[mAxximo]

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.

Before I roll my eyes any further, can I ask what do you use your computer for, Horsepoo?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't think this is true at all. You really think metadata is going to replace hierarchy. I do not.

Hierarchy is all about location. /a/b/c/[your file] but it is also about metadata (in the broadest definition - it will contain a name and a file type at the least and an icon)

Finding a file with this system is possible by either knowing the path (or having a logical path that leads you to what you are looking for i.e. /files/pictures/work/new/... etc) and then look for the name.

Or you can search by using Spotlight or similar features and enter a name or conditions (type, size, etc).

You can find anything with the hierachial system. There is a path and a name and possibly more recognizing features. If you do not know the name and don't have hierarchy and only trust in a technology such as Spotlight you will perhaps never find what you are looking for.

That is the fatal flaw of the Spotlight type of searching through files. You can't browse. Searcing one's HD becomes like using Google. It has its purposes but I am sorry it doesn't replace the hierarchial file system we use today, nor will it ever I suspect. Of course you need drag and drop and copy paste today. Tomorrow and for the forseeable future. Because it is effective and solid.

If everything were kept in one big folder and Spotlight was used to find things in it, try and find a data file that you do not know what is called (naturally) that goes with a program you don't really remember what is called either because you don't really use it that often. There are thousands upon thousands of files in your HD. All in one folder.

Instead of clicking on your Applications folder in the hierarchy and instantly seeing all the data files associated with the program, you search for .app items. Once you find them you locate the program. Then you look for all files associated with this program and hope the indexing covered everything properly. If anything it is Spotlight that might go the way of the dodo if it isn't implemented a lot better. Hierarchy is here to stay.

cheers

W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I don't think this is true at all. You really think metadata is going to replace hierarchy. I do not.

Hierarchy is all about location. /a/b/c/[your file] but it is also about metadata (in the broadest definition - it will contain a name and a file type at the least and an icon)

Finding a file with this system is possible by either knowing the path (or having a logical path that leads you to what you are looking for i.e. /files/pictures/work/new/... etc) and then look for the name.

Or you can search by using Spotlight or similar features and enter a name or conditions (type, size, etc).

You can find anything with the hierachial system. There is a path and a name and possibly more recognizing features. If you do not know the name and don't have hierarchy and only trust in a technology such as Spotlight you will perhaps never find what you are looking for.

Yes and no...you can find anything but it takes longer to find what you want as the number of files grows...especially if you're not the one that categorized the files.

If you do not believe this, the internet would be laid out hierarchically instead of the way it is laid out right now. If you still don't believe this, find MacNN without using the search engine using this link http://www.google.ca/dirhp?hl=en. Time yourself. Then compare this time with the time it takes to find MacNN using the search engine. Type something that you feel best represents what MacNN is all about...something like 'Mac news'.

I fully trust a technology such as Spotlight and it *will* get better than it is today.

There is no real reason why a hierarchical system would be better than a metadata system. Instead of going through folder names to get to your files you're going through metadata.

Most of you are in denial because Spotlight isn't as refined as it could be.

I made, a few years ago, a mockup (under another name) of a Finder that would use metadata the same way iTunes uses metadata. iTunes lets you filter by genre, artist and album. You can mix and match these 3 criterion to refine your search. The same method could be used to find files on the computer...granted, there would be more criterion but this is no different than folders.

Taking iTunes' genre/artist/album example, what's the difference between it and, say, having a folder called 'Genre', sub-folders labeled by artists, and sub-folders within the artist folder labeled by album. There is no significant difference if you only look at one possibility. One is hierarchical, the other is not. But iTunes example is more powerful since it allows for different combinations of these criterion. Hierarchically, you're stuck with the Genre->Artist->Album organization while the iTunes can, on-the-fly, let you go view Albums by Genre or Albums by Artist or Albums by Genre...etc.

Putting a file into files/picture/work/new (if you're going to follow a strict organization) is the equivalent of doing a search for 'all image files' that are 'work' related and are no older than '1 month' old (or whatever range of time that is considered 'new')...all this metadata can be added or is a freebie. Spotlight will know that it's an image file and how old the file is without any user intervention...as of right now, you'd probably have to tag it somehow with the keyword 'work' to properly categorize it. Is this much harder than dropping it into the 'work' folder?

Hierarchies systems have their uses, but it's time some of you stand up and face the music...they're severely limited. Management of a hierarchy becomes exponentially tedious as the number of file increases. They can only categorize one single way (unless you're ready to create redundancy or symbolic links). And they become tedious to navigate as the hierarchical tree grows. These are just a few problems...there are plenty more.

Again...the best example is trying to find a specific site using the hierarchy system some search engine companies provide.

Try it...http://www.google.ca/dirhp?hl=en...find MacNN. Takes awhile compared to typing something into the search field.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Before I roll my eyes any further, can I ask what do you use your computer for, Horsepoo?

No, you may not. Especially if you're rolling your eyes at me.

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

Before I roll my eyes any further, can I ask what do you use your computer for, Horsepoo?

^ You should try it sometime.










Getting out more, that is.

[Weyland-Yutani]

It took me 24 seconds to find www.macnn.com through the hierarchial way in google. Took me about 5 to find it through the search field.

But wait. The results are rather different. See for yourself.

Result through hierarchy http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/...ews_and_Media/

Result through search field http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...e+Search&meta=

As you said, Spotlight has to become a lot better before any possibility of it replacing the traditional file hierarchy is possible. As an average user though I have less than 1000 files outside my iTunes library and System. All easily managable through normal hierarchy. I'm not seeing how Spotlight (or even an integrated google) would revolutionize things. I use spacial navigation and I use muscle memory to navigate. In combination with Spotlight I can find things damn fast. Relying completely on Spotlight however is not a thing I would relish.

On a tangent, you mention the internet is not hierarchial, but all websites are in fact hierarchial. Try for instance www.apple.com

e.g. http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/discover.html

cheers

W-Y

[lavar78]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

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)

I still don't get it. If you insist on doing it that way, it's certainly possible. OTOH, you could just open another window and drag between the two (if you don't want to copy and paste).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by lavar78

I still don't get it. If you insist on doing it that way, it's certainly possible. OTOH, you could just open another window and drag between the two (if you don't want to copy and paste).

I suppose. If I used column view I'd probably do it that way too. However the uber-geeks tend to be really quick at navigating with the keyboard and column view.

Cmd-N (new Finder window)
navigate to file with keyboard
Cmd-C (copy file)
Cmd-Shift-C (goes to / )
navigate to new place with keyboard
Cmd-V (paste file there)

They actually do this pretty fast. Power-users don't want to use the mouse except in absolute emergencies. The copy/paste file is therefore their only way of moving the file in column view. Of course you can drag or drop as well, but that requires mouse. That's all.

cheers

W-Y

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

^ You should try it sometime.
Getting out more, that is.

(Funny, my girllfriend thinks I go out too much...)

All I can answer to such lame ad-hom is that fortunately enough I have lived in a place very similar to that all of my life, which is in turn very similar to where I live now. Can't never get enough of it.

As for your hurt feelings...I don't know...want to spend a week at my house?

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It took me 24 seconds to find www.macnn.com through the hierarchial way in google. Took me about 5 to find it through the search field.

But wait. The results are rather different. See for yourself.

Result through hierarchy http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/...ews_and_Media/

Result through search field http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=...e+Search&meta=

As you said, Spotlight has to become a lot better before any possibility of it replacing the traditional file hierarchy is possible. As an average user though I have less than 1000 files outside my iTunes library and System. All easily managable through normal hierarchy. I'm not seeing how Spotlight (or even an integrated google) would revolutionize things. I use spacial navigation and I use muscle memory to navigate. In combination with Spotlight I can find things damn fast. Relying completely on Spotlight however is not a thing I would relish.

On a tangent, you mention the internet is not hierarchial, but all websites are in fact hierarchial. Try for instance www.apple.com

e.g. http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/discover.html

cheers

W-Y

You probably do not have less than 1000 files. You excluded iTunes for some reason as if they should be ignored. Should photos be ignored to? E-mail? Contact information? Bookmarks? Saved game files? Should they be ignored because they all have apps that auto-manage these files?

I have 5000+ e-mails, 1000+ songs, 100+ contacts, 7000+ photos, 100+ bookmarks, 500+ emulator ROMs, 200+ text documents (PDF, Word, Pages)...this is pretty average. Some would even say I barely have anything on my computer. I believe it...some 'average users' have these figures tripled. I wouldn't even dare categorize all this myself. I thank Mail, iTunes, Address Book, iPhoto, Safari, (nothing yet for ROM or text documents...but Spotlight lets me find the text documents really fast...and I can get by finding ROMs fast too.)

An average user does not have less than 1000 files. Sorry.

I agree that Spotlight is still rough around the edges and that relying solely on it would be a bad idea at the moment, but the time will come when you will be able to rely on it completely.

Like I said, the only reason why we can't rely on it completely right now is for backwards compatibility purposes. Apps don't fully support Spotlight yet. Most won't for the next 3 years. But the day will come when they will.

The internet isn't really hierarchical. If you want to go into semantics, some websites are hierarchical to some extent but you don't navigate the web hierarchically. You click on hyperlinks and they can send you just about anywhere. You're rarely driving down a hierarchical tree when you're clicking links. And 99.9% of the time, you do not have access or knowledge of the website path. To get somewhere, anywhere, you need to use links or search engine results (Spotlight) or know the website address (which can be compared to knowing the name of the file). There may be a few exceptions to the rule, but in 99.9% of cases, you're not navigating hierarchically.

If we take your www.apple.com example. You can click the QuickTime tab and it'll take you to www.apple.com/quicktime...everything seems hierarchical so far...but then you click on Trailers and you're brought to www.apple.com/trailers. Go to 'iPod + iTunes' tab and you're sent to www.apple.com/itunes, then click on the iPod silhouette graphic on that page and you're sent to www.apple.com/ipod.

There is nothing hierarchical about it...when navigating the internet feels like you're moving through a hierarchical tree, it's either a coincidence or the website designer made it look so.

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by mAxximo

(Funny, my girllfriend thinks I go out too much...)

All I can answer to such lame ad-hom is that fortunately enough I have lived in a place very similar to that all of my life, which is in turn very similar to where I live now. Can't never get enough of it.

As for your hurt feelings...I don't know...want to spend a week at my house?

If I did I'd need to bring one helluva pacifier. You complain too much.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

You probably do not have less than 1000 files. You excluded iTunes for some reason as if they should be ignored. Should photos be ignored to? E-mail? Contact information? Bookmarks? Saved game files? Should they be ignored because they all have apps that auto-manage these files?

Yes of course! That's what those apps are for. The emails of mail.app and contacts of the adress book are kept as a single file not as hundreds or whatever then number of mails and contacts is you have. iTunes manages my music - nobody is relying on the Finder and Spotlight to find the next song make a playlist. Same with iPhoto and other media library apps.

All the files that have a deticated app to take care of them are of no concern to me in the Finder or Spotlight under normal circumstances. Never will.

Simply because the apps that handle these files are inseperable from them anyway and they are really good at finding and organizing said files. Whatever they may be.

It is true, outside my media files I have much less than 1000 files in my home folder in total. These are text files, presentations.. stuff like that. The Applications folder holds less than 50 apps in total + utilities. Hierarchy is king with this kind of setup and frankly most users have something like that. Asides from their media files (handled by the iApps generally) the total number of files they would have to handle by themselves is less than 1000. Of these less than 100 are really in use.

Then there comes the rare occation when one has to find something. Spotlight or similar comes in very handy then. But it is a a glorified search engine. That is all.

As for the internet, well. Usually websites are designed in a hierarchial way. If they are big there are many roots. I'm sure you know this and weren't intentionally trying to throw sand in my eyes.

No I can see why you are charmed by the idea of a Spotlight powered navigation system, but it will never happen. Simply because it is shooting in the dark. When leisurely browsing the internet it is fine, but when seriously working one needs organization. Even the best search engines in the world come up with all sorts of crap. Who doesn't know the feeling of repeatedly entering keywords into google to find something. Google throws at you the 10 "best" results each time but it can take you a long time to find what you are looking for.

The fact remains, when one is serious one needs perfect static organization. Permissions, setup, logical hierarchy, easy navigation and first and foremost spaciality. That is: a metaphor that extends to reality. This is important to many many people.

This is why I am not convinced that a search engine - no matter how "good" - can ever replace the hierarchial file system. It is too imprecise, too random, too abstract and completely screws up permissions and multiple users.

cheers

W-Y

[kmkkid]

Vistas explorer is pretty cool. It's a bit confusing at first since there are a lot of new concepts and everything has been rearranged. But once you start working with it, it becomes a lot easier to work with than previous versions of explorer.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Vistas explorer is pretty cool. It's a bit confusing at first since there are a lot of new concepts and everything has been rearranged. But once you start working with it, it becomes a lot easier to work with than previous versions of explorer.

I look forward to try it! For the first time in a very very long time I am interested in the Microsoft OS. It looks like they may be with a winner on their hands!

cheers

W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes of course! That's what those apps are for. The emails of mail.app and contacts of the adress book are kept as a single file not as hundreds or whatever then number of mails and contacts is you have. iTunes manages my music - nobody is relying on the Finder and Spotlight to find the next song make a playlist. Same with iPhoto and other media library apps.

All the files that have a deticated app to take care of them are of no concern to me in the Finder or Spotlight under normal circumstances. Never will.

Simply because the apps that handle these files are inseperable from them anyway and they are really good at finding and organizing said files. Whatever they may be.

It is true, outside my media files I have much less than 1000 files in my home folder in total. These are text files, presentations.. stuff like that. The Applications folder holds less than 50 apps in total + utilities. Hierarchy is king with this kind of setup and frankly most users have something like that. Asides from their media files (handled by the iApps generally) the total number of files they would have to handle by themselves is less than 1000. Of these less than 100 are really in use.

Then there comes the rare occation when one has to find something. Spotlight or similar comes in very handy then. But it is a a glorified search engine. That is all.

As for the internet, well. Usually websites are designed in a hierarchial way. If they are big there are many roots. I'm sure you know this and weren't intentionally trying to throw sand in my eyes.

No I can see why you are charmed by the idea of a Spotlight powered navigation system, but it will never happen. Simply because it is shooting in the dark. When leisurely browsing the internet it is fine, but when seriously working one needs organization. Even the best search engines in the world come up with all sorts of crap. Who doesn't know the feeling of repeatedly entering keywords into google to find something. Google throws at you the 10 "best" results each time but it can take you a long time to find what you are looking for.

The fact remains, when one is serious one needs perfect static organization. Permissions, setup, logical hierarchy, easy navigation and first and foremost spaciality. That is: a metaphor that extends to reality. This is important to many many people.

This is why I am not convinced that a search engine - no matter how "good" - can ever replace the hierarchial file system. It is too imprecise, too random, too abstract and completely screws up permissions and multiple users.

cheers

W-Y

It's only imprecise, random and abstract if you use it like a 'glorified search engine'.

And the funny thing is, to prove your point, you seem to constantly be excluding media files and even non-media files such as Fonts, Contacts and Mail as if they are special files that do not belong amongst presentation files, spreadsheet documents and text documents.

Spotlight is not a glorified search engine. I'm a bit miffed that Apple put in that over-simplified top-right corner interface because that isn't the power of Spotlight. People such as yourself are simply using Spotlight like they would Google because of this interface when it could be much more.

You're simply not seeing how much potential Spotlight has simply because Apple is slowly transitioning to it. There are still many apps that need to be updated to make use of Spotlight and the OS also needs to change how Open/Save dialogs work.

When saving a file, some metadata fields should mandatorily be filled in (just like a saving location is mandatory currently) as well as optional fields. This would be just as easy or as hard as saving a file inside folder. For text files, questions like "what type of document is this" would be asked...you could then type in or choose from existing choices: "newsletter". Other questions like "what project or group is this document part of" to which an answer such as "Project Y, Project D" could be used.

Here's where a non-hierarchical system shines. Hierarchically, you'd have your 'Newsletter' folder and within that folder you'd have 'Project A, B, C...Z' to represent your projects. But this newsletter is part of Project D and Y...what do you do? create a folder called 'Project D and Y' or make duplicates and place them in 'Project D' and 'Project Y'? or make a symbolic link pointing to the document saved in 'Project D' within 'Project Y'?

In both cases, you can find the file either opening the 'Newsletter' folder and then 'Project D' folder or putting into Spotlight the criterion 'newsletter' and 'project d'. No guessing would be involved in either case...you can go through the folders, or filter by newsletter & project d.

The result would be exactly the same. There is nothing imprecise, random or abstract with either methods. One is simply limited physically, the other can organize and sort multiple ways.

To remove any confusion...when I talk about Spotlight, I don't just mean the search field menu in the top-right corner. Like I said, Apple has probably made a big mistake putting that in because Spotlight will turn up any file with the keyword that was typed in (just like Google would). I can see why people think Spotlight is a glorified search engine...they've only been using the top-right corner.

If the Finder Spotlight interface was cleaned up and became more user-friendly (or if Spotlight itself adopted an iTunes-esque filter browser) then people wouldn't be calling Spotlight a search engine.

If you use the Finder to search for all PNG files...you won't get imprecise, random or abstract results. You'll get all PNG files. If you search for PNG files that are larger than 200KB and the 'Project' tag = "Project D"...you'll get exactly that. You won't get the the guesstimates that Spotlight gives you if you enter a word in the top-right corner search field.

The top-right corner search field is fantastic at finding a string of text in a PDF files or a text file but terrible if you want some precise results like the one I listed above.

As much as people want spatiality and static organization, it can't happen in a world of growing files. Hierarchical organization is static as you have pointed out...which means it is limited. It only works when managing a small number of files and it only works if you're the only one that needs to access these files.

Here's an example of being fuct if you're purely using hierarchical organization: you save a file and accidently and unknowingly save your file in the wrong folder.

How will you ever find this file? If your hierarchy is huge, finding the file could take a very long time. The misplaced file might as well be lost. You only have one element to guide you: the file name. The path is useless because you don't know it.

With a system rich with metadata, files are tagged with as much relevant data as possible (some are freebies)...the freebie metadata is often enough to easily find a file. At the very least, you'll filter by file type and look through the results for your file (if it's impossible to refine the query...chances are though, that it's possible to refine it further). This is much less work than going through an entire hierarchy tree.

[jscotta]

Originally Posted by Salty

Why do you need something else to tell you how full your HD is, mine tells me at the bottom of any window I open that I have 5.66gigs left. If you start telling people that they have X% of their HD filled odds are they're going to become paranoid about keeping it not terribly full or something which is dumb.
As well... how much info do you need about a file... you probably created it, it has the icon for the app it belongs with, or it's obviously a graphic file that has it's icon showing what it looks like...

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

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

That said I do think that the iTunes music library should get it's own type of interface similar to iTunes, as well the iPhoto library should be similar to iPhoto's interface. And folders full of photos should have the same option of slide show as Xp offers only without it sucking as badly as XP's does.

Guys, regarding doing a slide show of pictures in a folder that in Tiger (OS X.4) that you just select the pictures you want (CMD-A for All) and then CTRL-Click on one for the contextual menu and there are options to print them or see a slide show with them…right?

Also, and this is even better, you have Automator actions that can greatly increase what you can do with a bunch of pictures or songs. You did know all of this…right?

[JackNN]

Really, how useful are file preview icons other than as eye candy? The Finder's default document icons instantly tell you which application they belong to - plus you don't need filename extensions (unless sharing with Windows).

As an Apple exec once said, the company is more concerned with leaving the unnecessary stuff out than cluttering with "features". And Windows Explorer to me has always looked cluttered.

[JackNN]

Originally Posted by GaelDesign

The Vista Explorer looks promising -- especially with those breadcrumb menus

Those breadcrumbs seem to be inspired by the breadcrumbs that accompany Spotlight search results in the Finder

[ApeInTheShell]

So are all the windows in Vista transparent? It seems like too much. In Mac OS X 10.0 only the titlebars were transparent and contextual menus. I think Microsoft will have a harder time getting this new operating system to run smooth.

[vigilantx]

I have been watching Vista for a while, and having messed with early builds of Longhorn, I do have my own fair share of comments. The current state of Longhorn is drastically different, and in many ways a step back to the very early builds with WinFS. The current builds are more stable, I'll give it that though. The Vista Explorer is far too bloated. I don't like all the keywords hanging on the side the same way things in the Source List, and Favorites, and Albums exist in the iTunes, the Finder, and iPhoto. The beauty of these implementations is that they are customized populations of specific things that you, the user want. With the way Vista does it, it just makes it another overly populated tree, that can, and probably will be more cluttered then the standard Windows Explorer folder pain. I like how they consolidated all the most frequently used file activities under a single button called Organize, though, it does pretty much the exact same thing as the Action Button that came out in Panther. The biggest advantages that I see with WIndows Vista comes from nothing that Microsoft has done really innovative. For example, I like the fact you can get a good preview of a document without opening it, though, this has to do with Microsoft's close connection to the Office group, and code sharing making this type of feature relatively easy to do. It's nice, but really not all that impressive. The Breadcrumbs thing seems like a good idea in theory, but the more complex your file system is, the more annoying this will be. Trust me, I've used it. I prefer Column view because it lets me constantly see the full path of everything on the way up to the directory I am currently in, without any funky little bread crumbs, and it is far more useful in practice because if I decide to move a file back through the file hiearchy, it is a simple matter of drag and drop, while you can't do that with the bread crumbs. One thing I am very happy with in Tiger's implementation of the search features is that you don't have to go in and add your own keywords to ordinary documents. I know you don't have to in Vista, but it seems to be something heavily recommended with the way it is implemented. The thing is though, if the indexer is doing it's job, you should be able to find anything you need based on content, making the need for Keywording in anything beyond pictures seem not necessary.

The biggest things I'm curious about is what they've taken out since the build I played with. In the build I used, the Address Book was integrated into Explorer, and had a really funky interface. I have seen pictures of new prototypes for the new Address Book, which looks very very similar to the one released in Jaguar.

As far as saying that this is the ultimate version of the task based interface, and etc, let me explain something. The task based interface is VERY toned down in these builds, to the point where I am reluctant to call it a task based interface. The task based interface in XP was that depending on what was on screen, things were always moving, and changing around based on what it thought you were going to do, whether it be giving you some shortcuts to other locations, links to connect to servers, cut this, rename that, create a new file folder, enable slide show, and etc. When put simply, the concept of Task Based interface always came off as a cop out to me, for bad GUI design. It was literally, sentence based links to describe a function. What this has is well thought out placement of the same functions we have ALWAYS had within Windows, even before XP. They are just consolidated in a much more efficient way. I never liked the Task based interfaces, and it drove me nuts when you started seeing bad ports of Windows software on the Mac that had it, like Adobe Acrobat. I absolutely hated the Task Pane, and I am very very happy to see it gone. I don't need 1/4 of my window taken up, to have a sentence that says "Create a new folder" or "Rename the following documents" when "New Folder" and "Rename" in a button was all that was needed. What I do find amusing though, is the fact that so many of you are saying "This is so much better then the Finder" though I have seen nothing in this, beyond the ability to rate files, and preview Office documents thats not in the current iteration of Tiger. To me, it seems like a step back considering all the complaints we had over the overuse of transparency that us who were around during 10.0 had gone through. People will say they like it because it's a novelty.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by JackNN

Those breadcrumbs seem to be inspired by the breadcrumbs that accompany Spotlight search results in the Finder

I was surprised to find out that the new version of Pathfinder has exactly those breadcrumb menus. The screenshots were published the end of April.

[xe0]

The simple fact is this.

Spotlight can find your files.
But Spotlight cannot save your files.

That is why for now, hierarchal file systems will remain.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

It's only imprecise, random and abstract if you use it like a 'glorified search engine'.

And the funny thing is, to prove your point, you seem to constantly be excluding media files and even non-media files such as Fonts, Contacts and Mail as if they are special files that do not belong amongst presentation files, spreadsheet documents and text documents.

Spotlight is not a glorified search engine. I'm a bit miffed that Apple put in that over-simplified top-right corner interface because that isn't the power of Spotlight. People such as yourself are simply using Spotlight like they would Google because of this interface when it could be much more.

You're simply not seeing how much potential Spotlight has simply because Apple is slowly transitioning to it. There are still many apps that need to be updated to make use of Spotlight and the OS also needs to change how Open/Save dialogs work.

This may be true. To me Spotlight is just a glorified search engine. As you mention however, that is the way Apple has chosen to present it so far.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

To remove any confusion...when I talk about Spotlight, I don't just mean the search field menu in the top-right corner. Like I said, Apple has probably made a big mistake putting that in because Spotlight will turn up any file with the keyword that was typed in (just like Google would). I can see why people think Spotlight is a glorified search engine...they've only been using the top-right corner.

Yep. That is true. Using it in any other way is too much of a bother right now.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

If the Finder Spotlight interface was cleaned up and became more user-friendly (or if Spotlight itself adopted an iTunes-esque filter browser) then people wouldn't be calling Spotlight a search engine.

That may well be true, but the way I see it if the Finder interface was cleaned up and became more user-friendly then people wouldn't be calling the Finder an outdated technology. Fact is Apple doesn't do anything right these days in their OS interface deptartment.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

If you use the Finder to search for all PNG files...you won't get imprecise, random or abstract results. You'll get all PNG files. If you search for PNG files that are larger than 200KB and the 'Project' tag = "Project D"...you'll get exactly that. You won't get the the guesstimates that Spotlight gives you if you enter a word in the top-right corner search field.

How are you goint to recognize this .png? You get all the .pngs on your machine in one gob. Search engine browsing takes time. Image search on google takes time. It isn't a magic solution to anything and frankly sounds like unnecessesarily complicated. Hierarchy + search does a fine job.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

As much as people want spatiality and static organization, it can't happen in a world of growing files. Hierarchical organization is static as you have pointed out...which means it is limited. It only works when managing a small number of files and it only works if you're the only one that needs to access these files.

This is where I completely disagree. People like to throw this out as some kind of fact. Spaciality is on the contrary very much alive and thriving. It works fine for a huge amount of files as well. Funny how that works. Your word against mine there. Which one is true?

Please don't go around and tell everyone spaciality is limited to a certain amount of files. A spacial Finder can well have Spotlight integrated without messing the spaciality of it. Spacial workspace is incredibly scalable.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Here's an example of being fuct if you're purely using hierarchical organization: you save a file and accidently and unknowingly save your file in the wrong folder.

How will you ever find this file? If your hierarchy is huge, finding the file could take a very long time. The misplaced file might as well be lost. You only have one element to guide you: the file name. The path is useless because you don't know it.

OK ignoring the obvious (i.e. pressing "save again" to see the path) you could just use the search feature of your spacial hierarchila OS. That could well be Spotlight, for Spotlight *is* as search engine. Whatever else it could be is irrelevant in this example.

You seem to be forgetting that searching is a part of the spacial hierachial interface.

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

With a system rich with metadata, files are tagged with as much relevant data as possible (some are freebies)...the freebie metadata is often enough to easily find a file. At the very least, you'll filter by file type and look through the results for your file (if it's impossible to refine the query...chances are though, that it's possible to refine it further). This is much less work than going through an entire hierarchy tree.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It sounds as this is something that would work well with you but not with me. To me Spotlight is a search engine - a good one no doubt - but that's it. I had the same ideas as you are sharing now when Spotlight was introduced first. I made a number of posts about it in this very forum. When I got to try Spotlight for real I realized that this wasn't going to work. No, Spotlight is far too quirky and rough around the corners. What about the future? Can't say, but I'd be fairly surprised if Spotlight replaces the Finder.

cheers

W-Y

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

You seem to be forgetting that searching is a part of the spacial hierachial interface.

No, I'm sorry but it's *not* 'part of the hierarchical interface' it's been added/tacked on to make hierarchical organization more bearable (since it's not uncommon to lose a virtual file on your computer just like it's not uncommon to lose a physical object in real life).

If you combine 'searching' with your 'hierarchical organization' needs, you're admitting that hierarchical organization has it's limitation and that, sometimes, you really need to use the search tool instead of navigating the hierarchy (such as when you know the name of the file and need to get to it quick without going through a bunch of folders...or you know the name of the file but you've misplaced it and isn't in the folder it's supposed to be in).

I'm not saying hierarchical organization and metadata searching can't coexist...but don't pretend like one is part of the other or vice versa. One can stand-alone quite well with a proper metadata system and the other cannot.

Again, I point you to the internet as the ultimate example why large amounts of data cannot be organized efficiently spatially or hierarchically.

Spatiality can be a terribly limiting thing. It works wonders if you always remember where you place everything and if you're extremely organized...but, fail in any of these two things and you're screwed. Misplace your watch inside your house and you can end up looking a long time for it...because you can only find it if you happen to stumble on its physical location. What if you could suddenly break free from physical location limitations the real world imposes on you and what if could simply find 'all the watches inside your house' without needing to take account physical location...there might be 7 watches lying about the house...you know your watch is a Rolex...there are 2 Rolex watches in the house...one belongs to your wife, the other belongs to you...you take the one that belongs to you.

If you have lots of DVD movies, you're gonna want to sort them alphabetically or sort them by genre. If you don't, you'll have a heck of a time finding the movie you want to watch.

In a spatial environment, you're forced to organize your stuff...or you will lose track of them.

I can see why spatiality is important to some people...but it's just a shortcoming of real life. Mimicking this real life shortcoming on the computer is asking for trouble.

With metadata search tools (the future of Spotlight) both the organized and disorganized can find their files with ease. With the antiquated hierarchical system, only the organized can find his/her files with ease. *That* is why hierarchical organization is on it's way out and why metadata search tools are on their way in. And *that* is why the Finder we know today won't be the default browser in a few years.

If you're so bitter to see it depart, think it some other way...metadata can mimic a hierarchical system. Instead of having folders to lead you to the file, you've got metadata.

Instead of going through the 'Schoolwork' folder, the '2005' folder within the work folder, the 'English class' folder within the 2005 folder...you can go through the metadata. You'd go through 'schoolwork' which would show you all the files related to school. You'd then go through '2005' which would show you all the files related to the 2005 school year. You'd then go through 'English' to find everything related to your english class in the 2005 school year. It's the same, really. Only that you can do lots other things with your query that would simply be impossible to do in a physical and hierarchical environment because with the metadata system you're getting, in some cases, lots of free metadata (this would almost be like folders auto-creating themselves without user intervention).

[dave a]

Some of Microsoft's featuers are quite good including being able to do finder operations fro the open/save dialogues (like deleting and renaming), and some of Apple's features are nice like the three-column format with preview, but I still think OS 9 had the best Finder.

[OreoCookie]

I hope I can cool down the discussion by adding some remark to what you both have said.

First of all, Spotlight Extreme (or whatever name you want to give to the various extensions of it) is not a search engine of the google type, it is a search in a database. If you really want to be esoteric, you don't need paths and filenames at all. However, both will stick around for the while being as I see it, because too many things depend on it.

On the other hand, if done properly, there is nothing fuzzy about it, unless you want it to be fuzzy. It can be made as sharp as a search for Brian Eno in iTunes or as fuzzy as a search for Brian Eno in Spotlight.

I think the best solution is to suggest adding metadata, but also keeping the traditional way. And there is no optimal way for everyone, there are good reasons to do it one way or the other. But personally (I have around 60000+ files in my document folder, 20000+ pictures, (only) 3500+ songs and thousands of e-mails) I would like to have the ability to add a lot more metadata to files.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I hope I can cool down the discussion by adding some remark to what you both have said.

First of all, Spotlight Extreme (or whatever name you want to give to the various extensions of it) is not a search engine of the google type, it is a search in a database. If you really want to be esoteric, you don't need paths and filenames at all. However, both will stick around for the while being as I see it, because too many things depend on it.

On the other hand, if done properly, there is nothing fuzzy about it, unless you want it to be fuzzy. It can be made as sharp as a search for Brian Eno in iTunes or as fuzzy as a search for Brian Eno in Spotlight.

I think the best solution is to suggest adding metadata, but also keeping the traditional way. And there is no optimal way for everyone, there are good reasons to do it one way or the other. But personally (I have around 60000+ files in my document folder, 20000+ pictures, (only) 3500+ songs and thousands of e-mails) I would like to have the ability to add a lot more metadata to files.

Well...I think you've hit the nail right on the head. The search can be as fuzzy as a user wants or as precise as a user wants. Just like a hierarchical system can be as organized as a user wants or as disorganized as a user wants.

And as I said over and over again, the Finder won't disappear...for backward compatibility reasons. But I think Apple will gradually shift away from using it as the default file browser. Going from straight hierarchical to straight database would make most run away from Mac OS in terror.

The change won't happen overnight but the point is that we'll see a shift in the next 3-4 years as apps and as OS X become more metadata savvy.

The key is to make the metadata tagging as hands free as possible. The freebie metadata we get today is the metadata that is easy to tag onto a file. Things such as file format, date created, date last modified, size of file, etc. Other freebie metadata comes from organizations such as CDDB which are trying to correct a shortcoming of CDs that only contain music data and no metadata about the music.

The complicated part will be hands-free tagging of personal photo files (or any data that is not textual)...complex algorithms would have to be written to accurately analyze shapes and colors inside a photo and tag it appropriately with common words so the end-user wouldn't need to manually tag his photos (iPhoto's method is fairly easy...but it's still a manual process that some people don't enjoy).

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I hope I can cool down the discussion by adding some remark to what you both have said.

First of all, Spotlight Extreme (or whatever name you want to give to the various extensions of it) is not a search engine of the google type, it is a search in a database. If you really want to be esoteric, you don't need paths and filenames at all. However, both will stick around for the while being as I see it, because too many things depend on it.

On the other hand, if done properly, there is nothing fuzzy about it, unless you want it to be fuzzy. It can be made as sharp as a search for Brian Eno in iTunes or as fuzzy as a search for Brian Eno in Spotlight.

I think the best solution is to suggest adding metadata, but also keeping the traditional way. And there is no optimal way for everyone, there are good reasons to do it one way or the other. But personally (I have around 60000+ files in my document folder, 20000+ pictures, (only) 3500+ songs and thousands of e-mails) I would like to have the ability to add a lot more metadata to files.

Google is a search in a database just like Spotlight is. Google indexes the web just like Spotlight indexes the HD. Did you think your Google searches were done in real-time

Perhaps you just haven't had your coffee.

File names and paths are very much necessary. File names are a random element that the user can pick to describe the file. Non random elements being size, type, date created, contents, etc etc. Why the heck would you want to remove that?? You'd have all the metadata but not a filename. Ohkay.
File paths are equally important for they maintain a degree of physical seperation between files. In todays world of multi-user OS and networking you will need files in folders. It is a question of privacy and permissions.

Then there is the practical problem of this approach you so desire. How do you approach an unknown system? How do you know what it contains? How do you know what files it contains?

Spaciality is here for a reason. If I started my machine and it presented me with google to navigate my files I wouldn't know what to do. First of all we'd be back in the stone ages where file navigation was done by the keyboard (this is still being applied by the column-view uber nerds for some reason) and second of all we'd lose instantly the overview we need to operate the machine fast and efficently.

Search for everything. Does this machine have Photoshop? (search for it) does it have VirtualPC? (search for it) etc. Instead of opening the App folder and see instantly for yourself. What music is on this machine? (Search for .mp3, m4a, m4p, aac, ogg, wav) instead of goin to the Music folder or iTunes and finding out.

A spotlight driven OS instead of Finder driven is the technologically most advanced, smartest and ultimately most useless idea yet. Every nerd's dream, but when used by normal people it suddenly doesn't work. Makes me wonder how some people ended up with a Mac, the anti-nerd computer. Wow did you people sign up on the wrong team!

Of course the search is always fuzzy! You have no idea of what you are missing or not missing. You can't see. If any metadata becomes corrupted you won't see your file. If the clock on your machine resets itself and you create a bunch of files from 1904, won't you be surprised when you don't see them when looking for the things you made yesterday. And you have no way of knowing if they are there or what.

There is no way of making searches like that un-fuzzy. They are just database searches, like google and what isn't in the database doesn't exist. What isn't found you can't find. Good luck on locating it manually now that you've ditched the hierarchy! Thousands upon thousands of files all in one folder. What a brilliant idea this is.

Might I suggest you switch to Linux?

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

No, I'm sorry but it's *not* 'part of the hierarchical interface' it's been added/tacked on to make hierarchical organization more bearable (since it's not uncommon to lose a virtual file on your computer just like it's not uncommon to lose a physical object in real life).

Yes, search is a part of the hierarchial spacial file navigation system. I'm afraid you don't get to define what is part of it and what is not. That has already been done a long long time ago. The Hierarchial spacial file system is a Mac concept, perfected in Mac OS 9.
Hierarchial browser based file system is (for instance) a Windows concept and is going strong in Windows XP (and Mac OS X Tiger). Both these have powerful search engines, that help the user to navigate through the hierarchy.

Search is not a way to organize anything. Simply to "search" for stuff. Period. It is an extension of an already established file navigation system.

You know this is like someone getting the idea that the Open/Save dialogue is really the best way of navigating the OS. These are just add-ons to the system and function well enough withing those limits. Sure you can add features to them and make them more powerful. I've seen some seriously powerful file selectors in my time(!).

This is a search engine you are advocating here. It will never fly as a file browser, replacing the Finder. Ever. This is way too nerdy to work. Sorry.

cheers

W-Y

[only120xs]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I hope I can cool down the discussion by adding some remark to what you both have said.

First of all, Spotlight Extreme (or whatever name you want to give to the various extensions of it) is not a search engine of the google type, it is a search in a database. If you really want to be esoteric, you don't need paths and filenames at all. However, both will stick around for the while being as I see it, because too many things depend on it.

On the other hand, if done properly, there is nothing fuzzy about it, unless you want it to be fuzzy. It can be made as sharp as a search for Brian Eno in iTunes or as fuzzy as a search for Brian Eno in Spotlight.

I think the best solution is to suggest adding metadata, but also keeping the traditional way. And there is no optimal way for everyone, there are good reasons to do it one way or the other. But personally (I have around 60000+ files in my document folder, 20000+ pictures, (only) 3500+ songs and thousands of e-mails) I would like to have the ability to add a lot more metadata to files.

Could we do this now, more or less, with existing metadata fields/comments? (Disclaimer: I've never messed with this type of information, I don't have Tiger yet, and I'm at work on Windows so I can't look ) I don't know how the metadata fields work (are they user editable?) or how many there are, but could I add lots of data about all my files using the existing fields, or just the comment field, maybe using Automater or something? Would this give me the same metadata searching ability that's being discussed by horsepoo (except for the changed save dialogues - I'd be doing that by manually adding the data after I save the file), or would using the existing fields/comments limit the searching ability?

I know I'm being very vague, but the idea of supplementing the hierarchical structure has me excited

[mAxximo]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

When saving a file, some metadata fields should mandatorily be filled in (just like a saving location is mandatory currently) as well as optional fields. This would be just as easy or as hard as saving a file inside folder. For text files, questions like "what type of document is this" would be asked...you could then type in or choose from existing choices: "newsletter". Other questions like "what project or group is this document part of" to which an answer such as "Project Y, Project D" could be used.

Oh, yes! I can't wait to being mandated to lose my time answering those questions when all I want is to hit Enter and keep on doing my job. What's next? The Windows paperclip?

As I said before, your concept is so wrong at so many levels that it would be really tedious analising each of your points.

Basically, you're advocating for a file management system that's flat and based on typing and more typing inside a seach engine. DOS anyone?
Nah, since someone has already figured out long ago that the human brain is hardwired to work spatially, I'll just stick to point and click through my perfectly organised hierarchies plus a little help from my friends Default Folder and Spotlight.

Luckily, the X “Finder” is not going anywhere.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Google is a search in a database just like Spotlight is. Google indexes the web just like Spotlight indexes the HD. Did you think your Google searches were done in real-time

Perhaps you just haven't had your coffee.

I am aware of the technology behind google. But google ranks its pages (among other things) according to the number of links to that page. The google database works differently compared to – say – BeFS, a filesystem which has many database-like features.

I'm not aware that Spotlight indexes according to links to other objects (please correct me if I'm wrong), because there is no notion of relating two files (other than an alias or so).

With Spotlight Extreme, you could do a lot more fine-grained searches than you can with google. Depending on your input, could make it at sharp or fuzzy as you want (or need).

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

File names and paths are very much necessary. File names are a random element that the user can pick to describe the file. Non random elements being size, type, date created, contents, etc etc. Why the heck would you want to remove that?? You'd have all the metadata but not a filename. Ohkay.
File paths are equally important for they maintain a degree of physical seperation between files. In todays world of multi-user OS and networking you will need files in folders. It is a question of privacy and permissions.

Yes, I agree. I never said otherwise. Metadata complements file names and folders, it doesn't replace it.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Then there is the practical problem of this approach you so desire. How do you approach an unknown system? How do you know what it contains? How do you know what files it contains?

Maybe you haven't had your coffee, but IMHO files and folders as concepts should be kept.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Of course the search is always fuzzy! You have no idea of what you are missing or not missing. You can't see. If any metadata becomes corrupted you won't see your file. If the clock on your machine resets itself and you create a bunch of files from 1904, won't you be surprised when you don't see them when looking for the things you made yesterday. And you have no way of knowing if they are there or what.

There is no way of making searches like that un-fuzzy. They are just database searches, like google and what isn't in the database doesn't exist. What isn't found you can't find. Good luck on locating it manually now that you've ditched the hierarchy! Thousands upon thousands of files all in one folder. What a brilliant idea this is.

Do a search for a file whose size is exactly 2 kB. How is that search fuzzy? It will spit out all files whose size is exactly 2 kB. I don't see any fuzziness in the result.

As for a corrupted database, it's nowhere different from a corrupted filesystem. If your filesystem is corrupted, you might also lose files. But there are steps to prevent that for databases (atomistic transactions) and filesystems (journals).

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by only120xs

Could we do this now, more or less, with existing metadata fields/comments? (Disclaimer: I've never messed with this type of information, I don't have Tiger yet, and I'm at work on Windows so I can't look ) I don't know how the metadata fields work (are they user editable?) or how many there are, but could I add lots of data about all my files using the existing fields, or just the comment field, maybe using Automater or something? Would this give me the same metadata searching ability that's being discussed by horsepoo (except for the changed save dialogues - I'd be doing that by manually adding the data after I save the file), or would using the existing fields/comments limit the searching ability?

I know I'm being very vague, but the idea of supplementing the hierarchical structure has me excited

No, AFAIK there is no way that the user can do that. However, spotlight has many md importer (plugins for a specific type of file) which import many pieces of information automatically.

For instance, if you have some pictures which were taken with a digital camera, Spotlight will import all its EXIF data (EXIF data is data about the photo supplied by the camera; it includes details about the exposure (shutter speed and aperture), date, etc.). So what you can do now is search for pictures whose aperture was set to 5.6 or so.

Unfortunately, there is (apart from Spotlight comments) no way for user-defined fields. I expect that this feature will be added later.

To all the critics, just take a look at BeOS (or Zeta, as it is called now): it allowed user-defined metadata tags without interfering with the file/folder structure at all.

[runejoha]

Warning. Not be read by mac fanatics!

I do agree! Finder is old fashion compared to Windows. Of course Windows have features that are better than OS X. Do not let you brain wash of Apples propaganda. Every OS has its advantages and disadvantages.

There are propably design failures in OS X and the file system that makes it to slow for retrieving all file data, if not they would have fixed this problem for a long time ago.

In general, Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32. The GUI has a slow response compared to Windows.

Hopefully, Mac-tels will perform better, and Leopard will perform significant better than Tiger and Panther.

These are the main disadvantages, togheter with price level, third party applications and screen resolution on their laptops.

[only120xs]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

No, AFAIK there is no way that the user can do that. However, spotlight has many md importer (plugins for a specific type of file) which import many pieces of information automatically.

For instance, if you have some pictures which were taken with a digital camera, Spotlight will import all its EXIF data (EXIF data is data about the photo supplied by the camera; it includes details about the exposure (shutter speed and aperture), date, etc.). So what you can do now is search for pictures whose aperture was set to 5.6 or so.

Unfortunately, there is (apart from Spotlight comments) no way for user-defined fields. I expect that this feature will be added later.

To all the critics, just take a look at BeOS (or Zeta, as it is called now): it allowed user-defined metadata tags without interfering with the file/folder structure at all.

OK, after looking a bit more, let me refine my question: Using the Get Info pane you can enter comments for Spotlight. Would using this field to specify lots of different information for spotlight to index be less useful than what I gathered horsepoo was talking about - user-editable, specific fields for your information? My intuition is telling me that in some way having all your tag information in the same field is going to limit your ability to search for and/or categorize your search results. That's kind of academic though right now, so the other question would be: is it possible to use Automater to add to the spotlight field in the Get Info pane?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by runejoha

Warning. Not be read by mac fanatics!

I do agree! Finder is old fashion compared to Windows. Of course Windows have features that are better than OS X. Do not let you brain wash of Apples propaganda. Every OS has its advantages and disadvantages.

There are propably design failures in OS X and the file system that makes it to slow for retrieving all file data, if not they would have fixed this problem for a long time ago.

In general, Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32. The GUI has a slow response compared to Windows.

Hopefully, Mac-tels will perform better, and Leopard will perform significant better than Tiger and Panther.

These are the main disadvantages, togheter with price level, third party applications and screen resolution on their laptops.

I would have liked to reply to this but your post makes little sens.

Finder is old-fashoned compared to Windows. -- How?

Windows has better features than OS X. -- What features please?

Do not let you brain wash of Apples propaganda. Every OS has its advantages and disadvantages. -- Yes, but is that the point you are making?

There are propably design failures in OS X.. -- but you don't know?

Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32 -- Is Win32 a graphics layer in the Windows OS?

Hopefully, Mac-tels will perform better, and Leopard will perform significant better than Tiger and Panther. -- Yes one would hope the switch has some purpose

These are the main disadvantages, togheter with price level, third party applications and screen resolution on their laptops. -- Err? What are the main advantages again? You didn't really actually NAME any or anything.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

I don't know how ANYONE could say Vista is ahead of 10.4.

In ANY way.

And by the time IT actually comes out, it will be FAR behind OS X.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by only120xs

OK, after looking a bit more, let me refine my question: Using the Get Info pane you can enter comments for Spotlight. Would using this field to specify lots of different information for spotlight to index be less useful than what I gathered horsepoo was talking about - user-editable, specific fields for your information? My intuition is telling me that in some way having all your tag information in the same field is going to limit your ability to search for and/or categorize your search results. That's kind of academic though right now, so the other question would be: is it possible to use Automater to add to the spotlight field in the Get Info pane?

No, it's not an academic question, it would have real-life consequences for me. I'll give you a practical example:

I have tons of .pdf files (mostly papers written by other scientists) and I'd like to fill out fields like Author, Title, Keywords by myself. Theoretically, pdf files do have those information embedded and Spotlight can import them, pdflatex (the pdf generator for scientists, roughly speaking) doesn't embed those and most other .pdf files I have, don't have them either. Also, older papers are scans, so spotlight can't do a text search at all.

In this case, Spotlight Comments don't do the trick, at least not as well as a real database would.

If there were such a possibility, I would rely heavily on it. I have been contemplating doing exactly that with iView Media Pro, I'll give it a try over the course of the week.

The only filesystem with such a capability that ever made it into a shipping product is BeFS (the filesystem of BeOS). Fortunately for us, Apple has hired some of the minds behind that project

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I would have liked to reply to this but your post makes little sens.

Finder is old-fashoned compared to Windows. -- How?

Windows has better features than OS X. -- What features please?

Do not let you brain wash of Apples propaganda. Every OS has its advantages and disadvantages. -- Yes, but is that the point you are making?

There are propably design failures in OS X.. -- but you don't know?

Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32 -- Is Win32 a graphics layer in the Windows OS?

Hopefully, Mac-tels will perform better, and Leopard will perform significant better than Tiger and Panther. -- Yes one would hope the switch has some purpose

These are the main disadvantages, togheter with price level, third party applications and screen resolution on their laptops. -- Err? What are the main advantages again? You didn't really actually NAME any or anything.

cheers

W-Y

>>Finder is old-fashoned compared to Windows. -- How?

As allready mentioned, to retrieve file information File->Get info or "Apple i" is required. Furthermore, this event is pretty slow, which probably is the reason you do not get this information at once, as in Windows.

>>Windows has better features than OS X. -- What features please?

In general, there are advantages and disadvantages for all OSs. As demonstrated in this thread, there are features that work better in Windows.

>>Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32 -- Is Win32 a graphics layer in the Windows OS?

Win32 is a API in windows, which is used by third party developers to develop windows apps. The design of this implementation is imporant for performance. Maybe I should have written, the GUI in Windows has a much faster responstime than OS X.


>>Hopefully, Mac-tels will perform better, and Leopard will perform significant better than Tiger and Panther. -- Yes one would hope the switch has some purpose

Or, hopefully, the gap between Windows Vista and OS X Tiger, considering the GUI performance, will shrink.

>>These are the main disadvantages, togheter with price level, third party applications and screen resolution on their laptops. -- Err? What are the main advantages again? You didn't really actually NAME any or anything.

No, I did not name any advantages. I named some of the disadvantages.

Cheers

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by runejoha

>>Finder is old-fashoned compared to Windows. -- How?

As allready mentioned, to retrieve file information File->Get info or "Apple i" is required. Furthermore, this event is pretty slow, which probably is the reason you do not get this information at once, as in Windows.

In column view and list view, you have direct access to a file's information. In Icon View, you can customize it so it shows additional information as well.

Originally Posted by runejoha

>>Aqua is pretty slow compared to Win32 -- Is Win32 a graphics layer in the Windows OS?

Win32 is a API in windows, which is used by third party developers to develop windows apps. The design of this implementation is imporant for performance. Maybe I should have written, the GUI in Windows has a much faster responstime than OS X.

The equivalent to Aqua is called GDI/GDI+ (up to XP, in Longhorn, it's called Aero). The equivalents of Win32 are Carbon and Cocoa.

[MacnnGregor]

I like the dark blue colors of Vista, but WHY is part of the window transparent and why is it the one place that you need type on? Does it go opaque when you click on it?

Having done both platforms, I find the Finder is just fine, though I like Windows' one stop spot to look at Hardware controls. I know the Preference panel works too, but it sometimes takes me a second to remember. I'd like a "Hardware controls" in the Apple menu.

There in lies the best part of the Finder, the Apple menu has changed many times, but it is by far a better idea than the Start menu and it will always be better. MS should have labelled it "Explore" and it would have been smarter and fit with the explorer too.

Also the fat color bar at the bottom with all of that important data and the excessive set of controls on the top and side really make the actual files and icons in the window seem less than the real point of the window. It is like watching video in RealPlayer vs. QT. Real keeps making its player look like an advertisement with a video area and Apple makes QT look like a simple brush metal device.

The Finder will continue to change as the metaphor for the digital hub changes. iTunes and Keynote and al. will continue to evolve convergently and I assume the Finder will eventually look more like the media inspectors, but with more polish.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by runejoha

As allready mentioned, to retrieve file information File->Get info or "Apple i" is required. Furthermore, this event is pretty slow, which probably is the reason you do not get this information at once, as in Windows.

You GOT to be kidding.

Apple I is slow?

I don't want my windows cluttered with crap I am not using at the time.

Windows side bar is HORRIBLE GUI design, and bloated as well.

[aristotles]

Breadcrumbs are so 80's. NeXT Step had them. They also have a shelf for copy and paste operations.

What impresses kids these days.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You GOT to be kidding.

Apple I is slow?

I don't want my windows cluttered with crap I am not using at the time.

Windows side bar is HORRIBLE GUI design, and bloated as well.

Read the first post... Explorer gives you more of necessary information. Who cares if it looks uglier? Apple + I is not necessary under windows, why?

1. Explorer tells you the size of the file(s) in the bottom bar.
2. Mouse over the file and you get the date, type, and size.

Other reasons why I like explorer.

Explorer tells your current path, not just the folder name.
Backspace to navigate to the parent folder is much more intuitive then Apple + Up arrow.

I'm sure Vista will improve on these.

[mhuie]

Originally Posted by Link

I guess I'm just one of those crazy deranged people who think that the finder does its job great (except for handling network file stuff) -- but as a SYSTEM file browser, it's GREAT.

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

I don't get it, I'm hearing the finder is ugly? I just think that the underside of the finder was poorly made -- they need to re-address the network filesystem handling, specifically over SMB and FTP (come on already) -- once they get rid of dumping those .files (can't remember the name right now) on remote file shares, I'll be cool -- two way FTP would be good to see as well.. Otherwise, the finder works great for me. FWIW, I see plenty of both daily to the point where well, I can't exactly say my points aren't not true (for me, atleast)

1. You don't like it? Turn it off.
3. You do have the simple details. # files, and how much space they take. Better than Finder which shows u # files and how much free space you have. Seriously, who worries about their hard drive filling up all the time? Its quite stupid to not show how large a file is without going to list view.

4. Whats wrong with that? Much faster than launching Safari then typing in the URL. Look up your info, hit back and you are back to the file view.

5. You don't like them? Turn them off.
6. And this has to do with explorer how?
8. Why don't you explain how explorer is overkill?
9. So you are claiming Explorer is overkill and Finder is lacking features... . Which would you rather use?
10. The location bar is the most useful point of explorer. Don't knock it if you don't know how to use it. Saves you the work of Apple-shift-G, and retyping.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Read the first post... Explorer gives you more of necessary information. Who cares if it looks uglier? Apple + I is not necessary under windows, why?

1. Explorer tells you the size of the file(s) in the bottom bar.
2. Mouse over the file and you get the date, type, and size.

Other reasons why I like explorer.

Explorer tells your current path, not just the folder name.
Backspace to navigate to the parent folder is much more intuitive then Apple + Up arrow.

I'm sure Vista will improve on these.

I also like the idea that ie and explorer is the same application. Why navigate your partitions with a different tool than navigating on internet?

There are indeed some good ideas for Apple to adopt from Windows. It is not only the other way around! For example, what if spotlight was expanded to search on internet trough google, and only a click could disable/enable this function.

[runejoha]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

In column view and list view, you have direct access to a file's information. In Icon View, you can customize it so it shows additional information as well.
.

You're right, but it does not show the file paths. I believe explorer is better than Finder in most ways, and if performance is not the reason for lack of upgrades, what is it?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by mhuie

Read the first post... Explorer gives you more of necessary information.

Clutered in the open window.. something I do not want. It doesn't give you MORE information. It just displays all the information in the Window. Something I see as cluttered and bad UI design.

Who cares if it looks uglier?

It's just not uglier, it is bad UI design.

Apple + I is not necessary under windows, why?

You mean in the menu? It's under File like it SHOULD be.

1. Explorer tells you the size of the file(s) in the bottom bar.

Something you can turn on in OS X.

Explorer tells your current path, not just the folder name.
Backspace to navigate to the parent folder is much more intuitive then Apple + Up arrow.

I can do so with an contextual menu.

Or just click on column view.

If you are going to make arguments that Vista is better. At least make GOOD arguments.

Valid ones.

Apple sticks with Human Interface Guidelines.

Something MS really cares less about.

There is a reason Apple is known to have the best designed GUI around, and has won awards for such.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by clebin

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.

The hierarchy is the metadata. It groups files together. You just tag all the files with a name related the project, for example "Job for Client Joe Bob", or if your program is smart, it will do the tagging for you.

Under the new system, if I feel like listening to Rock in iTunes, I just type Rock into Spotlight and all my Rock is displayed. Feel like System of a Down? I type that in and it shows all my System of a Down. If I feel like a specific song I just type that in. Click it in Spotlight and iTunes starts playing right away. This is the new system. Kinda like how in Star Trek you just go "Computer, find all the rock by System of a Down" (which, btw, is done by typing "System of a Down rock"). Fast, efficient, and smart. Or, for example, in Star Trek you would say "Computer, give me all the files related to the Joe Bob job that are related to the Invoice". That's the modal.

[loki74]

I thought about this some more and I have concluded that (quite obviously) Explorer gives you more infomation than Finder. (This is not only obvious through the screenshots, but clear to me as I used to use windows)

But really, I appreciate the minimalistic look of the Finder. I keep my files organized and generally know where they are before hand, and I don't need to know a whole lot about the details of my files.

Basically what I am trying to say is, if I need that information, it will be a special case--the norm is that I won't need that information. Thus, it should require a special action (contexual -> Get Info). I really think that all the extra info decreases the amount of space I have for looking at files, and is not necessary at all. It wouldn't be so bad, but MS already wastes so much space that on a Windows box, I'll savor every pixel of space I can get my hands on.

The one thing I would like to see in Finder that I see in Explorer (It could be there and I have just not found it) is the ability to sort by file type, and then name. This makes more sense to me because I can easily spot a file type by its icon, and then once I'm looking at a specific group of filetypes I look through alphabetically. That way the alphabetical browsing, which is inherently slower due to the fact that it is text, is limited in scope by the filetype browsing, which is inherently faster as filetypes can be identified by their icon.