[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

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

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

I think this might be a little extreme. First of all, who is this disorganized? I don't think classifying your own data is as difficult as you're making it sound. It makes sense for iTunes to handle my music because there's an obvious way of doing it, but for most other things, I need to do it myself.

Second, you're definitely right that Apple has been moving towards applications like iTunes that make browsing your music files manually unnecessary, but all your examples are special cases. People have been using mail clients for a long time, and nobody browses email manually in the filesystem; similarly, pictures, music, fonts, and webpage bookmarks are all still pretty specific kinds of media objects that people logically want to browse all at once. It makes sense to have a specialized tool that lets you look through that data, since the physical file itself isn't that useful.

I'm not sure this model is as useful for other kinds of documents. I don't want something displaying every text file or PDF or Word document or Excel spreadsheet in my system for a few reasons. One major reason is that the relevant files for a project don't consist purely of Word documents; they consist of some text files, some Word documents, some Excel spreadsheets, some PowerPoint presentations, some code, some images, some HTML files, and so on. Said differently, I usually do not want to slice my data by application type; I don't care to see all Word documents at once, because as a whole, that's not a meaningful collection.

A folder lets you group together disparate forms of data whose *content* is related but whose *form* is different, and your scheme doesn't appear to let you do that. I think this is closer to what people fundamentally want to do. Music is a special case where the form and content coincide to some degree. In more complicated cases, people have to be able to come up with arbitrary classifications themselves, and making a major improvement on that front is a harder problem.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by cla

I wrote Consider how "far" we've gotten over the last 20 years....
Far within quotes was ironically meant.

The answer is nowhere at all, as you pointed out yourself.

Heh...my bad. I didn't take the time to really take in what you wrote. I shouldn't be so hasty on the reply button.

[loki74]

I dunno... what I used to use the start menu and explorer for in windows the Finder covers both. It has never taken me more than 5 seconds for me to find a file I needed on my mac, even if I forgot exactly where I put it. Browsing the disk on XP really was a b!tch if you ask me, I always seemed to forget what I was trying to do... maybe I just have a short attention span... *shrug*

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by gorgonzola

I'm not sure this model is as useful for other kinds of documents. I don't want something displaying every text file or PDF or Word document or Excel spreadsheet in my system for a few reasons. One major reason is that the relevant files for a project don't consist purely of Word documents; they consist of some text files, some Word documents, some Excel spreadsheets, some PowerPoint presentations, some code, some images, some HTML files, and so on. Said differently, I usually do not want to slice my data by application type; I don't care to see all Word documents at once, because as a whole, that's not a meaningful collection.

A folder lets you group together disparate forms of data whose *content* is related but whose *form* is different, and your scheme doesn't appear to let you do that. I think this is closer to what people fundamentally want to do. Music is a special case where the form and content coincide to some degree. In more complicated cases, people have to be able to come up with arbitrary classifications themselves, and making a major improvement on that front is a harder problem.

But this is exactly where Spotlight comes in. You get to create 'meaningful collections'.

Yes...the Finder lets you group 5 different files that all belong to one project into a folder. But why force someone to manually do this when tools like Spotlight can do it for you? What happens if you need to use one of the files from one project in another project? Do you duplicate the file and group the duplicate with the other project in a separate folder? You've got redundancy at this point. You'll have to manage both files, changes in one file won't automatically be transfered to the other.

My scheme absolutely allows you to manage several different file formats. People will still be able to do this via the Finder (as a standalone app) or via Spotlight or via communication between all apps. Of course, I'm biased towards the latter two: Spotlight and communication between apps because they'll do the bulk of the work for me because they have a very specific purpose. The Finder on the other hand has a very general purpose. If your only interest is making 'meaning collections', I don't understand why the Finder is the right tool when Spotlight exists. If Apple allowed Smart Folder-like collections to be saved/managed via the Spotlight search window, you'd be all set, no?

If you want to group files by project, Spotlight will work wonderfully. People have got to stop bringing Spotlight down to a mere search engine. Those who are stomping their feet because Spotlight isn't exactly like the 10.3 and previous OSs' Finder search are missing the point completely.

I don't mind if people still believe manually sorting and grouping files is the way to go...but these people shouldn't spoil it for others that have no interest in micromanaging their files.

[cla]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Heh...my bad. I didn't take the time to really take in what you wrote. I shouldn't be so hasty on the reply button.

Hey, none taken =]

Speaking of bad interface design, how about an
"Are you sure you wish to reply to this message?"-dialog?

=]

[cla]

Originally Posted by loki74

It has never taken me more than 5 seconds for me to find a file I needed on my mac, even if I forgot exactly where I put it.

How can you find something you worked on six months ago, which file name you've since long forgotten, in five seconds?

If that's true (no sarkasm intended), I'd be interested to know how you organize your files/what extras you use to splice the Finder/what your desktop looks like/how "spatial" a s o.

[cla]

Let's not forget that the location of a file in many cases is the most important piece of meta data there is, and Spotlight completely ignores this. A site directory might for instance look like:

Sites/uncle_sam/index.html
Sites/uncle_sam/master.css
Sites/uncle_sam/images/bg.gif
Sites/uncle_sam/images/uncle_sam.jpg

If I were to search for "index.html" using Spotlight, I will end up with every index.html on my hard drive(s). Refining the search by adding the string "uncle_sam" produces 0 hits.

Web sites are no exception. Every print original I create I name "master.indd", whereas the name of the folder in which the file resides points out the exact project.

[- - e r i k - -]

Hovering over the filename in the spotlight-menu gives you the path to the file. Command-clicking it opens the parent folder.

[cla]

I know.

[mAxximo]

Unless some deep rethinking of its interface and functionality takes place, Spotlight will never be able to replace the current hierarchical scheme of sorting and grouping files by project/etc. In any professional environment such as a design studio, an ad agency or a post house, if just for the simple reason that there's normally many people involved in the creative processes that lead to the final product, there's no way a very thorough project management and organization could be replaced by Spotlight in its current state. Someone in need to access files for a specific project in my machine shouldn't have to be guessing which name I decided to give to a certain element instead of just opening one specific folder in the Finder and have that element pop right in front.

Of course someone farting around at home with just a bunch of mp3s and a collection of phone-cam pictures doesn't need to worry about “micro-managing” his files. But the Mac was conceived to serve to a wide spectrum of users and OS X should try and continue that tradition. The “Steve's-way-fits-all” approach has done nothing but screwing a big part of the userbase so far. The Finder has to be put back in the top priority list at Apple, were it belongs. No glorified seach engine can take its place.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Unless some deep rethinking of its interface and functionality takes place, Spotlight will never be able to replace the current hierarchical scheme of sorting and grouping files by project/etc. In any professional environment such as a design studio, an ad agency or a post house, if just for the simple reason that there's normally many people involved in the creative processes that lead to the final product, there's no way a very thorough project management and organization could be replaced by Spotlight in its current state. Someone in need to access files for a specific project in my machine shouldn't have to be guessing which name I decided to give to a certain element instead of just opening one specific folder in the Finder and have that element pop right in front.

Of course someone farting around at home with just a bunch of mp3s and a collection of phone-cam pictures doesn't need to worry about “micro-managing” his files. But the Mac was conceived to serve to a wide spectrum of users and OS X should try and continue that tradition. The “Steve's-way-fits-all” approach has done nothing but screwing a big part of the userbase so far. The Finder has to be put back in the top priority list at Apple, were it belongs. No glorified seach engine can take its place.

You're intentionally misleading, confused, or plainly complaining for the sake of it.

They wouldn't have to guess what name you gave an element. If you're working on "Project X", a Spotlight search for Project X or anything that Project X is about will promptly show up because they would all be tagged with, at the very least, the name of the project. Spotlight is *much* more user-friendly to people that have know idea of the physical location of the project files on a computer. Easier even if the actual owner categorizes his files neatly, and *much* easier if the owner is disorganized.

If the person in question really doesn't know what the project is about or what the project is called then they're probably not involved with that project in the first place and need not look for it.

If you truly do not believe what I said false, you're probably completely lost when you open an internet browser and need to find a site where it's physical location on the internet is unknown to you. If the internet was laid out hierarchically, would you be able to find your site easily? I know you're answer is yes...but the real answer is no. It would take very long for you to find the site (if you find it at all).

[loki74]

Originally Posted by cla

How can you find something you worked on six months ago, which file name you've since long forgotten, in five seconds?

If that's true (no sarkasm intended), I'd be interested to know how you organize your files/what extras you use to splice the Finder/what your desktop looks like/how "spatial" a s o.

well I'v never had to find something six months old, I've only switched for about 7-8 or so months... I do a lot of various things on my Mac, but the two primary are 2D art and 3D art. I just put those two folders in the sidebar, and in them are all the folders named by the various projects I've done. I keep nothing on my desktop.

I think what really does it is the sidebar--on windows the thing on the side is a directory tree--just a (slightly more detailed) reiteration of the browsing you're already doing, as well as the path name in the address bar...

It also could be that I am the only one who uses my mac, whereas my PC was shared--files were everywhere and I had to dig through a bunch of stuff I didn't know anything about.

So maybe its not really windows's fault, but either way I've had a much easier, more efficient time on OSX than XP.

[kick52]

vista is just a more pretty versıon of xp. ıts just a new name to make ıt sound more ıntrestıng and somethıng new but all they wanna do ıs make ıt more eye-frıendly

[cla]

Originally Posted by kick52

vista is just a more pretty versıon of xp. ıts just a new name to make ıt sound more ıntrestıng and somethıng new but all they wanna do ıs make ıt more eye-frıendly

Most of the new features included in Beta 1 are under the hood and not necessarily obvious to the normal user.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cla

Most of the new features included in Beta 1 are under the hood and not necessarily obvious to the normal user.

True, things like restricted users (something like the admin account in OS X) will be available in the Public Beta (Beta 2). But still many features have been axed, so Longhorn aka Vista doesn't look as revolutionary as MS intended it to be.

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by cla

If I were to search for "index.html" using Spotlight, I will end up with every index.html on my hard drive(s). Refining the search by adding the string "uncle_sam" produces 0 hits.

You could have a folder action that automatically appends "Uncle Sam" to the Spotlight comments of each item in the folder.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by clebin

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

Column view give you a preview. The Vista preview does not let you manipulate the file and you still have to bring up a properties dialog which is the equivalent of the Get Info window except you have to navigate a bunch of tabs.

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

I'm sorry but that is your subjective opinion. It is one that I do not share. How can you be heaping praise on Vista while criticizing the integration of Spotlight? Your precious Vista copies Spotlight in the Explorer windows, the Virtual folder and the search field in the start menu. Our file explorer is called "Finder" and spotlight can be used to "find things" and previous versions of the finder hand a search field so where is the problem exactly?

10.5 is an opportunity to put this right. The Vista preview should be a bit of a wake up call even if years of "Fix The F*cking Finder!!!" hasn't been.

Listen pal, I don't know if you are a trolling windows fanboy pretending to be a mac user or just a clueless noob switcher who still jumps when MSFT hypes something but not everyone agrees with you.

I work 9-5ish 5 days a week as a windows software developer. I absolutely hate XP's interface and consider it to be an insult of user's intelligence with the gaudy colours, wizards and side panels.

Ask any UI "expert" and they will tell you that XP is a sack of ****.

I may not be a certified UI expert but I spent a number of years as a web/ecommerce developer.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

You're intentionally misleading, confused, or plainly complaining for the sake of it.

They wouldn't have to guess what name you gave an element. If you're working on "Project X", a Spotlight search for Project X or anything that Project X is about will promptly show up because they would all be tagged with, at the very least, the name of the project. Spotlight is *much* more user-friendly to people that have know idea of the physical location of the project files on a computer. Easier even if the actual owner categorizes his files neatly, and *much* easier if the owner is disorganized.

If the person in question really doesn't know what the project is about or what the project is called then they're probably not involved with that project in the first place and need not look for it.

No offense but I don't think you understand how things work in an environment like the ones I described. One broadcast design project alone can have literally thousands of files of many different kinds associated with it as well as lots of people involved in the creation process. I'm talking 6GB/10GB (or more) of documents that range from 3D elements and flame sequences, to Illustrator and Photoshop files, Quicktime movies, raw footage, EDLs, etc.

Imagine how tedious it would be for everyone having to tag each one of those files so Spotlight knows to which project they belong instead of just organising specific folders containing all what matters to that particular job in one well-organised hierarchy that everyone involved can have access to from other machines in the network (including PCs and SGIs). It would be ridiculous.

And when it comes to back-up your work, what can be easier than having everything sorted out by project, everything in its own directory under a crystal-clear hierarchical structure? Moreover when Spotlight can't even find by name in non-indexed media. That alone makes it worthless for any kind of organization that involves the use of network volumes, for example.
No, I can't fathom the idea of using Spotlight to find out all the files for Project X that were previously dumped to a common location along with tons of other stuff. Argh.

Believe me, for these and many other reasons the Finder is not going anywhere anytime soon, as much as Jobs and NeXT dislike that idea.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

No offense but I don't think you understand how things work in an environment like the ones I described. One broadcast design project alone can have literally thousands of files of many different kinds associated with it as well as lots of people involved in the creation process. I'm talking 6GB/10GB (or more) of documents that range from 3D elements and flame sequences, to Illustrator and Photoshop files, Quicktime movies, raw footage, EDLs, etc.

Imagine how tedious it would be for everyone having to tag each one of those files so Spotlight knows to which project they belong instead of just organising specific folders containing all what matters to that particular job in one well-organised hierarchy that everyone involved can have access to from other machines in the network (including PCs and SGIs). It would be ridiculous.

Actually, if done properly it would be exactly as tedious as the folder structure: no more, no less. You're simply used to folders; that's all.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, if done properly it would be exactly as tedious as the folder structure: no more, no less. You're simply used to folders; that's all.

No. Being able to name things whatever I want instead of having to stick to strange naming conventions across all my co-workers is orders of magnitude less tedious than losing my concentration on the job I'm doing so I make things easier for Spotlight. The computer has to work for me, never the other way around. Folders work for me. I have to work for Spotlight. No, thanks.

And that's on naming stuff only. Read the rest of my previous post on why it's simply not adequate for what it's being proposed.

[eddiecatflap]

err.. wtf's the difference between xp and vista ?

5 years and that's ALL m$ can come up with...pathetic

[wataru]

Originally Posted by Timan

well link... have you ever plugged something in to your mac, and wonder if its working or not? I know when I plugged my printer in, I got no indication that it is working, there has to be some sort of alert to let us know things are working.

...

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

Already exists. Peripheral Vision. I highly recommend it.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Moreover when Spotlight can't even find by name in non-indexed media.

What? Spotlight can always find by name because the name is never indexed. Searches in Spotlight for names are done normally. I've complained about this many times actually.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

No. Being able to name things whatever I want instead of having to stick to strange naming conventions across all my co-workers is orders of magnitude less tedious than losing my concentration on the job I'm doing so I make things easier for Spotlight. The computer has to work for me, never the other way around. Folders work for me. I have to work for Spotlight. No, thanks.

And that's on naming stuff only. Read the rest of my previous post on why it's simply not adequate for what it's being proposed.

As opposed to strange folder naming conventions across all your co-workers? How will they know where you put the files if you haven't shown them the path to your files?

And why does the naming convention have to be strange? If you're working on the project "I Hate OS X", the 'Project' metadata tag can appropriately be "I Hate OS X" and a search for I Hate OS X will bring up all the files related to I Hate OS X.

Otherwise, you'll probably dump all the files into a folder called "The I Hate OS X Project" which could be nested deeply in the hierarchy making it difficult for people to actually find.

[cla]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Listen pal, I don't know if you are a trolling windows fanboy pretending to be a mac user or just a clueless noob switcher who still jumps when MSFT hypes something but not everyone agrees with you.

Why the harsh words?
I agree with clebin in that the Mac OS X has lacked a clear direction regarding its user interface, and it's worrying me to. This goes beyond the aqua vs brushed metal and other inconsistencies. We've seen docklets come and go. We've seen Sherlock come and (almost) go.

Ask any UI "expert" and they will tell you that XP is a sack of ****.
I may not be a certified UI expert but I spent a number of years as a web/ecommerce developer.

I don't agree. If you ever get the chance, observe beginners play around with both XP and OS X.

I don't think Apple has fallen behind, but never before has the difference between Mac OS and Windows been this small.

[cla]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Actually, if done properly it would be exactly as tedious as the folder structure/.../

Explain what you mean by "properly".
If we were to completely remove the concept of folders, how should its replacement bundle files into collections (for it seems we all agree this can be useful from time to time)?
How to assign a file to a certain collection? How to remove a file from a certain collection?
(In one level of abstraction, this is exactly what the Finder is for.)

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by cla

Explain what you mean by "properly".
If we were to completely remove the concept of folders, how should its replacement bundle files into collections (for it seems we all agree this can be useful from time to time)?
How to assign a file to a certain collection? How to remove a file from a certain collection?
(In one level of abstraction, this is exactly what the Finder is for.)

To a certain point, the Finder is still needed because Spotlight is a nascent technology and only a hand full of apps actually make use of the metadata (read/write). But when apps do start making use of Spotlight and start tagging files with metadata, it will be really easy to assign a file to a certain collection.

All apps should eventually ask "What project does this file belong to?" when you save a file (as well as offer other metadata fields that will allow you to manually provide a bit more info if you so choose to) via the Save dialog. One day, instead of being greeted with the current Open/Save dialog box that allows us to save our files into a hierarchical file system, we will be greeted with an Open/Save dialog box that doesn't care one bit about the physical location of files. It will instead ask you 'what project do you want to work on' (something similar to Tiger's Finder's metadata filter.) The difference of complexity between tagging a file with a project name or creating a folder with the project name inside a physical hierarchy is zero...I would even argue that it's easier to simply tag a file with the project name.

I understand what you mean though...iTunes to group music files into a collection, iPhoto to group photos into a collection and then the Finder to group various files that do not share similar file formats. But like I said...Spotlight is just a child. I expect Apple to make the Spotlight more powerful by allowing it to store collections/projects and the Open/Save dialog more metadata savvy. Tiger's Spotlight is powerful...but not nearly as powerful as it could be...but I suspect Apple is taking it slowly...the shift shouldn't happen overnight. It would be too much of a shock. Especially to those that are already shocked by Spotlight today (which would probably get a heart-attack if Apple had decided to remove the Finder altogether from Tiger and replace everything with Spotlight.)

The Finder should simply become a standalone app for those that want to physically and hierarchically organize their files but it shouldn't remain the default tool. The days of categorizing things hierarchically are numbered. It works well for a reasonably small number of file but becomes exponentially more difficult to manage as the number of files grows. The Finder will still have its uses in the future...but Spotlight will be needed to manage a large number of files.

As I said earlier, the Finder will probably just fade away as 'just-another-app' by 10.6.

[gorgonzola]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

But this is exactly where Spotlight comes in. You get to create 'meaningful collections'.

Yes...the Finder lets you group 5 different files that all belong to one project into a folder. But why force someone to manually do this when tools like Spotlight can do it for you? What happens if you need to use one of the files from one project in another project? Do you duplicate the file and group the duplicate with the other project in a separate folder? You've got redundancy at this point. You'll have to manage both files, changes in one file won't automatically be transfered to the other.

My scheme absolutely allows you to manage several different file formats. People will still be able to do this via the Finder (as a standalone app) or via Spotlight or via communication between all apps. Of course, I'm biased towards the latter two: Spotlight and communication between apps because they'll do the bulk of the work for me because they have a very specific purpose. The Finder on the other hand has a very general purpose. If your only interest is making 'meaning collections', I don't understand why the Finder is the right tool when Spotlight exists. If Apple allowed Smart Folder-like collections to be saved/managed via the Spotlight search window, you'd be all set, no?

If you want to group files by project, Spotlight will work wonderfully. People have got to stop bringing Spotlight down to a mere search engine. Those who are stomping their feet because Spotlight isn't exactly like the 10.3 and previous OSs' Finder search are missing the point completely.

I don't mind if people still believe manually sorting and grouping files is the way to go...but these people shouldn't spoil it for others that have no interest in micromanaging their files.

Well, first of all, I didn't say the Finder was the right tool, just that it lets you do something that Spotlight currently does not. Also, in this post, you've addressed the question of tagging files by project, which is reasonable (and fairly obvious); in your previous post, though, you made it sound like people only needed each application to understand its own files, and that's the only point I was addressing. I'm wasn't trying to bring Spotlight down to a mere search engine; I fully understand the power of metadata and that it can be pushed much further than it currently has.

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

To a certain point, the Finder is still needed because Spotlight is a nascent technology and only a hand full of apps actually make use of the metadata (read/write). But when apps do start making use of Spotlight and start tagging files with metadata, it will be really easy to assign a file to a certain collection.

All apps should eventually ask "What project does this file belong to?" when you save a file (as well as offer other metadata fields that will allow you to manually provide a bit more info if you so choose to) via the Save dialog. One day, instead of being greeted with the current Open/Save dialog box that allows us to save our files into a hierarchical file system, we will be greeted with an Open/Save dialog box that doesn't care one bit about the physical location of files. It will instead ask you 'what project do you want to work on' (something similar to Tiger's Finder's metadata filter.) The difference of complexity between tagging a file with a project name or creating a folder with the project name inside a physical hierarchy is zero...I would even argue that it's easier to simply tag a file with the project name.

This concept is so wrong at so many levels that I can't even find the right words in my limited English to discuss it properly.

But from a strictly functional point of view this scheme will never work in an environment where different people use different platforms to create the elements that conform a final piece, i.e. the post-production industry where I work.
There's Windows, Linux and Irix systems generating most of the content along with Macs and OS X boxes, so physical location and accessibility are paramount. Even if it made any sense to just dump stuff anywhere, there would simply be no way of assigning metadata tags accross all of those platforms to make all of the elements work together as a whole into a single project. Getting rid of file and folder hierarchies is simply out of the question.

I have no doubt that Spotlight will retain its intended search engine function in most professional content creation environments and that people in my industry will continue to ask for the much needed Finder improvements that we need to do our job.
When the usual over-hype that follows any new Apple feature settles down I'm confident that some people will go back to making sense, too.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

This concept is so wrong at so many levels that I can't even find the right words in my limited English to discuss it properly.

But from a strictly functional point of view this scheme will never work in an environment where different people use different platforms to create the elements that conform a final piece, i.e. the post-production industry where I work.
There's Windows, Linux and Irix systems generating most of the content along with Macs and OS X boxes, so physical location and accessibility are paramount. Even if it made any sense to just dump stuff anywhere, there would simply be no way of assigning metadata tags accross all of those platforms to make all of the elements work together as a whole into a single project. Getting rid of file and folder hierarchies is simply out of the question.

I have no doubt that Spotlight will retain its intended search engine function in most professional content creation environments and that people in my industry will continue to ask for the much needed Finder improvements that we need to do our job.
When the usual over-hype that follows any new Apple feature settles down I'm confident that some people will go back to making sense, too.

I don't think hierarchical organization will go away. I don't think I've said that anywhere in my posts. It's got it's uses for sure...I'm just saying you're giving it more credit than it deserves.

But I do agree that in a multi-platform environment, some people are going to run into walls without a physical/hierarchical browser. But that's also why I said the Finder will stick around for a long time...it just won't remain the default browser.

Apple is laying some new foundations...and metadata tagging will become much easier to do than it is today in Tiger (which I admit is lacking right now...the current Open/Save dialogs will have to change and really start making use of Spotlight if Apple wants Spotlight to take off..

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

This concept is so wrong at so many levels that I can't even find the right words in my limited English to discuss it properly.

But from a strictly functional point of view this scheme will never work in an environment where different people use different platforms to create the elements that conform a final piece, i.e. the post-production industry where I work.
There's Windows, Linux and Irix systems generating most of the content along with Macs and OS X boxes, so physical location and accessibility are paramount. Even if it made any sense to just dump stuff anywhere, there would simply be no way of assigning metadata tags accross all of those platforms to make all of the elements work together as a whole into a single project. Getting rid of file and folder hierarchies is simply out of the question.

I have no doubt that Spotlight will retain its intended search engine function in most professional content creation environments and that people in my industry will continue to ask for the much needed Finder improvements that we need to do our job.
When the usual over-hype that follows any new Apple feature settles down I'm confident that some people will go back to making sense, too.

As Microsoft's Windows Vista shows, Apple is moving in the right direction. And although I think it'll take some years, both are slowly moving away from the folders paradigm. A project-based information management system would really help me increase my productivity (as I'm from the other stronghold of Apple products, research and education).

I still think directory structures will be kept, at least for legacy purposes, so I don't think we'll get rid of folders any time soon. But I think you could still copy `everything from project A' to another location without metadata support (or a different metadata system, M$) consistently without messing anything up (that's the way it works with smart folders, try it; and I also think that's the expected behavior on a Windows Vista machine). You'd still be more organized on your Mac.

If it is done right, you don't even need volumes with metadata support, just take apps like iView Media Pro, they assign metadata to even read-only media. So I think it's technically feasible even on systems that a priori do not fancy-schmancy support metadata.

Spotlight doesn't help me organize my stuff on my Sun, but it helps me on my Mac. I think you have a fairly good point: at one point, you have to organize, it's the same in real life. If you can't organize your work systematically, you're lost.

[andreadeca]

Guys Guys Guys,

Vista is NOT OUT YET.
Vista will NOT BE OUT FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
Vista exists ONLY IN SCREENSHOTS (for now).

... so why waste time talking about something that still does not exists and that will be out in 2007 (they will not get it out on time: you know it, I know it, everyone knows it).
by the time Vista is out, we'll have 10.5, and if Apple FINALLY gets it right, they will get rid of (or MAJORLY upgrate) the 'effin finder.... I totally agree that it sucks!

Oh, and personally, I truly think that eyecandy counts: on computer design, car design, interface design, and women.
Those transparencies look really nice.

andrea

[Macanoid]

I think Apple could learn a lot from these guys :: a Finder with tabs and bookmarks

pathfinder 4

[OreoCookie]

Thanks for the great link.

[kcmac]

Originally Posted by cla

I don't think Apple has fallen behind, but never before has the difference between Mac OS and Windows been this small.

So since Windows 95 they are still getting closer but not quite ahead?

I still wait to judge Longhorn/Vista WHEN it comes out to the public. It is maddening to be discussing it like it exists. Oh yeah...kinda sorta...in beta...will probably look different...will probably have more features...

But by that time, we will probably be able to judge it against Leopard and Vista may then be 5 years behind again.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by cla

Why the harsh words?
I agree with clebin in that the Mac OS X has lacked a clear direction regarding its user interface, and it's worrying me to. This goes beyond the aqua vs brushed metal and other inconsistencies. We've seen docklets come and go. We've seen Sherlock come and (almost) go.



I don't agree. If you ever get the chance, observe beginners play around with both XP and OS X.

I don't think Apple has fallen behind, but never before has the difference between Mac OS and Windows been this small.

I worked in technical support. Imagine explaining to a user who has never touched a computer to right click on the desktop or to right click on a "My Computer" icon over the phone.

I'm curious what your definition of beginner is?

You are complaining about the inconsistency of the OS X GUI because of some graphical styles for UI elements? Have you seen windows? There are several UI styles on a typical windows machine with say MS Office and XP Luna enabled.

I see a great deal of "functional" inconsistency on XP and almost none on OS X.

I actually happen to like the Aqua, Unified and Aqua window styles personally and don't find a great deal of "functionality" difference between them which in my mind is more important.

[cla]

Originally Posted by aristotles

I worked in technical support. Imagine explaining to a user who has never touched a computer to right click on the desktop or to right click on a "My Computer" icon over the phone.

What's the big difference in doing Mac support?

You are complaining about the inconsistency of the OS X GUI because of some graphical styles for UI elements?

No. This is what I wrote:
This goes beyond the aqua vs brushed metal and other inconsistencies.
From the top of my head: Sometimes you can drag icons and put where you want. Sometimes you can't: Poof! Sometimes you switch to Photoshop by clicking here, sometimes there, depending on number of apps and minimized windows. If you're looking for a window you cannot see, you sometimes have to search the dock (minimized), and sometimes its application (hidden). Sometimes, applications have just one window, which can be closed but ]magically revoked by pressing cmd-1. Closing a window produces the exact same result as hiding it. DON'T try this in other applications, new users! Sometimes the mouse effective click is on mouse up. Sometimes on mouse down. Sometimes when you use the scroll bar, the frame next to the scroll bar will scroll. Sometimes another frame will scroll. (Spotlight -> show all, Safari -> RSS.) Sometimes when you hide a Finder window's side bar, it will remain removed. Sometimes it won't, depending on HOW you navigate to the folder's content. Finder spatialness leaves a lot to wish for. Sometimes, when changing icon size in Finder, it applies to "This window". Sometimes to "All windows".
Another cumbersome and inconsistent experience is navigating the Finder column view vs column view in open/save-dialogs, using the keyboard. This has been somewhat improved in Tiger.

Mere inconsistencies. There are also a number of other issues that behave consistent, but which I consider to be plain bad UI design.

To a technician, the list above probably won't make any sense. Surely there are ways of explaining each and every inconsistency (which I'm sure someone will do just soon), but that doesn't motivate them.

Have you seen windows? There are several UI styles on a typical windows machine with say MS Office and XP Luna enabled.

True, but I don't understand the argument. I'm not stating that XP is better in any way. Nor is Gnome, KDE, BeOS or any other alternative. Comparing to windows produces nothing.

[Weyland-Yutani]

I do hope Apple will Fix The Fuc*ing Finder. Soon. There are so many things that can be done for the poor thing. I hope they make the Dock more powerful too.

In this thread I agree mostly with the things Maximo has been pointing out. Fix the F Finder and then it is time to sit down and discuss the merits of metadata vs hierarchy. Right now we have a primitive Spotlight combined with a primitive Finder.

Perhaps that's why Vista is looking rather good to some people (me included). Microsoft seems to know where they want to go with their OS and their interface. Apple is still all over the place. I do hope they fix things soon. Then again they are a big business and ruled by NeXT nerds that wouldn't recognize a good interface if it kicked them in the ass.

Mac OS X is powerful. For nerds. So is Microsoft Windows. We're down to their level right now and Microsoft seems to be passing Apple by. Whether they do depends entirely upon Apple and where OS X will be when Vista is released. Steve said major OS X updates would be slowing down, that they had been churning out one major update a year until now. I think that would indicate a slower than once a year update cycle of OS X. Meaning we'll see Mac OS X 10.5 and Microsoft Vista both in 2007.

cheers

W-Y

[cla]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Microsoft seems to know where they want to go with their OS and their interface. Apple is still all over the place.

[clebin]

Originally Posted by aristotles

Listen pal, I don't know if you are a trolling windows fanboy pretending to be a mac user or just a clueless noob switcher who still jumps when MSFT hypes something but not everyone agrees with you.

You're obviously having difficulty reading my posts, because you've ignored my criticisms of Windows, an OS I have no particular love for. If you took a little more time, you'll see this "noob" joined the forum nearly 4 years before you did. But I'm not going to respond further to silly personal abuse from a narrow-minded individual incapable of discussing things sensibly.

--

I like the mockup of a Finder preview pane. It's not just something that Windows has, but something that Apple has but have failed to apply elsewhere. In a way, it explains what I mean by a lack of direction - if a preview pane is a good idea, why only have it in column view? If it's a bad idea, why have it in column view at all? It seems like nobody made a clear statement on it and no-one explored where they could take the idea.

I can see many ocassions when I would find it useful to toggle this pane on. As we have a file browser rather than a spatial Finder, I usually have nothing else on my semi-widescreen monitor that is demanding that space. I would also like some degree of customisability on what is shown for (broad) filetypes, and a choice to put the Spotlight comments field in so I remember to use it.

[clebin]

Regarding Spotlight, I don't think you can have files floating around in space, because the world around us is more ordered, more structured - it's not abstract and chaotic. People are comfortable with a hierarchy even before they use a computer. A toy sitting in a box in a room in a house, is a kind of hierarchy.

So someone needs to do some real thinking. What is the new structure that underpins Spotlight? If nothing else, how do we organise our Smart Folders? If we follow playlists in iTunes and albums in iPhoto, then it's a new hierarchy of sorts.

If files are just going to float around in the ether until we search for them, or until we capture them, tag them and release them into the wild again, I personally don't think the idea will work.

[OogaBooga]

I've found OS X to be more flexible in the way a user can use his/her computer. There is always more than one way to do something, and usually a user will find a way that he/she likes. The arguing that's going on here justifies Apple's attempt to make an operating system that fits the needs of everyone.


And by the way, the VAST majority of Apple's users are plain consumers, not professional users.

[clebin]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

I've found OS X to be more flexible in the way a user can use his/her computer.

I don't think anyone here would disagree. I'd just prefer some specific extra flexibility. Other people will always say "I hate that feature. That's just what we don't need", which is fair enough. File Copy & Paste being a particularly contentious one at the time....

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by clebin

I don't think anyone here would disagree. I'd just prefer some specific extra flexibility. Other people will always say "I hate that feature. That's just what we don't need", which is fair enough. File Copy & Paste being a particularly contentious one at the time....

Without a shelf, file copy&paste is the only way to operate in column view.

I don't like it. I loathe it. However I don't use it so I don't notice it. That is a good thing and a strenght of the Mac OS X. Many ways to do the same thing.

I want more flexibility. Some people do not like my ideas. They loath them. However if my ideas would be implemented they wouldn't notice because they wouldn't use them. They are against the strength of the Mac OS X.

I would actually like to see a shelf, a more powerful Dock and a true fully featured Finder. With spaciality and all. There is every reason to implement these things. Not the least in these last days when Microsoft has been showing some neat UI ideas that make the Mac OS X look awkward. Oh how the mighty have fallen. Thank you nerdyboys. You really ruined a nice OS.

cheers

W-Y

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

And by the way, the VAST majority of Apple's users are plain consumers, not professional users.

That's not an excuse.
I say make an operating system capable of keeping up with the demands of professional users and consumers will like it too. Make a half-assed, dumbed-down interface to please the lowest common denominator while leaving the true power and customisation of the system available only to unix gurus and you'll piss off a large group of users who won't settle for less.
It's a no brainer.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

And by the way, the VAST majority of Apple's users are plain consumers, not professional users.

Then the VAST majority of Apple users would love a spacial Finder! And greatly benefit from it too!

cheers

W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by clebin

Regarding Spotlight, I don't think you can have files floating around in space, because the world around us is more ordered, more structured - it's not abstract and chaotic. People are comfortable with a hierarchy even before they use a computer. A toy sitting in a box in a room in a house, is a kind of hierarchy.

So someone needs to do some real thinking. What is the new structure that underpins Spotlight? If nothing else, how do we organise our Smart Folders? If we follow playlists in iTunes and albums in iPhoto, then it's a new hierarchy of sorts.

If files are just going to float around in the ether until we search for them, or until we capture them, tag them and release them into the wild again, I personally don't think the idea will work.

Yes and no. Files that have zero metadata would be lost forever if there was no real structure to find files other than Spotlight.

But I don't think this is a problem with everyday files such as Word or Pages documents, or image files, or music files...that said, I still agree with the idea that files should have an order or structure on the disk but I don't think the user needs to decide what this structure is. It would be purely for the system to optimize its searching:

System files
Apps
Document files

This would be the basic structure...the system could have sub-categories to these such as:

Drivers, Kernel Extensions, ...
Utilities, Internet apps, ...
Music files, image files, ...

It's not like OS X isn't doing this right now so it wouldn't be a big change if the OS dictated where your files were stored. The Library folder is full of sub-folders that you just cannot rename or the system will break.

The physical location of the files would be organized by the OS and be unseen by the user (unless an emergency arised and you absolutely couldn't find a file that happened to not have any metadata)...but, you, the user could reorganize all of these files the way you want using Spotlight and the Finder (to make meaningful hierarchies and collections).

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Without a shelf, file copy&paste is the only way to operate in column view.

Drag-and-drop works for me.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by lavar78

Drag-and-drop works for me.

Copy a file from /a/b/c/d/e/f/g/ to /a/b/h/i/j/k/ using drag and drop in single window column view mode. Enjoy. (which is why copy/paste file exists)

cheers

W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

All this talk about copy/paste and dragging and dropping is funny stuff since it is all a product of the old way of working with files. It's a product of 1984-1994 desktops when you had no choice but to move files around from floppy to floppy or floppy to HD or HD to floppy. It's a product of hierarchical file systems when, often enough, you had no choice but to select a file and move it (or copy it) to another location to 'organize' or move to another media source.

As HDs become larger, however, and as removable media becomes less important (except for backup) and as metadata becomes the 'folders' that we knew, all of this copying and pasting and dragging and dropping of files will be going the way of the dodo.

Moving files from a/b/c/d/e/f/g to r/g/w/z/h/r/w as Weyland-Yutani put it just doesn't exist anymore. Or if it does, it's because someone is loving to be terribly inefficient. I don't think Apple should bow down to inefficiency just because a few are still stuck in 1984.