for me as my HD continues to swell.

Things I'd like to see in a new finder:
>better integration of spotlight and the finder window
>better integration of the dock and the finder (maybe even losing the dock)
-->taking the two above seems to lead to something like LanchBar...
>finder window displays Get Info (especially spotlight comments) in a frozen "side bar" on the left or below the finder window for whatever file/folder/app is selected...
>and going along with that, having more options to add metadata in that sidebar
>better integration and use of smart folders (let me put them wherever the hell I want)

Anyway, that's it... and the ability to make sortable Piles on the desktop...

[ApeInTheShell]

- Advanced Finder activated via System Preferences under Accounts
Upon activation certain features will be available under their corresponding preferences.

Examples, Virtual Desktops, Multiple Docks, Tabbed Browsing, Spotlight application launcher, Finder Themes(Aluminum, iTunes 5 Metal, Brushed Metal, or Aqua), adapts to your work style (like junk mail in Mail.app) and so on.

- Simple Finder is available on default and includes a redesigned interface based on iTunes 5.

The Finder will provide a full preview of a PDF document similar to the Slideshow. You can zoom, go back and forth between pages, attatch multiple PDF documents together and email them, send them via iChat, or compress them.

Remove Sherlock, Stickies, and Chess from the Applications folder. Chess should be in Dashboard anyway and Sherlock is outdated. But that is not a Finder issue I guess.

later

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by cla

That'd be me.
Although it's not the mentality of 'single-userness' that's missing.
It's the design revolving around 'multi-userness' that I find bad.

Seriously, I don't get the point of implementing 'multi-userness' the 'Windows way'. Perhaps things weren't perfect the way they were (OS 9), but I really fail to see how OS X is an improvement.

When I'm "in the desktop" I can "Go" to the "Computer", find nothing that makes any sense, and from there go to "Users", <myself> and yet again find my "desktop", only located in a window...
It just doesn't make any sense.

Actually it's the 'UNIX way'. When I started out with linux that was one of the things I wondered about. How was apple going to deal with the permissions model and the underlying and necessary multi-user stuff? I was very impressed when the beta came out, OS X is a very Mac-like UNIX. But it's still UNIX and that shows through.

With OS 9 you had the desktop as the top of the pyramid and everything descended from there. It gave a feeling that you and your files were on solid ground. OS X on the other hand drops you right in the middle. There are branches leading up and roots leading down. This can be confusing and disorienting. I think half of the "spacial" BS has to do with this. Some people feel lost. With OS X there is more "computer" in your face, unlike OS 9 it feels more like Apple's computer than "My computer". Almost like you are walking into an office building instead of your living room. This bugs a lot of people. (For the record I'm not one of them; I do notice it but it doesn't bother me)

There are also some NEXT things hanging around. /Users/Shared folder, a thing called Network that has your own computer in it under servers. What the hell? It makes sense in a corporate networked environment or a lab with a central user management server. But it probably shouldn't be visible at all to a home user with a single desktop machine.

As cla and others point out, this thing is not as simple as it could be. There is some legitimate confusion. While the finder is pretty nice if you are technically proficient and know what a "system file structure" is all about, mostly (even I have no use for the Network/servers folder), there is a round of simplification that can happen.

Maybe the finder should hide the disk drive unless you toggle on "expert mode", there is no need for a novice to see the System folder or the Library folder and you can already get to applications. Perhaps there should be more of a "door" into "other user's folders" if allowed. Maybe even an application browser other than the finder; spotlight almost handles this but browsing has it's place.

They should stop putting the disk drive icon on the desktop by default, I think this is just confusing to new users and OS 9 people. Again, another way for them to feel lost. The finder icon in the dock that takes you to your home folder should suffice.

There is a precedent for this, the finder already hides most of the underlying unix stuff in the file system. But you can get at it if you need to and you know what you are doing: type /var into Go > "go to folder..."

I see many of the more technical people dismissing the complaints but I do think there is a real issue here. Like with people's dismissals of migraines, just because you don't have a problem doesn't means that it doesn't exist. At the same time I see the other side grasping at this term "spacial" and misunderstanding the concept. Put the finder in icon view and click the oval button top left. You are now using the finder OS 7 style, about as "spacial" as it gets, I bet that doesn't solve the problem. Most of those clamoring for spacial are really just lost in the UNIX file structure. cla did a good job of explaining what that can be like. So "FTFF" in this case means "hide more UNIX"

- damn, why does everything I post turn into a book?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Actually it's the 'UNIX way'. When I started out with linux that was one of the things I wondered about. How was apple going to deal with the permissions model and the underlying and necessary multi-user stuff? I was very impressed when the beta came out, OS X is a very Mac-like UNIX. But it's still UNIX and that shows through.

This is not a peculiarity of Unix. Every multi-user system (except for Windows XP Home Edition ) has permissions, and the inherent problems are the same. It has nothing to do with Unix. Install an NT-based Windows and check out the user and group list.

Unlike most (not all, but most) unixoid systems, Windows has access control lists which are far easier to manage than what OS X has to offer.

Originally Posted by Gavin

There are also some NEXT things hanging around. /Users/Shared folder, a thing called Network that has your own computer in it under servers. What the hell? It makes sense in a corporate networked environment or a lab with a central user management server. But it probably shouldn't be visible at all to a home user with a single desktop machine.

I find /Users/Shared to be essential. My user account is a non-privileged account, so I often need to shove stuff back and forth to different user accounts.

The thing is, the machine never knows what kind of environment it lives in. Most households have more than one computer already, so probably the majority of users actually has a use for it. I think it would be more confusing to have it fade and and fade out all the time. Ir you don't want it to appear, untick the box in the Finder prefs (ditto for harddrives on the desktop, it's usually the first thing I do ).

[Big Mac]

After reading the second page of this thread I have to be thankful that some of you regular users don't have any sway over OS X's UI decisions. Maaximo's gripes and proposed solutions (that are surprisingly few in number) sound reasonable by comparison. (Off topic: If Apple delivered on those enumerated points, would maaximo love OS X?)

cla, Horsepoo!! and Gavin, your complaints are almost entirely with the conventions and abstractions of any multiuser environment; you're not really discussing the Finder very much when making these statements. And simply because you do not make use of multiple users on your computer does not mean others do not or that your preferred environment should be the default. The classic Mac OS was a single user OS, with multiple users bolted on in OS 9, off by default. And although I loved the classic OS - even in spite of its significant frailties - I would never go back to a single user environment.

Your most significant gripe with multiple users seems to be the redundant folder structure. That redundancy is absolutely necessary. Let's take the root of the startup drive. The folders you are discussing there are /Applications and /Library. I'll treat the /Applications versus ~/Applications issue first. Now for those of you who are the sole users of your Macs, you only need the single, system wide /Applications folder. You don't need ~/Applications because you can store all of your applications in /Applications. But for those who have multiple people using the same Mac, there are applications that certain users may use but that really do not need to be system wide. I have some SQL, other small web development programs and a few very specific utilities in my ~/Applications folder. Family members do not use or care about these applications and should not have to. I only use them on my account; furthermore, for the sake of tidiness, I really would not want them in the system wide /Applications folder. Again, I realize you single users only need one Applications folder. And the funny thing is, there is no ~/Applications folder created by default, so if you have one on your Mac it's almost certainly because you created it. The last word on the subject for me is, two Applications folders per user (/Applications and ~/Applications) should not be a difficult concept to grasp or manage.

Now with the /Library versus ~/Library issue, your complaints are a bit more valid, if only due to the fact that there are a lot of folders in both, many of which are seeming duplicates. But once again, this distinction is necessary in a multiuser environment. There are some folders and files that should be stored system wide, but most are usually user specific. If it helps you to think in classic Mac OS terms, you can mentally conceive of /Library as a System Folder and ~/Library as a broader Application Support folder. The /Library houses system wide application and device components as well as system wide caches. (And although it exists there's no reason to think about /System/Library, since the user has no interaction with it. However, I remain an opponent of any request to hide /System by default since I believe there should not be massive numbers of files hidden from the user.) There is ostensibly a lot of duplication between /Library and ~/Library at first glance, but if you look at your /Library folder you'll see that there really isn't as much in there as you probably assumed. Most of the files are in your ~/Library folder. This is very necessary in a multi-user environment, because each user's preferences and support files need to be separate from the others. There are a lot of Application support files, and they need to be separate. There are Widgets that I may like but my brother does not, and vice versa. The separation is necessary for multiple users. In the classic Mac OS there was no concept of multiple users so everything was commingled in the System Folder. But if you turned on multiple users in OS 9, the system would replicate a multiple user setup with a separation of Preferences and other folders within the System Folder. The only difference is that OS X has user specific files where they should logically be, in each user's ~/ folder, separate from the system wide folder.

Another important reason why your ~/Library exists is so that your ~/ folder can be essentially self-contained for backup and restore purposes. You can backup your ~/ folder and then restore that backup, even on a different Mac; when you do you'll see that your user is perfectly functional on the other Mac. If OS X's model allowed user files to be stored in the /Library, that ease of backup/portability of your user would be completely lost.

The Users folder has to exist to house the multiple Home folders. The /Users/Shared folder is necessary for sharing and transferring files/folders between accounts. Again, it's not so important if you're the only user, but it is very important (if not vital) when there are multiple accounts.

I will concede that there are a few seemingly unnecessary elements within the OS X desktop UI. The Network icon serves no purpose unless you're on a network with other Macs, and since it does not do anything useful for 95% of us it should be invisible by default. It's essentially invisible to me, however, because I took it out of the sidebar and seldom look at the Computer level (because I don't really like Computer, either). And the point about Desktop being a visible folder within ~/ is not very Mac-like and rather unnecessary. It reinforces the point that the desktop lives within the user, but it could very well be hidden by default without much harm. With that said, it is often a useful aid when I'm in Open and Save dialogs and wish to interact with the desktop to open or save a file. Some people have claimed the OS X folder structure has them lost - and that may well be true to a certain extent. Indeed, that was one of the reasons SJ gave for adding the Finder's sidebar.

Finally, the thing that I found most humorous about that group of posts was the line that drives and other volumes on the desktop lead to greater user confusion. This is the funniest complaint against OS X, since the reason why you can opt to have volumes on the desktop is the early outcry from users to the news that OS X was not going to allow them to be shown on the desktop! It was an option that user sentiment compelled Apple to allow and even to make default. One reason why Mac users clamored for that functionality was that the drive on the desktop was a core UI element of the classic Mac OS; if a drive was not shown on the desktop that meant it was not mounted. But I, for one, actually now prefer not to have drives on the desktop, even though I was likely pretty vociferous about it previously.

OS X folder structure is not a complicated thing. Yes, it is certainly more complicated than the classic Mac OS' structure. The classic Mac OS imposed very few restraints on the user and developer's ability to structure things whichever way he or she wanted, which had some benefits and a number of drawbacks. A multiuser OS simply requires more structure. And I do know that the benefits of multiple users far outweigh the negatives - all of my users are much happier having their own accounts. If you'd rather go back to the classic Mac OS' disordered style, you'll really have to go back to OS 9.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

This is not a peculiarity of Unix. Every multi-user system (except for Windows XP Home Edition ) has permissions, and the inherent problems are the same. It has nothing to do with Unix. Install an NT-based Windows and check out the user and group list.

Sure, but the post I was responding to was under the impression that the mac's user permissions was some sort of windows rip off when in fact it is inherited from UNIX, which predates windows' implementation anyway.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Unlike most (not all, but most) unixoid systems, Windows has access control lists which are far easier to manage than what OS X has to offer.

Well, actually Tiger has ACLs. Pretty much every OS has it now. The BSDs have it. AIX. Most Linuxes ship with it but you have to tun it on. And I think ACLs started on Solaris.

So here is another request for the finder
> an easy way to set acl atributes on files. OS X server has something called Workgroup Manager that does this. It should be part of the finder.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I find /Users/Shared to be essential. My user account is a non-privileged account, so I often need to shove stuff back and forth to different user accounts.

The thing is, the machine never knows what kind of environment it lives in. Most households have more than one computer already, so probably the majority of users actually has a use for it. I think it would be more confusing to have it fade and and fade out all the time. Ir you don't want it to appear, untick the box in the Finder prefs (ditto for harddrives on the desktop, it's usually the first thing I do ).

I work with a lot of computer novices. I can tell you from actual experience that the things I have mentioned do confuse people. The drive on the desktop is a big one. I think it's just there to make OS 9 users feel more at home but it's actually a hinderance to them using OS X on it's own terms, which is what needs to happen so you don't go nuts.

The machine does know what environment it's in. Is there a network attached? Is this machine booting from a netinfo server? Is there more than one user for this machine? That's all it needs to know. If the answer to these is no, then it hides a thing or two. When you add a new user it can tell you "hi, since you have more than one user there will now be some multi-user stuff available like a shared folder". When you join a net info network it says "your network resources are in the network /server folder now"" I think this would be a lot more user friendly than having mysterious folders and things that don't do anything.

It wouldn't fade in and out all the time. It's there forever, but only after you need it and after it tells you what it's for. This is exactly what other programs do. Why not the finder?

When there is no CD in the drive there is no icon in the finder. When your are not on a netinfo network you don't need to see /Network/servers. Simple as that. And having the network icon fade in and out could be a visual network status indicator - that would be useful. Maybe it can change color (or have a badge or something) depending on what your hooked to: ethernet, airport, modem.

Actually, I find OreoCookie's comment interesting in the light on the people saying we don't need the finder at all, replace it with spotlight ,etc. The things we are talking about here are more than finding that homework paper. The finder is really the heart of the system. It's still necessary as the most basic way you interact with your computer.

Maybe what's going on here is that the finder doesn't quite fit OS X. The way your old desk when you were a kid is now too small. OS 9's comfy finder can't cover all the security, multi-user, multimedia, networking, etc. that OS X has and which OS 9 could never dream of.

That could be why these threads keep popping up but never solve anything. Aside from the threading issues and other obviously buggy stuff You can't put your finger on what's wrong, you just viscerally know it doesn't fit. FTFF

The new mac with it's huge complexity has outgrown the finder's ability to display things simply. It needs an overhaul to make things simple again.

> another finder request: mystery objects could have a "What's This?" button.

The servers folder, the network icon, etc. could tell you what it's for, even an entry in the get info comments would help. The servers folder might say something like " this folder contains any netinfo servers it finds. A netinfo server is a left-over from NEXT and you will never use it so just ignore it."
All the standard folders in your home folder can tell you what they are for. Sites ? Public? Like my mom is really going to use those. "Your library folder holds you mail and settings - don't delete it!!"
"What's this?" can be tuned of in the finder settings so I don't have to see it.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Your most significant gripe with multiple users seems to be the redundant folder structure. That redundancy is absolutely necessary. Let's take the root of the startup drive. The folders you are discussing there are /Applications and /Library. I'll treat the /Applications versus ~/Applications issue first. Now for those of you who are the sole users of your Macs, you only need the single, system wide /Applications folder. You don't need ~/Applications because you can store all of your applications in /Applications. But for those who have multiple people using the same Mac, there are applications that certain users may use but that really do not need to be system wide. I have some SQL, other small web development programs and a few very specific utilities in my ~/Applications folder. Family members do not use or care about these applications and should not have to. I only use them on my account; furthermore, for the sake of tidiness, I really would not want them in the system wide /Applications folder. Again, I realize you single users only need one Applications folder. And the funny thing is, there is no ~/Applications folder created by default, so if you have one on your Mac it's almost certainly because you created it. The last word on the subject for me is, two Applications folders per user (/Applications and ~/Applications) should not be a difficult concept to grasp or manage.

No, no, no and no. While what you say has some sense, it's being approached the wrong way. First of all...folders aren't necessary at all...so redundancy of folders is absopositivly UNnecessary.

With metadata, the OS should be able to keep track who needs which app. When you install an app, the default would be that the one who installed the app can access it, but this person could also share the app with everyone or certain people.

Let's pretend that an 'Applications' folder is needed (for legacy purpose so old crumby apps don't break or go nuts from the fact that there is no structure to the file system)...the OS could still control what apps the user can and cannot see/access.

Now with the /Library versus ~/Library issue, your complaints are a bit more valid, if only due to the fact that there are a lot of folders in both, many of which are seeming duplicates. But once again, this distinction is necessary in a multiuser environment. There are some folders and files that should be stored system wide, but most are usually user specific. If it helps you to think in classic Mac OS terms, you can mentally conceive of /Library as a System Folder and ~/Library as a broader Application Support folder. The /Library houses system wide application and device components as well as system wide caches. (And although it exists there's no reason to think about /System/Library, since the user has no interaction with it. However, I remain an opponent of any request to hide /System by default since I believe there should not be massive numbers of files hidden from the user.) There is ostensibly a lot of duplication between /Library and ~/Library at first glance, but if you look at your /Library folder you'll see that there really isn't as much in there as you probably assumed. Most of the files are in your ~/Library folder. This is very necessary in a multi-user environment, because each user's preferences and support files need to be separate from the others. There are a lot of Application support files, and they need to be separate. There are Widgets that I may like but my brother does not, and vice versa. The separation is necessary for multiple users. In the classic Mac OS there was no concept of multiple users so everything was commingled in the System Folder. But if you turned on multiple users in OS 9, the system would replicate a multiple user setup with a separation of Preferences and other folders within the System Folder. The only difference is that OS X has user specific files where they should logically be, in each user's ~/ folder, separate from the system wide folder.

See above.

Another important reason why your ~/Library exists is so that your ~/ folder can be essentially self-contained for backup and restore purposes. You can backup your ~/ folder and then restore that backup, even on a different Mac; when you do you'll see that your user is perfectly functional on the other Mac. If OS X's model allowed user files to be stored in the /Library, that ease of backup/portability of your user would be completely lost.

Yes...because the current backup methods are archaic and focus very much on the file system's hierarchy...but if a backup application allowed someone to backup all of Bob's files, all files that belong to Bob, including his preferences and everything that pertains to Bob's account would be backed up.

The Users folder has to exist to house the multiple Home folders. The /Users/Shared folder is necessary for sharing and transferring files/folders between accounts. Again, it's not so important if you're the only user, but it is very important (if not vital) when there are multiple accounts.

Again, this is only 'very important' because the current OS and file system are crippled by nature. Fix the OS, get rid of the hierarchical file system, start working with metadata and you'll overcome the spatial limitations of sharing files in a single location or holding local pref files in one location and global pref files in another.

OS X folder structure is not a complicated thing. Yes, it is certainly more complicated than the classic Mac OS' structure. The classic Mac OS imposed very few restraints on the user and developer's ability to structure things whichever way he or she wanted, which had some benefits and a number of drawbacks. A multiuser OS simply requires more structure. And I do know that the benefits of multiple users far outweigh the negatives - all of my users are much happier having their own accounts. If you'd rather go back to the classic Mac OS' disordered style, you'll really have to go back to OS 9.

No it's not complicated to a lot of people...but it is to some...and it's an archaic way of organizing files. A multiuser OS doesn't require more structure. It doesn't require less structure. It requires a 'different' structure.

[Gavin]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

After reading the second page of this thread I have to be thankful that some of you regular users don't have any sway over OS X's UI decisions. Maaximo's gripes and proposed solutions (that are surprisingly few in number) sound reasonable by comparison. (Off topic: If Apple delivered on those enumerated points, would maaximo love OS X?)

cla, Horsepoo!! and Gavin, your complaints are almost entirely with the conventions and abstractions of any multiuser environment; you're not really discussing the Finder very much when making these statements.

No, it is the finder exactly. That is where you encounter head on the multi-user environment, and of course the folder structure. Pretty much the only place actually. Don't have many multiuser issues with textedit.

My point is that there are things you don't need until you add that second user account.
Things you don't need until you boot from a netinfo network. And that just like the /var directory and the mounted CD icon they can wait hidden away until they have a use. You don't even need a setting for it, it can happen as easily as the mounting CD icon.

And the place where you find this stuff is the finder - so I think we're on target here.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And simply because you do not make use of multiple users on your computer does not mean others do not or that your preferred environment should be the default.

I'm willing to bet that -way- more than half of all Macs are single user, single computer in household machines. Keep in mind that we are all exceptions to the norm here. Your mom does not use this board.

Don't get me wrong here, I love and use the multi user stuff daily. I actually have 3 accounts on this machine just for myself, so I can have a testing environment and a minimal one to do demos.

On the other hand you have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of a novice or new user. The idea behind the Mac is that it should be brain dead easy to use, but I watch people struggle with it. A few simple tweaks to the finder could simplify things immensely for the literally millions of new users without any noticeable changes for you or I.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Your most significant gripe with multiple users seems to be the redundant folder structure.
...
Now with the /Library versus ~/Library issue, your complaints are a bit more valid

Not me. (mentioned just because you lumped me in )

Good explanation about why they exist and their use.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Users folder has to exist to house the multiple Home folders. The /Users/Shared folder is necessary for sharing and transferring files/folders between accounts. Again, it's not so important if you're the only user, but it is very important (if not vital) when there are multiple accounts.

I will concede that there are a few seemingly unnecessary elements within the OS X desktop UI. The Network icon serves no purpose unless you're on a network with other Macs, and since it does not do anything useful for 95% of us it should be invisible by default.

Great minds think alike. This is really the core of what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Finally, the thing that I found most humorous about that group of posts was the line that drives and other volumes on the desktop lead to greater user confusion. This is the funniest complaint against OS X, since the reason why you can opt to have volumes on the desktop is the early outcry from users to the news that OS X was not going to allow them to be shown on the desktop! It was an option that user sentiment compelled Apple to allow and even to make default.

I know, you have to love the irony. I find it gets in the way of people's understanding OSXs file structure leading to that lost feeling. It's just not the old OS and you have to accept it own its own terms or you won't get along.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

OS X folder structure is not a complicated thing. Yes, it is certainly more complicated than the classic Mac OS' structure.

Right, it's very rational. But there is a small learning curve, and most people don't RTFM. And some people just don't play well with rational structure, they want a big empty space. Maybe if you locked those types into the desktop, and they didn't even know about 'the file structure' they would be happier.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The classic Mac OS imposed very few restraints on the user and developer's ability to structure things whichever way he or she wanted, which had some benefits and a number of drawbacks. A multiuser OS simply requires more structure. And I do know that the benefits of multiple users far outweigh the negatives - all of my users are much happier having their own accounts.

Right on. I find that too, but I also know that if I wasn't there to help they would get stuck occasionally.

My mom used a series of crappy windows machines. I was over there every week fixing stuff. I finally got her an iMac (OS 9) and she did her thing without a hitch. In 4 years the only thing she needed help with was cleaning her printer and the occasional software package tip. Now with OS X I'm back to explaining things to her again (But not fixing stuff! Doesn't need it). On the other hand she is a hell of a lot more productive.

[Gavin]

Horsepoo!!!

I think what you're advocating here will require massive changes to the entire system and to individual applications. We should start another thread to muse about the future of filesystems, metadata, project management. etc.

The resistance you're getting is because you are talking about a completely different way of managing data and most of this thread is dealing with concrete ways to make the finder better in the short term. These are different things and people are talking past each other.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Horsepoo!!!

I think what you're advocating here will require massive changes to the entire system and to individual applications. We should start another thread to muse about the future of filesystems, metadata, project management. etc.

The resistance you're getting is because you are talking about a completely different way of managing data and most of this thread is dealing with concrete ways to make the finder better in the short term. These are different things and people are talking past each other.

Yes, I understand that...it's unfortunate though because Apple had the chance to start fresh with OS X but they just didn't have time to do what they could have done.

Yes, the changes would be massive. And yes, changes to make the Finder better on the short term would make more sense at this point but I don't know how much better it can get with the current limitations. Apple would have to jump through some serious hoops.

I'd much prefer that Apple push developers into forgetting about file system structures and work with metadata so we can transition to something new as fast as possible.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Sure, but the post I was responding to was under the impression that the mac's user permissions was some sort of windows rip off when in fact it is inherited from UNIX, which predates windows' implementation anyway.

No, Windows' implementation is not a rip-off, it's more sophisticated even.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Well, actually Tiger has ACLs. Pretty much every OS has it now. The BSDs have it. AIX. Most Linuxes ship with it but you have to tun it on. And I think ACLs started on Solaris.

Yes, I mentioned that. But out of the box, you are usually restricted to *nix old-school rights management. I am aware that Tiger has ACLs, but only Tiger Server includes a GUI for that. You can add it for Tiger (Client) as well, just google for Sandbox, but it is not built into the Finder yet.

So for the user, most of these systems don't come with a usable GUI which offers this feature to the average user. I haven't noticed one on Solaris either (I have a Sun Ray in my office).

Originally Posted by Gavin

The machine does know what environment it's in. Is there a network attached? Is this machine booting from a netinfo server? Is there more than one user for this machine? That's all it needs to know. If the answer to these is no, then it hides a thing or two. When you add a new user it can tell you "hi, since you have more than one user there will now be some multi-user stuff available like a shared folder". When you join a net info network it says "your network resources are in the network /server folder now"" I think this would be a lot more user friendly than having mysterious folders and things that don't do anything.

Last time I want is another windows which tells me I just plugged in something. As soon as you are serving something, files or printers, you already are a small network. Plus, IMHO it is more confusing to have things fading in and fading out all the time.

Originally Posted by Gavin

Actually, I find OreoCookie's comment interesting in the light on the people saying we don't need the finder at all, replace it with spotlight ,etc. The things we are talking about here are more than finding that homework paper. The finder is really the heart of the system. It's still necessary as the most basic way you interact with your computer.

It's not about finding a homework paper (I'm not in school anymore), it's about doing research projects with tens, sometimes more than one hundred different sources which are relevant. So the thing I'm talking about is also a bit more than finding a homework paper

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

No, no, no and no. While what you say has some sense, it's being approached the wrong way. First of all...folders aren't necessary at all...so redundancy of folders is absopositivly UNnecessary.

No, they are necessary, each and every one of them. Metadata is not sufficient to keep track of this, and even if you had metadata, the underlying structure wouldn't change a bit. You'd still have Library items published on the network, to your whole computer and just one user. There'll be even more confusion as soon as you make use of this distinction. Your approach would be more confusing to that someone, a lot more confusing.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

No it's not complicated to a lot of people...but it is to some...and it's an archaic way of organizing files. A multiuser OS doesn't require more structure. It doesn't require less structure. It requires a 'different' structure.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I find the current directory structure very well `structured' and suitable for what I do.

What do you mean by `different structure'? How would you envision such a structure and why do you think is it better than the current one?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Gavin

My point is that there are things you don't need until you add that second user account.
Things you don't need until you boot from a netinfo network. And that just like the /var directory and the mounted CD icon they can wait hidden away until they have a use. You don't even need a setting for it, it can happen as easily as the mounting CD icon.

And the place where you find this stuff is the finder - so I think we're on target here.

Yes, you do. OS X, like Windows and *nix OS have many, many users already included in the system.

I'm also not sure why you keep mentioning Netinfo -- are you sure you know what it is? It's something similar to LDAP which enables you to manage users and other resources over a network (the latest version of Netinfo runs with LDAP AFAIK). But it has nothing to do with the network in the Finder window.

Originally Posted by Gavin

I'm willing to bet that -way- more than half of all Macs are single user, single computer in household machines. Keep in mind that we are all exceptions to the norm here. Your mom does not use this board.

I'm pretty confident you'd loose that bet. Even my parents have more than one computer

Originally Posted by Gavin

On the other hand you have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of a novice or new user. The idea behind the Mac is that it should be brain dead easy to use, but I watch people struggle with it. A few simple tweaks to the finder could simplify things immensely for the literally millions of new users without any noticeable changes for you or I.

I think you are falling for a common mistake: the mistake, everything should be/can be easy. Computers nowadays do a lot more than they used, networks, color printers, iPods, mp3 libraries. People struggle with it, because it is difficult. People tend to forget that.

[kent m]

Originally Posted by Gavin

Horsepoo!!!

I think what you're advocating here will require massive changes to the entire system and to individual applications. We should start another thread to muse about the future of filesystems, metadata, project management. etc.

The resistance you're getting is because you are talking about a completely different way of managing data and most of this thread is dealing with concrete ways to make the finder better in the short term. These are different things and people are talking past each other.

Hear hear.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, they are necessary, each and every one of them. Metadata is not sufficient to keep track of this, and even if you had metadata, the underlying structure wouldn't change a bit. You'd still have Library items published on the network, to your whole computer and just one user. There'll be even more confusion as soon as you make use of this distinction. Your approach would be more confusing to that someone, a lot more confusing.


I'm not sure what you mean by that. I find the current directory structure very well `structured' and suitable for what I do.

What do you mean by `different structure'? How would you envision such a structure and why do you think is it better than the current one?

I thought the point of my post was super obvious. A metadata structure of course. I'm not sure how to answer your first paragraph...though...you can do anything with metadata so I don't understand why it would be insufficient.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I thought the point of my post was super obvious. A metadata structure of course. I'm not sure how to answer your first paragraph...though...you can do anything with metadata so I don't understand why it would be insufficient.

My point is two-fold. Metadata will in my opinion not replace path names, path names will be simply part of metadata, but metadata won't do away with the file-folder-document structure.

So my point is that it doesn't matter where your folder structure comes from, as part of metadata or as part of a more `traditional' filesystem. And that logically, the distinction between things open to the network, the whole computer or just one user will stay.

You seem to suggest that mingling it all together seems to be more transparent for the user as he doesn't have to think about the physical location of the object. The physical location does not matter in principle, but it is certainly confusing if you mix things without distinguishing the different types. So the complexity is the same, and how you do it is in my opinion irrelevant.

But the complex thing is the concept and not the folder structure.

[P]

You know, if I could have the Finder split in browser and spatial mode and have them fix all the bugs (LaunchServices, anything involving WebDAV, etc), I think I'd be happy after that. That the trashcan is in the Dock is because it's a system-wide delete - you can drag things from any app that supports Drag-n-Drop to it and have them deleted - but in all honesty I can live with having it on the desktop if only to stop all the complaints.

If you want a wishlist, however, I'd say

* compability with every file transfer protocol known to man, upload and download, without leaving silly files all over the place. The Finder is a File Manager - let it work as one. I'm not just saying FTP or SFTP here - include Bluetooth to mobile phones and scp and EVERYTHING!
* Some sort of intelligent renaming function
* Fix the labelling interface
* Preview filters for everything
* Even easier disc burning. I don't want to open Disk Utility ever again - let me burn disk images and folders directly from the context menu.
* either let the Finder browse databases (from apps like Mail) or store everything in the file system. The Finder should be able to browse all data everywhere.
* A dedicated launcher. Maybe this should go under some other app, but what I want is some way to bring up a window with one click and launch something by clicking an Icon in that window. I realise that Spotlight does away with this to some extent, however I want something easier and faster. I use Drop Drawers, like the pop-up windows in OS 8, for that now, but I want soemthing like that integrated.

[cla]

Originally Posted by P

* A dedicated launcher. Maybe this should go under some other app, but what I want is some way to bring up a window with one click and launch something by clicking an Icon in that window. I realise that Spotlight does away with this to some extent, however I want something easier and faster. I use Drop Drawers, like the pop-up windows in OS 8, for that now, but I want soemthing like that integrated.

I would even stretch as far as letting a launcher replace the dock.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by cla

I would even stretch as far as letting a launcher replace the dock.

I agree. The Dock was a neat idea a few years ago but removing it would solve a lot of problems (and make a few people angry but what the hell)...

[leperkuhn]

i like the sidebar but i don't like the toolbar. the top of each finder window is 60 pixels high. i sometimes switch to the aqua view just because i can't stand the wasted space in the brushed metal view.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I agree. The Dock was a neat idea a few years ago but removing it would solve a lot of problems (and make a few people angry but what the hell)...

Yeah, you'd make me very angry
I love the Dock and use it all the time (having folders and windows in it).

[leperkuhn]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I agree. The Dock was a neat idea a few years ago but removing it would solve a lot of problems (and make a few people angry but what the hell)...

Instead of removing the doc, it should really just get a few upgrades.

1. Multiple docks, not anchored to any side. Floating options. Draggable to wherever you want.
2. Add another expose feature to hide and show floating docks.
3. Options to arrange by name, last time used, usage frequency, etc..
4. Skinable. with multiple docks it would be confusing after a while.
5. Text Labels below items, optional.