[Cipher13]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
HAH! I call having a LIMIT (255?) of how many files you can have in a folder a whole lot worse choking than anything in OS X.

Lemme know when you upgrade from System 1... then we'll talk.

*browses directory on OS9 with 40000 items in it*

Originally posted by daftpig:
Don't know how the rest feel.

But I think the "Finder" was Macintosh par excellence in pre-OSX days. Maybe I'm being silly but I think just its name tells of what it means to experience a Mac. I've always wondered who was the one who suggested that it be called "Finder".

I'm not good with expressing my thots, sorry.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by Big Mac:
Wow, this discussion really makes me want to switch to UFS!

Yeah. This discussion also makes me curious about the other fellow; UFS.
Would Finder theoretically act better with UFS?
I've heard UFS supposedly is slower and with no classic support (who needs it anyway?), but what advantages does it have compared with HFS+?

And:

[voodoo]

UFS doesn't support HD names, it doesn't support resource forks hence it doesn't support labels or custom icons..

UFS is not a good file format for Macintosh.

[nredman]

Originally posted by danengel:
Why didn't Apple put every effort into making a great Finder? For many Mac users, Finder = OS = Mac. Safari and iTunes are so good, why did the Finder suck for 2+ years?

"Donkey Kong Sucks...You Know What...You Suck!"

[Terri]

Guess it is time for HFS++

You have to love the message you get when you try to mount a HFS+ drive on a System 7 machine.

[daftpig]

Hmm..

I think upping the quality of free apps on the OS was in part a strategic move.

I've done some promos part-time. The iApps are really the kind of things you can demo to people. When you show people what you can do with the Finder, most people just go "uh-huh..?"---most people just don't spend as much time shifting files.

That said, with good iApps, if Apple could spend thought on the Finder, it would be a tactical move. If everything about the Finder was so straightforward and transparent as it used to be, when a Mac user happens to have to use a PC, he/she will be darn irritated. This would be reproducing the same situation as pre-OSX users were in: Finder=Macintosh.

It mustn't just be perceived as an app. In more ways than one, the Finder should be the model app---it's the first thing you encounter when you use a Mac; it's the last thing you meet when shutting down.

If we're talking about "user experience", then let the Finder be the one to say "hello" and "please do come again": Tell them what you're going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them what you just said.

[Michel Fortin]

I'm not certain that a more threaded file system would help that much the Finder. What I see is that the main thread (controlling the UI) is waiting on file operations to complete and stall during that time.

What would be needed is a total separation of file access from the main thread, so when you start a copy it dispatch it to a new thread and communication with the main thread is completely asynchronous. So the application never stalls because of an operation taking more time than expected. Windows File Explorer has it since Windows 95 (where you see a dancing flashlight).

Here is somewhat to try with Panther: open a network volume and start copying a big folder. While it copies the files, try navigating the network drive with a Finder window. It should be slow or even not working at al, that's ok, but does the UI is still responsive when you open a menu or click a button? In a proprely threaded application, the main UI thread should not be affected by another thread waiting for IO operations.

[Gul Banana]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I agree 100%. The Finder is the Macintosh. Those of you who are governed by the left side of your brain know what I mean.

Er, do you mean the right side? The left is the logical one, the right is the intuitive one.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by sniffer:
Yeah. This discussion also makes me curious about the other fellow; UFS.
Would Finder theoretically act better with UFS?
I've heard UFS supposedly is slower and with no classic support (who needs it anyway?), but what advantages does it have compared with HFS+?

And:

UFS info:
UFS lets you store resource fork files, such as SimpleText. But it fools you. Mac OS X stores the resource fork in files named like this: ._SimpleText, ._Sokoban, etc. It automatically combines when opening. However Classic will not run from UFS, iBelieve. However, Classic will, I think, run from a disk image on a UFS volume. The disk image would have to be HFS+ or HFS, of course. But that would only slow down operations in the Mac OS 9 image. And thank's to Mac OS X's tricks,, you can keep your Mac OS 9 applications and documents on a UFS volume. Note: I don't actually use it, but I have played with UFS disk images.

[michael_on_mac]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The Finder is the Macintosh.

I did believe for some time Macintosh was about user-friendlyness.

With every new version of the OS and the same poor finder, Apple proves me wrong. If they were really concerned about making the finder (as a main interface to the user) a good user experience, they'd put in options and more options. Let the user choose what is best for his needs. Options for the beginners, for the not so bright ones, for the switchers and the geeks.

A bit frustrated,
Michael.

[ryaxnb]

Originally posted by voodoo:
UFS doesn't support HD names, it doesn't support resource forks hence it doesn't support labels or custom icons..

UFS is not a good file format for Macintosh.

UFS doesn't support HD names? *Renames UFS disk image volume to "The HD"*

[JCS]

Apple stored pointers to files on disk in a data structure known as B-trees . These allowed the OS to look up files extremely quickly. It also meant that the OS could only use one thread to access the disk at a time.

The use of B-Trees dictates nothing about multithreading in a filesystem. Most modern filesystems, including BFS, use B-Tree variants extensively.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Gul Banana:
Er, do you mean the right side? The left is the logical one, the right is the intuitive one.

Right, the left isn't right. The right is.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ryaxnb:
UFS doesn't support HD names? *Renames UFS disk image volume to "The HD"*

well chalk that one up to Mac nerds urban legends.

[milhouse]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Apple Developer to Code Guy: "See, we wrote the Finder in Carbon and it works..."

Code Guy: "What's that pinwheel beachball thing..."

Apple Developer: "Don't worry, that will go away in 3 to 30 seconds... if not you can always relaunch... Did I show you the cool Dock! It's the coolest............................."

LOL!

Christ...it's actually sad because it's somewhat true..

[clarkgoble]

Originally posted by:
FUN FACT: The original way to multitask in the Mac OS came about as an extension called MultiFinder, which was introduced in System 6. This was actually optional until System 7 came around.

Extra fun fact: Multitasking actually was around before the days of multifinder with Switcher. It was a little icon on the upper right of the menu which switched to the next application. There was far more limited multitasking under this scheme due to the fact that few applications ran when switched out.

Extra extra fun fact: There was a third part "multifinder" out before the real one arrived. I remember playing around with it and it was a pretty cool hack although fairly unstable. I don't recall the name though for the life of me.

Those were the days. A Mac1024K with a hacked in General Computing 10MB hard drive...

----

BTW - one problem with OSX is that UFS is the only real non-Apple file system supported. Panther has the read only NTFS drivers from Linux and of course both Panther and Jaguar have somewhat flakey support for FAT-32. Yet all the other file systems available for Linux aren't available for the Mac. (Which is unfortunate in many ways as it makes dealing with Linux not as convenient as one would hope)

I'd also disagree with Panther vs. Jaguar Finders. The speed and responsiveness in the Panther Finder is head and shoulders above the Jaguar Panther. Yes there are some things that could be done to improve multithreading. But I've not experienced the "hangs" of UI while it awaits some function as was common in Jaguar. I'm not saying it can't happen, but clearly they've isolated off the "functionality" from the UI more than is the case in Jaguar.

Regarding PathFinder, one problem I have with it is that it really doesn't seem that different from the Finder. It has some much needed functions, such as sorting columns and a better preview. The new "drop pane" is kind of nice as well. But by and large it is the Finder with a few extra functions. And that's really not enough for me to pay the bucks for it. It also has a bit of a problem of feature glut. The most significant problem I see is that it isn't much faster than the Finder, if faster at all. And that is something I notice.

[yukon]

clark, i think the old application you're referring to is called "switcher". it's icon is multiple small screens diagonally superimposed on eachother, with a double arrow on the top one. 28k.

I've heard a story, college kids came to the 1 infinite loop on a tour, brought a mac, and showed the engineers a wonderous hack that would hide the frontmost application.

i'm still waiting for the OS6 carracho server to be accepting logins :-\
btw, i'm following this thread with great interest, exceptionally informative.