[ReggieX]

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
<STRONG>Moore's law projections showed that this would be a viable solution by 2004. </STRONG>

Moore never met the AltiVec unit!

As always, good to have you back and posting.
I do think the Finder needs improvement/expansion, but I'm not about to do away with it completely. Some tasks are still best done in folders and files.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
<STRONG>...Take your user account to go. A different form factor, but tightly integrated with the Mac. You will see a OS X option for allow login from 'iDevice' in user accounts. The login prompt will also support logging in from the device. Look for changes in the security model including support for PAM. Take your homework from home to school to work on a Pod.

This is the major difference between Apple's model of user data storage (locally) vs Microsofts (on the .NET). If Apple plays its cards right, it may well be the coup de grace for .NET. This would have to mean an open pod architecture with multi-vendor support...</STRONG>

Now that's frickin' cool. Just being able to login to another computer using my prefs (and maybe log-in apps) would be awesome.


Personally, I like the way Apple is headed in terms of meta data and transparent communication between apps. Albeit, the transition is a bit painful (e.g. iTunes only tracking MP3's within a certain folder hierarchy), but so long as there's a direction we're growing in, I don't have a problem with it.

I figure that if, as far as the user's concerned, you're going to kill the file structure entirely, and run everything through a database... why mix the idea of having a database, and the idea of files? The user is browsing the web, and heads to his/her favorite record label's site and downloads a few free preview/sample .mp3's (Please, don't steal music.) why have that sent to the desktop at all? Why not send it straight to iTunes and have the download progress displayed in iTunes like it displays the progress when importing a CD track? Do the same for files and their respective apps. The user doesn't have to worry about where that file goes when it goes off the desktop - the file never existed, just the music.

However, the Devil, I suppose, is in the details.

[Fotek2001]

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
Moore's law projections showed that this would be a viable solution by 2004.

It seems to me that the PowerPC architecture stopped obeying Moore's law a while back. After all, the G4 is still stuck at 1GHz in shipping computers while IBM's G3 is now overtaking it. The other thing is that Moore's law relates to processor speed and that's not really the main issue when dealing with databases. The speed of the hard drive, system bus, memory and motherboard architecture along with the amout of physical memory is far more of a limiting factor when dealing with complex databases and you only have to be a website admin to know that from experience.

Originally posted by ReggieX:
Moore never met the AltiVec unit!

With respect, the Altivec unit has almost nothing to do with this. It doesn't make the G4 inherently faster or better than say an Intel Xeon processor because it's only able to accelerate a small number of key operations involving large integer and floating point vector operations. Motorola themselves are the first to admit that this makes it best suited to image processing, telephony, IP and voice applications.

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
...Take your user account to go. A different form factor, but tightly integrated with the Mac. You will see a OS X option for allow login from 'iDevice' in user accounts. The login prompt will also support logging in from the device. Look for changes in the security model including support for PAM. Take your homework from home to school to work on a Pod.

This is the major difference between Apple's model of user data storage (locally) vs Microsofts (on the .NET). If Apple plays its cards right, it may well be the coup de grace for .NET. This would have to mean an open pod architecture with multi-vendor support...

Theoretically you could already take all your work with you on a Firewire drive simply by creating a bootable volume on it. To get closer to your idea you could also use Netinfo Manager to set the removable device to be the location of your home folder. That way you could log into the device by choosing it in your login pane. It wouldn't be a huge leap to make this a more seamless process.

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
As you can see the shift is from a generalized interface that tries to organize �files� (the Finder), we are shifting to new organizers that handle specialized media. ITunes, Mail, iXXXX or even Explorer are all prime examples� You no longer have to deal with �files�, all media management is done using a specialized interface best suited for the task.

This sounds like a recipe for disaster because it precludes the presence of other applications for a given media type. iTunes manages MP3 files rather well but it doesn't make it possible for me to open my MP3s in another program unless I actually go into the filesystem and start rooting around for actual files. iPhoto is even worse, it's virtually impossible to browse image files stored by iPhoto any other way than by using iPhoto which is why I don't use it. For me the whole issue is exacerbated by the fact that the iApps have interfaces that differ from everything else. Far from making file and information management more transparent, for me, it seems less clear and less consistent with everything else on the system.

I hope you'll forgive me for being cynical rm-rf /etc but a lot of the projects and plans you've talked about in this thread have been proposed and discussed elsewhere for a while now. This is particularly true of discussions about possible changes to the filesystem in the light of the hiring of Dominic Giampaolo. To be blunt much of what you're claiming to know about Apple's strategy could easily be inferred from recent moves the company has made so I'd be interested to hear whether your discussion is pure speculation on your part of if you have a basis for all this knowledge.

Considering that you seem to be gathering a lot of respect for your comments in this thread and elsewhere on these boards, I'd like to know how you can claim to know so much about Apple's internal projects after being away in India and Tibet for so long and if you do have a good basis for this disucssion, I'd be interested to know what it is.

I apologise if this seems rude but the tone of your posts has a distinctly haughty and arrogant attitude (reads like the copy of Mac OS Rumors) that would be put into perspective if we had a better idea of your credentials.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: Fotek2001 ]

[rm-rf /etc]

A few things

1. RE my credentials I did mention it in a thread over a year ago. Dig it up But I am no longer with the company I used to work with then. I am sorry that I cannot give you more details

2. Some of the info I posted is from my discussion with some Apple folks from Macworld Tokyo '01 (Flower Power, Blue Dalmatian). I am not aware of what is going on in the Database filesystem *now*. This is based on extrapolation of what I heard back then. They had a good idea of where they wanted to go, but the DB system was on the charts, but there was no real work being done on it (paucity of resources, impending OS X release). This was on the internal road map for 2004 (they do have to look ahead you know, the vision thing and all...)

I did mention this in my last post. Last I knew soft updates are on the road map but I am not sure what they are up to. Let me reiterate I think I know where they were headed. *I am* extrapolating on this issue.

3. I do have some close contacts at the fruit company. That said, given the state of the industry, a finite set of feature permutations, a seemingly endless stream of speculation, an almost infinite number of speculators, everything Apple says could be second guessed. And even if I gave you precise specs of an upcoming device, someone will always say that I got lucky!

4. Once again, I want to reiterate that my last real contact with the upper echelons at Apple was over a year ago.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: rm-rf /etc ]

[Fotek2001]

Thanks for the feedback!

[murk]

Wouldn't it be cool if we could point at a spot on the desktop and activate a contextual menu that said 'Generate Physical Structure Here Using These Attributes..." (obviously not the actual name)? You could then say, "Put Album in Artist in Music" and a folder would be generated and all files with those attributes would be sorted into a folder hierarchy using those attributes. If you put a file in a folder it is automatically given that attribute. Take it out and it is removed. "Put all of yesterdays files sorted by Application Type here". "Put all pictures with keyword Grandma here". "Put all text files containing the phrase 'Macs rule' here". This would generate a relatively simple physical interface because the amount of stuff you had to actually store in the physical would be small since you could also use the informational interface. You could even keep a folder on the desktop that was called "This week's stuff" which kept a rotating repository for stuff you created or modified this week. NOTE: it would also be cool to have the desktop supplemented by user-defined shelves.

If I remember correctly, wasn't the ability to save search results as a folder part of the Copland project? Whenever you open the folder the results are updated and shown. It might have been called a 'View". I'm a little hazy on it, and I don't have time to look it up now. Seems to me, however, this would be a good way to work the database into the Finder. Instead of actually moving the files to the folder, you just have a new way to find/view them. You would have the picture of Grandma you worked on yesterday listed in both Yesterday's File folder and in the Grandma's Pictures folder, etc..

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: murk ]

[kman42]

Quote: You will see a OS X option for allow login from 'iDevice' in user accounts. The login prompt will also support logging in from the device.


I suggested this exact idea in several threads about a month ago. I tried to find the threads, but it's impossible to search these forums so I came up empty handed.

Anyway, I obviously think this is a great idea and a natural evolution of the iPod and its further integration withe the Mac and taking advantage of OSX.

kman

[JB72]

Somehow I think fans of this thread might also be interested in this article. Titled "A Visual Rather Than Verbal Future," it has some interesting theories regarding future ways of finding files. Be sure to check out the vid(s) too.

Not strictly OS X related, I admit, but It's always been my contention that this topic is a lot broader than just our chosen OS .

[frawgz]

Originally posted by Fotek2001:
<STRONG>Theoretically you could already take all your work with you on a Firewire drive simply by creating a bootable volume on it. To get closer to your idea you could also use Netinfo Manager to set the removable device to be the location of your home folder. That way you could log into the device by choosing it in your login pane. It wouldn't be a huge leap to make this a more seamless process.</STRONG>

Technologically, it wouldn't take a huge leap, as Apple has always been at the forefront of this kind of thing (we've been booting from CDs for years, and only just now is the Wintel camp catching on to this), but it would take a rather big leap in the way we think about computers and our information. We'd be going from having to juggle preferences, applications, and information between computers (work, home, school, library, etc) with flimsy media like floppies ( ), Zips, and CDs to taking everything we need with us wherever we go. The computers are just the "stations" we work at. Interesting concept.. it has its downs, but it has a lot of potential.

[supernature]

Well, I'll throw a bone in...

I remember hearing that Apple wants to be more document-centric. Windows in some ways are closer in that respect. As standards in the computer world is nearing it's beginning, it's the best time to make an OS that's more tailored to the document you're working on rather than what application you are using.

/-&gt;Documents
| Windows &lt;-&gt; Finder &lt;-&gt; Services
\-&gt;Applications

Every application provides the finder a way to view the document without actually having to open the application (Snax does a pretty good job of this with more documents than OS X's Finder).

Open the document, the "Viewer" puts the doc in a window for you to manipulate (nothing new obviously). But you have the option of instantly changing which app you want to edit the document with. For example, you open a jpeg file, and Preview comes up. You can change to Photoshop without needing to open the file again. In fact you could switch to any application that supports the jpeg file. So, let's say you change to Photoshop.. add some layers, etc. At that point you've created a Photoshop file. You're finished with Photoshop, but you want to create and add vector graphics, so you switch to Illustrator. Again, no need to open the same file again.

The concept is like a real document. You have the document you're working on, and you simply switch the tools you use. Let's take a bad example

You want to create a layout of a newsletter (no computers). You take your old typewriter, type out what you want on a piece of paper. You use the scissors to cut the portion out, and paste it onto a substrate of some sort. You dig through your pictures, and again paste it on. Now, you want to put a headline over the picture. You take a ruler and some sort of writing/drawing tool and create the large letters by hand. Etc, etc...

In the same way, that's the way a document should be created on a computer. The best part about doing it on a computer is that you can back track what you've done. So each document has a "history" similar to how the history works in Photoshop, and similarly when you want to restore a configuration on your network/server to a previous date.

The Finder itself should be the database application for files. iPhoto, iTunes, etc would use the Finder's database to actually provide you with the most current list of all your photos, clip arts, mp3s, wavs, aiffs, etc. Apple could incorporate labels in the Finder in a whole new level, so that it's interoperable with iPhoto and other apps that needs a deeper level of file information other than what the file contains itself.

Finally, translators are more or less the Services that the Finder provides. If you're using Word on a document and the document is in Word format, then you would use the Services to translate the document into an AppleWorks document.

That's my two cents.

[ 05-16-2002: Message edited by: supernature ]

[Gavin]

Originally posted by supernature:
<STRONG>Well, I'll throw a bone in...

I remember hearing that Apple wants to be more document-centric.
......

Open the document, the "Viewer" puts the doc in a window for you to manipulate (nothing new obviously). But you have the option of instantly changing which app you want to edit the document with. For example, you open a jpeg file, and Preview comes up. You can change to Photoshop without needing to open the file again. In fact you could switch to any application that supports the jpeg file.

.....
</STRONG>

Sounds like we're talking about a 'Workbench' metaphor as opposed to a 'desktop' metaphor. The project you're working on is on the bench, then you choose your tool from the tool box. You bring the tool to the project, not the project to the tool.

In a way Services provides this, and I'm using something similar right now as OmniWeb incorporates the system wide spell checker in its text boxes - add an external tool to your task.

I don't know however that 'Document-centric' is the whole story. I work not on 'a document' but on projects/tasks that require concurrent usage of many different applications and several files accessed from different computers. Every day I have open 3 finder windows, 2 FTP windows, a dozen files in a text editor, a couple terminal sessions, a web browser, email and maybe photoshop. I could really use a structure that gives me a better way to manage/juggle all the pieces of a large task; right now that's the computer itself.

A database driven file system with lots of meta data would be a big help for me. I would love to have a query defined 'view' on my scattered files so I only need one finder window open. But the actual folder structure is still needed to be compatible with other remote systems.

The finder needs seamless network transparency. I would also like the ability to attach a transport mechanism to a file so I can choose 'send' from a pop up menu and it will FTP (SMB, Appletalk, CVS, email, timbuctu, rsync, etc.) a copy its defined destination, kind of like choosing a default application. No more FTP windows.

[undotwa]

What I think would be cool is to make your desktop your home folder. Just simply make the Desktop folder the home folder. So you will have a documents, library (maybe have the ability to turn it off for children's accounts), music etc. on your desktop.

And provide an option to host your home folder on your iDisk (you can host all your music, documents etc. but I mean read your preferences there for access anywhere in the world) or even on a portable hard drive.

I know you can do something like that with Netinfo, but what if your iDisk/Remote Server/Portable HD isn't mounted? Mac OS X should present you with a screen to enter your login and password details if it's a remote volume, or to connect the HD if it's portable.

[SYN]

I did know of couple of internal projects to explore database filing. Initial investigation proved that this would slow down the system tremendously on today's hardware. Moore's law projections showed that this would be a viable solution by 2004. I am sure they are working to intercept the performance curve in a couple of years. That is 1.5 years from now. This will provide the 'missing link' to the core philosophy. This will provide the next level of abstraction from the file system.

Yet the BeOS is able to do just that, without perhaps the advanced interface you're talking about, now, on today's (and yesterday's) hardware, thanks to the BFS. The system keeps a live database of all files/attributes, which you can indeed query the way kman imagined. It works live too, there is *no* delay when you search for something, and the search results are updated real-time thanks to live node-watching. With no apparent-overhead.

And the author of the BFS recently took a job at Apple

Could you perhaps elaborate on the overhead issues you were talking about? maybe there's something about Apple's implementation I don't see?

[rm-rf /etc]

Originally posted by SYN:
<STRONG>

Yet the BeOS is able to do just that, without perhaps the advanced interface you're talking about, now, on today's (and yesterday's) hardware, thanks to the BFS. The system keeps a live database of all files/attributes, which you can indeed query the way kman imagined.

And the author of the BFS recently took a job at Apple
see?</STRONG>

BFS is actually a conventional filesystem with a database on top. It is not a database filesystem per se. Here is a clip that may interest you:

"The first system, written by Benoit Shillings, was actually generic hierarchical file system with a database built on top (in user space) and maintained on the side. I wrote the successor to that, BFS, which was a more tightly integrated system.
&lt;snip&gt;
Benoit's system as a whole was more database like than what I did but both could achieve pretty much the same end result for the user.

More info can be found at:
Register

As far as database FS in a product that is shipping, I can only think of OS/400. (Of course ICL's VME had something like this in the 70's!)

There are many subtleties in creating a DBFS. From what I remember of my discussions there were QoS issues with delivering real-time multimedia files and regular files over such a FS. In addition, there were some issues regarding the 'file as an object' vs unix byte-streams (the exact details evade me). And there is quite a bit of overhead keeping all those indicies!

Given Steve's penchant for well designed machines (he had entire motherboards redesigned because it was not easy on the eye, or an entire assembly line retooled to make it more aesthetic), he had ordered the OS X team to create a system with a beautiful engine (like a Porsche) that looks great when the hood is taken off and is easy to understand.

They were not looking to hack a DB on a conventional FS. But, the reality of the G4 performance may just force them to do so.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by rm-rf /etc:
<STRONG>They were not looking to hack a DB on a conventional FS. But, the reality of the G4 performance may just force them to do so.</STRONG>

Looking at the timescale for what a seamless inplementation is going to take, the G4 will likely be relegated to low-end machines or phased out entirely by then.

Of course, the real problem with an entirely new FS would be backwards-compatibility.

-s*

[SYN]

we don't need backward compatibility, except perhaps for file integrity apps, well behaved apps are FS agnostic. If I'm not mistaken, as of 10.1, even Classic can boot off a UFS partition.

[clarkgoble]

Further even if some classic apps break with a change of file system you simply create a HFS+ partition.

[murk]

Originally posted rm-rf /etc :

Look at the upcoming technologies: Inkwell (handwriting), Rendezvous/JXTA (network discovery), ClearVoice initiative (text to speech engine featuring celebrity voices-- fantastic diction), P/VoIP, Firewire 2 and 802.11g, iMode/QT6

I haven't heard of the ClearVoice initiative. I know Jobs mentioned they were looking for a new text to speech engine, and I kind of thought they might be interested in AT&T's Natural Voices. Is that ClearVoice? Or is it someone else's technology, or Apple's?

Natural Voices Demo

[ 05-20-2002: Message edited by: murk ]

[LeeG]

The whole document-centric approach sounds quite a bit like OpenDoc to me. For those who remember opendoc would have document "containers" which is exactly like you said - no need to open mult apps/docs. Each doc would be opened and then 'plug-in' modules from different app vendors could be used to modify it.

The idea was to try and get away from mammoth bloat-ware like office which tried to do everything from text to graphics to page layout, and instead use the document as the center, and use the best text editor, the best graph maker, the best photo editor, etc etc. each function would be provided by a tool that did it best, instead of using 1 app that did some things well and other things poorly, or multiple apps that couldn't necessarily read the same document.

Interesting idea. Apple tried, and it didn't succeed. Though I know there are fans out there, it just never ended up being a true success.

It seems apple is better to position itself as a lifestyle-centered approach, at least in the consumer space. Many people are using their computers as the digital hub, and apple's supplied apps and hardware/software control make it perfect. Pro machines are still geared toward pro-level video and multimedia, and as the "documents" of today are movies and sound, many apps can already open these file types. We have started to standardize, and have moved away from many proprietary file types. OpenDoc was an idea ahead of its time (as Apple often is), but likely will never be....


Lee

[ls -al]

Agreed, Apple's future is App centric. They are not going back to OpenDoc or other component technologies. This is a company haunted by OpenDoc's ghost (still...)

[3.1416]

Originally posted by LeeG:
<STRONG>The whole document-centric approach sounds quite a bit like OpenDoc to me....Interesting idea. Apple tried, and it didn't succeed. Though I know there are fans out there, it just never ended up being a true success.</STRONG>

I remember playing with OpenDoc many years ago. The technology had promise, but the Mac OS at the time was obviously not up to the challenge. From what I understand it was a nightmare to develop for, and the primitive architecture of System 7 made it very unstable. But Cocoa and Mac OS X solve both of these issues today, so I wouldn't be surprised to see another shot at an OpenDoc-like system in the next few years.

[NeilCharter]

Apple's approach may be becoming more iApp centric for a good reason. There are a lot more devices nowadays that can interact with a computer.

I think we can trust Apple to come up with an easy way to interact with these devices. Problem is that we will always have to wait for it to happen

That said, with ever more devices interacting with your PC, having a logical interface to deal with them makes a lot of sense.

One of the striking departures Apple have done with OS X is their support for devices. Think about it, a lot of device support has come built in, including printer, camera, possibly digital video (I don't have one so I can't tell ), plus support for different networking systems.

Not only is this essential in a windows-centric environment, but it also positions OS X and Macs as really being a digital hub.

Of course I don't know what would be easier - having your digital life on a portable hard drive like the ipod or on some distant server on .net, but transportability is an important question. If you look at your idisk, it has the makings of a network home directory already. Apple seem in a way to have got the jump on M$ as far as that is concerned. Perhaps that will be the answer to making it easier to transport your digital personality without the fear of someone pinching it when you're not looking.

Neil

[clarkgoble]

I think that the problem with OpenDoc was that Apple didn't have a robust class library which would let you program the thing. It was far superior to OLE but Apple just didn't help out the developerss. Without going too far off topic, that is one thing I hope Apple continues to do - provide the tools to easily make applications. I think one of the biggest helps for Windows in the early days was Delphi and then later C++ Builder.

[Kickaha]

One of the biggest problems with OpenDoc, actually, was the lack of a dynamically bound language to program it in. Using something like C++ is just asking for a nightmare. It is, in my opinion, not worth even trying.

Obj-C, however... well, that's another story entirely.

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]

[sadie]

A document-centric model like OpenDoc could be wonderful for the user, if it really did work. However, it would require application developers to be a lot better behaved. It places very strict limits on how they can tailor their interfaces, and on the data formats available for them. Consider these companies:

• Apple would presumably be creating the technology, and so their contribution would be along the lines of incredibly useful "Hello World" programs. Any serious apps that got moved over to it would be locked so tightly that they couldn't seriously be integrated into any other components.
• Adobe and Macromedia will do everything possible to scupper each other's components. They will use as dissimilar file formats, and where they have to share they will leave interesting artefacts to trip up the other program. All this will be done in the name of purity.
• Microsoft will hold onto its monolithic apps as long as possible, if for no other reason than that's what its PC side is doing. If it does ever come over, it will attempt to scupper the technology by breaking outside of the box, communicating instead through Services, Apple Events, proprietary unix Daemons - anything but what they're supposed to do.
• Omni Group will make such wonderfully functional and transparent little components that everybody will use them and nobody will pay for them.
• Next developers will cease to feel so happy that they're really still using a Next machine, whatever the logo on the front says.
• Unix developers will cease to feel so happy that they're really using a Unix machine, whatever the logo on the front says.
• Old-time Mac developers will grumble as they jump on board, and grumble when they have to jump off again.
• Small, innovative software companies will provide lots of little components which are interesting, but you can never find the right one for the job and have to combine thousands of them to actually achieve anything.

Is that everybody covered?

[IEEE1394]

OS X is sort of alludes back to OpenDoc with its service-centric ideology.

For example, the system wide spell check is there. I can select a URL and make it open in OmniWeb. Select some text and I can mail it to someone.

I feel this is better than Window's "Wizards", as I don't have a "Windows has detected you have selected some text." dialogue, the "Wizards", or services in this case, are there when I want to use them.

[JB72]

While we're on the subject, can any of you Bob lovers tell me why my Stones song "Some Girls" insists on creating it's own Rolling Stones artist column? Also, will the future Mac/Bob OS also include apps like MP3 Rage to coincide with all the iApps that won't sort my files in any non-fantasy fashion? JPG Rage? MOV Rage maybe? DOC Rage? Maybe Apple can make it easy by integrating a whole new line of apps from the Rage buyout into a single Rage line. Each new Boblike "finderkiller" will be released with a Bob-balancing Rage app, and possibly a Rage redeeming anit-Rage service built in to avoid too much Rageness, and a little more Bob.

Electric cars are next people, not flying cars. Sorry.

[Cipher13]

JB72 - well said.

This entire thread seems sorta ridiculous... why do we need specialised services to manage dragging a file to a certain folder for us?

Hell, our brains are gonna devolve into potatoes or something.

No less, I bet I could do it faster the good ole fashioned way...

[ 05-21-2002: Message edited by: Cipher13 ]

[ntsc]

But Cipher thats the whole point. What if we could figure out a better way than we have at the moment, wouldn't that be at least worth investigating? What if we took the attitude that we could always do it the old way faster, nothing would ever change and we would be forever stuck in the same situations with the same problems and no or bolted on solutions.

Sometimes i think people need to ask themselves the question "what if...?" a little more

[NeilCharter]

Maybe the point is also to make it easier and faster to do mundane routines.

And maybe its also about the average joe user who couldn't give a rats arse where his/her files are just as long as they can have ready access to them when they need them.

In the end that's all we really need.

[schwa]

Great thread.

I, too, remember OpenDoc (and Cyberdog, natch). Great idea, but slow. And, at the time, I think too drastic a paradigm shift to be practical for the Mac target audience.

The db/filesystem debate is, I think, more interesting. I used to use Audion to play MP3's, which pretty much forces you to work within the Finder along side it. When I got an iPod, I switched to iTunes, dreading it. I was completely surprised by how quickly I adapted to its "non-file" interface, and using a library-less Audion seems less appealing to me now.

Has anyone tried Netjuke? It's a web-based front-end to your MP3's that organizes them based on their ID3 tags. Not as elegant as iTunes/iPod, but a very powerful, searchable interface. Worth a look for those interested in this debate.

LimeWire is moving to a similar approach to searching for multimedia files, letting users fill out fields like "Title", "Album", and "Artist" instead of a filename.

Can someone who understands BFS pls. give a primer on what made it so great for Multimedia?