[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by abrody

After seeing the demo of Frontrow I think that the Finder could be replaced by it. I've seen one similar file system already on 3DOSX:

http://www.acm.uiuc.edu/macwarriors/projects/3dosx/

Granted some commands may not be obvious, but 3DOX does show a way the future could be built.

My lord that was AWEFUL. It is 3d for the sake of being 3D. It was not easier to use or any easier to find anything.

[Randman]

Don't forget that many people here are "power users". Apple still only has 5% of the market and would need to cater to disgruntled Windows users. More eye candy may not do the trick. Simple, intuitive and reliable may draw more people that window ripples and whatnot.

[SomeToast]

Originally Posted by oni

I dont know if any one has mentioned this but a good way to see how a meta-data finder would work should look at gmail. There is no folders just "labels", and mail can easily be found and searched.

This seems perfectly fine, and will also introduce many others into this method of storing files

Good perhaps for mail, less so for files.

I've got a dozen mail folders, but tens of thousands of file folders.

[webraider]

Okay... I still sometimes get to play with older Macintosh models that pre-dated Color. They STILL do what they have to do VERY well. I admire the OS that ran on those to this day and it's still simpler to do alot of the things on those computers. That said... computing has changed today and we do need more modern OS's and different ways of doing more things.

OS X still doesn't not have the simplicity of previous OS's. What I loved then was just being able to drag an application over to the desktop to install it! I also loved the way you deleted it... Drag it to the trash and it's over... Format re-writable media... from the Menu! And yeah... EVERYTHING was in English. OS X has gotten better about that.. but it's still not there all the way. Most everything in OS X is in english but it's just not the same.

I would love to see a better way to format DVD and CD rewritable media! I think that should be in the contextual menu that appears when you right click it.. and possibly and option in the menu! I think the disk utilities should all be that way. Even the ability to make a "disk image" should be included on groung 1 of the finder. Application swithcing in OS X is much better than any of the other OS's. I love just holding down the Mouse button for a second and watching contextual menu's come up and selecting the open window from the there! I was hoping Apple would allow the hold for a second feature to be OS wide and even an option for those with the new Might Mouse which still is buggy to me.

Every computer I have tried the new mouse on get's confused sometimes and doesn't want to bring up a contextual menu. Control Click will ALWAYS work. I should be able to point and right click for a contextual menu to appear... but it sometimes the first right click selects the item only! that's annoying and it doesn't happen on windows. The single Mouse works good for me however! This is just my two cents.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Randman

I think iTunes will replace every app, including the Finder.

I disagree.

The iPod will replace every app, including the Finder. And Leopard will come with a free lanyard.

[freudling]

I think one small difference that will make a big difference is putting some "trademark icon compilation stamp" on Apple apps, like iTunes. For instance, just below the expand, minimize and close buttons on an open window, like iTunes, there could exist a "circle of icons". For instance, Pages, Safari, iMovie, iPhoto... Just click and that apps' window opens. But, perhaps it could open in the iTunes window (i.e. Pages). If you want to go back to iTunes, just click some custom button "back to last app." iTunes could be a "fluid" app drop: a portal for all iapps.

Perhaps a list of active apps, in terms of icons, could be situated in current window. Faster than expose? This way, you always have quick access to open apps without the dock or expose.

[macimmortal]

I can't wait for the sheep to pounce on me for this one. I can't tell you how many times I've searched for documents in Spotlight and NOT been able to find them. In one instance, I searched for a text string that was in the freakin filename and Spotlight missed it completely. In another I can't find a good way to force spotlight to index ALL FILES INCLUDING UNIX SUBSYSTEM. I used to be able to search for ALL the files on MY computer without jumping through hoops.

Or how about a way to remove all indexes and re-index from scratch? MAKE THIS EASY APPLE!
Spotlight is a great idea in theory, but the current implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

And yes, I'm still a Mac addict for those of you who think I'm trolling. Windows isn't even close to Mac at this point in time. They lost imho.
Macimmortal

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Simon

And Leopard will come with a free lanyard.

That would have to be called a leash! And what a cool idea that would be--Apple should include a leash in every box.

Chris

[chabig]

Originally Posted by macimmortal

Or how about a way to remove all indexes and re-index from scratch? MAKE THIS EASY APPLE!
Spotlight is a great idea in theory, but the current implementation leaves a lot to be desired.

Reindexing isn't very hard but yes, it could be made easier. That said, Spotlight's implementation in Tiger is first generation. I have no doubt that it will get better in Leopard and continue to improve with each release.

Meanwhile, search in Windows Vista will be first generation and Microsoft likely won't release a follow-on to Vista until 2012!

Chris

[eddiecatflap]

i was starting to think tiger was a bit lame , what with the spotlight problems , then this weekend i had to use a dell with xp for a few hours

lets just say . i won't be putting os-x down EVER again

[tooki]

The problem with Search -- and this is what all the Spotlight fanatics here seem to forget -- is that search requires memorization.

Humans suck at memorization and recall. We are good at recognition. When you navigate a filesystem, you see what's there -- even the things you'd forgotten about. And the things you knew were there, but had forgotten the file name of.

Search requires you to remember, without typos, the file names or key words. What if you wrote a paper about computer monitors. You want to find it. Did you tag it with "displays" and "monitors"? What if you only tagged it with one and you search for the other? What if you put a typo in the keywords?

Or you can just navigate to Documents/School/Fall 2005/MyComputerClass/ and see the papers you wrote. You don't have to remember the exact name of a folder or file ("Was it 'Fall 2005' or '2005 -- Autumn'?), you just have to be able to recognize it -- something humans are better at. We remember general ideas, and then can narrow down based on seeing what's there.

Don't get me wrong -- search has a place, too, especially for really old things that have lapsed out of short term memory. But it in no way can replace traditional navigation.

Also, I notice that so far, nobody here has mentioned file operations. The Finder does not only serve to locate files, it also serves a critical function in manipulating them. File copying, relocation, deletion, etc. all takes place in the Finder, and can't be done elsewhere. A search function can't do this. For example, if you want to copy a file to another folder, a search won't tell you what's in the destination folder -- it'll only FIND the folder. So if you then try and copy a file, but the file name is already taken, you get an error. If you'd been able to just see the contents before, you might have noticed that the file in the folder has the same name, and would have renamed the original beforehand.

So, horsepoo et al, don't think that we are saying that we are right and you are wrong. If tagging with metadata works better for you, by all means do it. But don't for a second presume to know better than I do what works for me. Your attitude of saying that if you need to organize, it's because you haven't embraced metadata is simply too simple, and ignores different people's talents and skills and preferred methods of working.

tooki

[Randman]

Originally Posted by macimmortal

I can't tell you how many times I've searched for documents in Spotlight and NOT been able to find them.

You tried specific searches such as Kind:search and Time:Search?

Yes, it would be good to reindex via the Spotlight tab in Prefs but it can be made to work. I do a lot of searching through documents so I set my first search priority to be Documents. Speeds things up considerably.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by tooki

The problem with Search -- and this is what all the Spotlight fanatics here seem to forget -- is that search requires memorization.tooki

I hate spotlight, too many irrelevant results and the interface is horrible.

What I am saying is that Apple has the potential to make it right and a very big part of the finder.

[freudling]

Scandelous Ion Cannon:

I agree for the most part. It almost tries too hard and feeds back lots, sometimes too many results.

[I WAS the One]

People! let's all organize our ideas for a moment... I can see that we all want a new interface, with a whole new stuff that impress our life with the mac we love. so... let all of us start with a list of what we love to see in leopard...

mine first:

a brand new dock with many user features, like tabs and all of that stuff that everybody's making with third party hacks. I will love to see a brand new Dock, for a better productivity enhancement.

what else?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by I WAS the One

People! let's all organize our ideas for a moment... I can see that we all want a new interface, with a whole new stuff that impress our life with the mac we love. so... let all of us start with a list of what we love to see in leopard...

mine first:

a brand new dock with many user features, like tabs and all of that stuff that everybody's making with third party hacks. I will love to see a brand new Dock, for a better productivity enhancement.

what else?

Like I said my biggest problem is when you click on the finder all the app windows remain on top. I see even advanced users minimize each window overlapping the desktop.

Also I don't like the way removable media appears on a cluttered desktop.

OSX also offers no assistance to help you find anything, it feels like each man for himself.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Like I said my biggest problem is when you click on the finder all the app windows remain on top. I see even advanced users minimize each window overlapping the desktop.

Try Exposé. It's a wonderful solution. F11 clears the desktop.

Also I don't like the way removable media appears on a cluttered desktop.

What is it you don't like? Why is your desktop cluttered? How would you do it better?

OSX also offers no assistance to help you find anything, it feels like each man for himself.

Spotlight helps. What do you mean it offers no assistance? I'm unsure what you mean.

[Saint_Stryfe]

FOr the forseeable future, Finder will remain how people interact with thier computers. But here's the dream:

A long while bakc, I downloaded a picture of an Anime Girl who looked like an original imac. I love it, and I want to send it to my buddy Gary. I go to my mail program, and click on "Attachment".

Right now, I have to go to my pictures folder, go into my "Anime and Animation" folder, then look at a thumbnail for an obscure file name I don't remember. This is ineffeicent. This also assumes I know i have it, or that I take the time to sort my pictures. This is time consuming.

Inefficent and Time consuming? This is not the Apple Way.

Fastward, Mac OS X 10.8, lets say. A long while back, I downloaded a picture of an Anime girl who looked like an original iMac. I love it, I want to send it to my buddy Gary 2.3.1. (Hey, he got some upgrades in that time.). I go to my mail program, and click on "Attachment".

In this nice distant future, I don't need to guess. I remember it's drawn, I remember it looked like an iMac (had that wonderful bondi blue color). I downloaded it more then a year ago. I also know it's a JPEG. That's a lot of info. Maybe, i could say, find all .JPG files, that is a dran image (not a photograph), containing a color similar to bondi blue, and is over a year old. There are two or three other images like that, but my iMac Girl is there, and I can send Gary his image.

Now, the hurdle at this point is toget that information, that Metadata, without me taking the time to input it. Eventually, Apple will figure a way. Much like how some song software can analize a hum of a song, search CDDB, and give an Artist/title to a song. Maybe this picture analizes size, and the spread of different color pixels (this has sharp contrast beween colors, with no gradient, is probably a drawing). And if it's wrong, I can say, "No, iMac, that is a photograph I edited.". It will learn and be more apt not to make similar mistakes.

In a long distant time - probably 7 or 8 years, it maybe where all our data is automatically controlled, and we search for information. This will be a major change, and will take a long time.

But be sure, Apple will be there before MS.

[dru]

Anyone want to take a claim to whether Apple finally updates the scrollbars and progress bars to match the other widgets more "plastic look" instead of the 10.0 "lickable" look?

[JoshuaZ]

Originally Posted by dru

Anyone want to take a claim to whether Apple finally updates the scrollbars and progress bars to match the other widgets more "plastic look" instead of the 10.0 "lickable" look?

I`d be happy if Apple would keep the overall look of the GUI consistant. It seems like every time a program gets an update, they decide to do something different with its look. So then you have some Apps with an old looks, some with parts of a new looks, and some that are a completely new look. Kind of like the darn scroll bars.

But thats just me being anal.

[beverson]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Right now, the only way I have of finding all the pictures of my family is by organizing them in the file structure with a thematic-based naming system (i.e.: "~\Pictures\family\sister\niece\birthday"). I want to put the photos I took of my family on vacation in my vacation folder but be able to apply the metadata tag "family" to them when they are imported. So, I can search for "family" and "photos" and Spotlight returns everything with the keyword family assigned to it and the file extension .jpg.

Can't you do this (almost) in iPhoto right now with keywords? I use keywords a lot, and found out recently that they're Spotlight searchable outside of iPhoto. I agree it would be nice to be able to add keywords as I'm importing photos, but otherwise it works great. Or perhaps I'm not understanding what you're getting at (I feel that I'm not).

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Imagine the Finder (or whatever app that may replace the Finder) handling the versioning of your code?

One file...all versions...modifications to the file handled and remembered by CoreData.

Not to jump on the Horsepoo!!! bandwagon, but this idea really resonated with me. I realize Aperture uses a database along with CoreImage/CoreVideo/etc. types of technologies to dynamically re-create the changes made to an image, without actually and destructively committing them. And I realize other files/data work in very different ways. But that's quite a revolutionary way of dealing with data, methinks. All kinds of data, even.

AND, finally, weren't there something like Aperture's stacks rumored for the Tiger Finder, but with documents? "Like" Aperture's stacks in a purely graphical/metaphorical way, as far as I know, but....

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

I really like the video editing window in DVD player and iPhoto. It is black and transparent. It also fades out when you close it.

[tooki]

You mean the translucent palettes (or HUDs [heads up displays], as Apple calls them in Aperture)?

tooki

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by tooki

You mean the translucent palettes (or HUDs [heads up displays], as Apple calls them in Aperture)?

tooki

These boys:

[tooki]

A simple "yes" would have sufficed!

tooki

[Jaw3000]

Anyone noticed how Aperture's HUDs look just like the Dashboard? I hope Aperture represents the future GUI of the Mac OS. Besides the new GUI and new Finder (with meta-data), I think Apple should make icons vector, include games (like Vista), add Flock elements to Safari, Front Row integrated into the OS, and syncing w/o .Mac. Most importantly though, is the new interface incorporating Aperture elements and CoreImage to make it graphically amazing, as well as standardized across all Apple apps. (no more brushed metal)! Example: when files are sorted in the Finder, they visually shuffle around the screen (anyone seen the MS Max tech demo? Some of it's GUI elements are pretty cool).

[moonmonkey]

Originally Posted by Jaw3000

Anyone noticed how Aperture's HUDs look just like the Dashboard? I hope Aperture represents the future GUI of the Mac OS. Besides the new GUI and new Finder (with meta-data), I think Apple should make icons vector, include games (like Vista), add Flock elements to Safari, Front Row integrated into the OS, and syncing w/o .Mac. Most importantly though, is the new interface incorporating Aperture elements and CoreImage to make it graphically amazing, as well as standardized across all Apple apps. (no more brushed metal)! Example: when files are sorted in the Finder, they visually shuffle around the screen (anyone seen the MS Max tech demo? Some of it's GUI elements are pretty cool).

Vector icons?
Why make extra work for ourselves when bitmaps work so well.

[Jaw3000]

Originally Posted by moonmonkey

Vector icons?
Why make extra work for ourselves when bitmaps work so well.

Bitmaps are easier to create than vector, but they certainly don't scale well (especially at 128x128). The "fuzziness" of the icons ruins the full screen Front Row interface. They should be nice and crisp. So bitmaps capped at 128x128 are certainly not the answer. Vector icons/graphics work really well for scaling. I think Apple should give us the choice on wether we want to use vector or bitmap, especially considering how much we might want the icon to scale in use (ex. a vector might be better suited for Front Row).

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by tooki

You mean the translucent palettes (or HUDs [heads up displays], as Apple calls them in Aperture)?

tooki

Actually they are called "dashboards".

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Actually they are called "dashboards".

I find these "dashboards" stand out so well because they are black with white text (which I normally hate).

[lookmark]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Actually they are called "dashboards".

This was before Tiger's Dashboard, though. I think Apple might be renaming them HUDs?<shrug>

[- - e r i k - -]

No, they are still called Dashboards in the current release of Motion (recently updated). No bigge though. They'll probably rename them HUDs when Aperture is released. Bezel-palettes doesn't sound too good

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

My lord that was AWEFUL. It is 3d for the sake of being 3D. It was not easier to use or any easier to find anything.

This is the example I always put forth when someone mentions "3D interface". If 3D was so cool, why isn't every film made in 3D and not novelty films like Shark Boy and Lava girl? If it's hopeless for passive entertainment, think of the headaches it will create when applied to active apps. There are specialized areas for 3D though, modeling and scientific ones. But not for a pure 3D interface. First of all, what input device would you use? A bat?

[CaptainHaddock]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

There are specialized areas for 3D though, modeling and scientific ones. But not for a pure 3D interface. First of all, what input device would you use? A bat?

No, no. The Nintendo Revolution controller, of course!

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

No, no. The Nintendo Revolution controller, of course!

That is actually a step in the right direction

[mpancha]

one feature I'd love to see (and this isn't an interface issue per se.) is to see the OS built in CD burning act more like XPs. I used XPs built in CD burning for the first time a few days ago with a CDRW, and it was perfect. Just drop files in the CD icon, and hit burn. If I wanted to delete a file, I did just that, and hit burn. If i want to add files, I did just that, and hit burn.

It would be nice if Apple quitmaking the CDs I burned via the OS non-rewriteable after buring onto them just once.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by mpancha

one feature I'd love to see (and this isn't an interface issue per se.) is to see the OS built in CD burning act more like XPs. I used XPs built in CD burning for the first time a few days ago with a CDRW, and it was perfect. Just drop files in the CD icon, and hit burn. If I wanted to delete a file, I did just that, and hit burn. If i want to add files, I did just that, and hit burn.

It would be nice if Apple quitmaking the CDs I burned via the OS non-rewriteable after buring onto them just once.

IIRC, Windows burns those CDs with some sort of proprietary formating which makes them incompatible with anything but a drive on a computer running Windows.

[OreoCookie]

The format is called Mount Rainier and it is not closed, there were (are?) pieces of software which allowed you to read and use it on other operating systems. Most CD burners (and DVD burners) are supposed to support it. The standard has even been brought to DVD-RWs. There was a reader software for OS 8+.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by webraider

OS X still doesn't not have the simplicity of previous OS's. What I loved then was just being able to drag an application over to the desktop to install it!

What version of the Mac OS are you remembering?!
OS 7/8/9 was downright terrible with installers, especially compared to OS X, where everything seems to be distributed on a disk image. Part of the installer problem ended up being that every app seemed to toss another extension into the mix and after about a month you'd have at least one conflict. Thank god for OS X and me KNOWING what I totally screw up.

[mpancha]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

IIRC, Windows burns those CDs with some sort of proprietary formating which makes them incompatible with anything but a drive on a computer running Windows.

it read the CD on my iBook using no extra software...

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

No, they are still called Dashboards in the current release of Motion (recently updated). No bigge though. They'll probably rename them HUDs when Aperture is released. Bezel-palettes doesn't sound too good

I don't want to keep this going on as it seems a slight bit of a silly topic to discuss, but if you watch the demonstrations on Apple's site for Aperture, they specifically refer to them as HUDs.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

I don't want to keep this going on as it seems a slight bit of a silly topic to discuss, but if you watch the demonstrations on Apple's site for Aperture, they specifically refer to them as HUDs.

And this contradicts what I said in what way exactly?

[Jim Paradise]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

And this contradicts what I said in what way exactly?

You had refered to them as Dashboards a few times because that's what they were called in Motion, but I missed your one post where you said that they'll probably change them to HUDs when Aperture is released; that's all.

[lngtones]

Originally Posted by freudling

Perhaps a list of active apps, in terms of icons, could be situated in current window. Faster than expose? This way, you always have quick access to open apps without the dock or expose.

So you're saying add a miniature dock in every window.



No cookie.

[lngtones]

http://www.xilokit.com/deskloops/deskloops.html

[lngtones]

Also, it'll never happen because it would be too much work but it would be cool to have the option of a black version of OS X like the black iPod.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by lngtones

Also, it'll never happen because it would be too much work but it would be cool to have the option of a black version of OS X like the black iPod.

You sorta can if you go into Universal Access.

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by Jim Paradise

You had refered to them as Dashboards a few times because that's what they were called in Motion, but I missed your one post where you said that they'll probably change them to HUDs when Aperture is released; that's all.

I believe he meant Apple will alter Motion so that it also refers to them as HUDs, so that that window style has a uniform name.

Originally Posted by lngtones

Also, it'll never happen because it would be too much work but it would be cool to have the option of a black version of OS X like the black iPod.

Well they've got over twelves months, I'm sure they could do an entire new look in that time - whether it be black or not.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by lngtones

http://www.xilokit.com/deskloops/deskloops.html

OMG. Are you joking? That was just pathetic!

Knocking off Exposé would have been more decent.

[lngtones]

Originally Posted by Simon

OMG. Are you joking? That was just pathetic!

Knocking off Exposé would have been more decent.

The reason why I like this is you could bounce bank and forth between wnindows very quickly. They don't get smaller like Expose so you can still see their contents.