Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Vista and the Finder

Vista and the Finder (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Judge_Fire
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 04:29 AM
 
All I'm saying is Vista seems to better inform users of the potential available.

Finder: many advanced features, such as metadata and tasks, are available, but require the user to acquire the knowledge of their existence, and then turn those features on. Control of these features is spread out to a number of awkward locations. (Column view, Get Info, Status bar, View Options, Action Menu)

Vista : many advanced features, such as metadata and tasks, are visible without user effort, but can be switched off as a preference. I'd assume reaching these controls can't be harder than in the Finder, especially if you're motivated by wanting to turn them off.


I could walk up to any Mac user I know and most of them would be surprised by the 'Spotlight Info' field in 'Get Info' or the 'Slideshow' feature. I intro Mac OS X to 50 - 100 people a year as part of my job and am not surprised by the fact that even long time users don't know about Finder features that could honestly benefit them, such as 'Icon preview'. Really.

I value Microsoft's approach to try to inform the user of these kinds of tools, although I'm skeptical - the danger of clutter and noise is very apparent.

However, I loathe Apple's fragmented UI strategy, where you actually need to read a (missing) manual, or visit web forums to find out about these things, just because they can't design a coherent application. It's hard of course, but the 'fix the %&# finder' crowd seems to feel that it has been going nowhere for awhile.


Hopefully competition helps. Having empathy for newbies, I'm frustrated that so much of the good stuff is too well hidden.

J
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 04:35 AM
 
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.
Doesn't look good for Vista then which seems to want to display all that info at once:

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Vista2

The window content doesn't exactly appear instantaneously
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 04:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by runejoha
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?
Because they are totally different things?

Strange that they haven't embedded Windows Media Player in Explorer yet.


Originally Posted by runejoha
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?
How often do you need to know the file path? When you do, it's right there in the Finder too, just command click the proxy icon.

You can have the info you want when you want it, but on Windows it's all there all the time.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 04:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Judge_Fire
All I'm saying is Vista seems to better inform users of the potential available.
But it also clutters the interface with information not always needed.


Originally Posted by Judge_Fire
Vista : many advanced features, such as metadata and tasks, are visible without user effort, but can be switched off as a preference. I'd assume reaching these controls can't be harder than in the Finder, especially if you're motivated by wanting to turn them off.
I think it's more user friendly to present the necessary info and then urge the users to turn things on.

It's like buying a car where the horn is beeping, the radio is on, the lights are blinking and so on.

Yes, you can turn it all off if you want, but it's annoying as hell that it's the default.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 05:21 AM
 
I think the finder does a lot of things better than explorer. Granted, I'm only using Win2K at work, and Tiger 10.4.2 at home, but the finder seems to reduce clutter without sacrificing features.

Looking at screenshots of vista, it seems that the OS is treating you as an idiot. "Do you want to learn more about X feature" on every damn dialog that pops up. If I want to learn more, I'll go to the help viewer and search for it.

I like the way the cool stuff in OSX isn't immediately obvious. Mac users in my experience are more investigative and will click and control click and alt click and command click on things to see what happens. Most windows people I encounter are scared to click stuff in case they break their computer.

Not that it is likely to happen or anything, its just they are scared by the interface. With so much on view they can't really take on board what is happenning.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 05:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
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.
Ohhhh...and you get to define what is part of it and what is not?

Listen to yourself.

I don't get to decide, neither do you, but at least acknowledge that when you're using a search tool, you're circumventing the whole concept of hierarchical organization.

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.
And you don't wonder why these search engines exist?

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're right...it's not a away to organize anything but it's there to give a helping hand when hierarchies fail (when someone loses a file in inside the hierarchy).

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.
As long as you use it as a search engine, it won't fly as a file browser. If you use it how it's intended to be used, it will.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 06:06 AM
 
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?
You query for it. If it exists, it exists. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

A better question is how do you approach an unknown system that has a hierarchical organization that differs greatly from your way of organizing things. Or how do you approach an unkown system that isn't organized at all?

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.
If you're going to keep this 'Google' and 'glorified search engine' charade going for much longer, I'll discard everything else you say as plain and simple ignorance.

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.
What do you think iTunes does? It queries for music on the HD. Try it with Spotlight using the Finder same results. Just like you can query for all existing apps on the system and it shows you *gasp* an App folder. Nothings stopping Apple from providing pre-built queries like that (which could then allow sub-queries such as "all apps that are 'utilities'" or "all apps that are 'internet' apps")...the results are exactly the same as opening the App folder and then opening the Utilities folder. Again...keep up the 'search' references and I'll know you're just here to pick a fight.

You can try this right this instance with the current clumsy Finder interface. Do a blank search (hit the spacebar in the search field within a Finder window.) Hit the + (plus) sign. Select 'Kind' from the first drop-down menu. Select 'Applications' from the second drop-down menu. Voila! No matter where your apps are on your HD, you get all of them right there.

Now, if the interface wasn't so clumsy and if applications had other useful metadata tags such as "I'm a utility" or "I'm a an iLife app" or "I'm an internet browser", you'd easily be able to find the app you want if you had an unwieldy amount of apps.

You can try this now also using cheap trickery but if you have a bit of imagination, it wouldn't be hard to see an interface working like this if Apple got off its butt.

Select Safari and do a Get Info on it. In 'Spotlight comment' type 'web browser'.

Now follow the same steps as before to get all the apps, then hit the + sign again, select Other from the first drop-down menu and find and double-click on 'Spotlight comment'...leave the second drop-down menu at 'Contains' and type 'web' or 'browser' or 'web browser' in the field. You get all the web-browsers on your system.

Like I said though...Apple is offering this to us with a lame interface. But just imagine if metadata was everywhere and imagine if you could click the 'Apps' folder in the sidebar and it would query for the apps on the HD and display them all. And then imagine if you were presented choices similar to the way the Spotlight window displays them. Choices such as 'web browser' or 'internet apps' or 'utilities' which people could click on to narrow the query.

If all this metadata was free and the user didn't have to lift a finger to tag files or apps this way (which is the case for some documents), a user on an unknown metadata system would be able to find what he needs much faster and efficiently than a user on an unknown hierarchical system. 'cuz what the hell does 'Safari' mean to someone who's never used a Mac? Nothing. If they can't find the familiar Internet Explorer, they'll give up right away on a hierarchical system which gives no clue to where Safari is or what Safari is. On a metadata system, on the other hand, it doesn't matter where Safari is and the user will sure as hell find out it's a web browser if he opens up 'Apps' and then clicks 'web browsers'.

There's no voodoo about it. This is pretty much the same thing as having an 'Internet' or 'Web Browsers' folder within the 'Apps' folder. Except that instead of relying on someone elses organization methods, you have multiple ways of finding your app/file. And you don't need to spend time creating folders since it's all done for you with keyword metadata that is already on the app/file.

In one instance, a Japanese that doesn't know a word of english would be very confused as to where the web browser was confronted with the static layout of folders labeled with english words such as 'Application' and 'Web Browser'. In another instance, Safari could have keyword metadata in multiple language. So anyone could find the web browser.

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!
You only say this because you choose to be ignorant about everything but the current hierarchical file system and the current Finder. Nothing's stopping Apple from giving a metadata-savvy file browser some user-friendliness features. Haven't you noticed how easy iTunes is at finding the music you want to listen to? The same could be done with the Finder.

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's nothing fuzzy about it. You have no idea of what you are missing or not missing no more than what you are missing or not missing in a hierarchically organized file system.

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.
Some people have thousands upon thousands of music files and they find the song they want in a matter of seconds. It certainly is a brilliant idea. Too bad you're incapable of understanding this.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Aug 3, 2005 at 07:01 AM. )
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 12:39 PM
 
No, it is a bad bad bad idea. In fact it is so bad it hasn't even been implemented by anyone. Not as an experiment, not as a shareware, freeware or anything. Nobody seems to be seeing what you are seeing.

I don't want to come to my computer and take inventory every time. I don't want to use my keyboard for navigational purposes. I don't want database faults to prevent me from finding things that are on my machine.

Right now there is a folder on my desktop that Spotlight hasn't indexed. I only realized this today when I was using Spotlight to find a certain disk image. I thought to myself "I know it is here somewhere on the machine - strange spotlight didn't find it.. hey, wait a minute I think I last saw this disk image in a folder on my desktop."

Sure enough, there it was. Spotlight never found it. I did, because of hierarchy, some limited organizing on my part and spacial memory.

I think I'll pass on your idea Horsepoo!!!

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
No, it is a bad bad bad idea. In fact it is so bad it hasn't even been implemented by anyone. Not as an experiment, not as a shareware, freeware or anything. Nobody seems to be seeing what you are seeing.

I don't want to come to my computer and take inventory every time. I don't want to use my keyboard for navigational purposes. I don't want database faults to prevent me from finding things that are on my machine.

Right now there is a folder on my desktop that Spotlight hasn't indexed. I only realized this today when I was using Spotlight to find a certain disk image. I thought to myself "I know it is here somewhere on the machine - strange spotlight didn't find it.. hey, wait a minute I think I last saw this disk image in a folder on my desktop."

Sure enough, there it was. Spotlight never found it. I did, because of hierarchy, some limited organizing on my part and spacial memory.

I think I'll pass on your idea Horsepoo!!!

cheers

W-Y
Dude...just because Spotlight has just hit the scenes and has bugs, you're gonna knock the concept?

Get a grip.

The Mac OS will need a few revisions before Spotlight actually shines. The only reason it doesn't right now is because it still has to share it's space with the antiquated hierarchical file system. Given a better file system (or at the very least some way of speeding up queries on large HDs) and a fully metadata-savvy interface, you're gonna be eating your words.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Aug 3, 2005 at 12:56 PM. )
     
runejoha
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 01:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by JLL
Because they are totally different things?

Strange that they haven't embedded Windows Media Player in Explorer yet.




How often do you need to know the file path? When you do, it's right there in the Finder too, just command click the proxy icon.

You can have the info you want when you want it, but on Windows it's all there all the time.
When I am searching for scientific reports, I have to search on my own partitions AND the internet in order to retrieve all hits that may be of interest. With all downloaded material people now days have, search on both Internet and local disks is beneficial.

The reason that Windows support more information could be due to better design, and thus, performance in the underlying SW layers. Of course, I do not have source code that can validate such speculations.

cheers!
How can a boring thing such as a mac or a PC be so exciting??
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by JLL
Doesn't look good for Vista then which seems to want to display all that info at once:

http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=Vista2

The window content doesn't exactly appear instantaneously
Which means a even more slower bloated version of Windows.

Looking at screenshots of vista, it seems that the OS is treating you as an idiot. "Do you want to learn more about X feature" on every damn dialog that pops up. If I want to learn more, I'll go to the help viewer and search for it.
Exactly!

MS wants to stuff as many features in XP it can. Doesn't matter how it looks or works.

This isn't a good approach to GUI.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 04:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
No, it is a bad bad bad idea. In fact it is so bad it hasn't even been implemented by anyone. Not as an experiment, not as a shareware, freeware or anything. Nobody seems to be seeing what you are seeing.
Take a look at BeOS' filesystem BeFS. A lot of the creators (like Jean Louis Gassée) came from Apple to create the successor of MacOS 8/9. It is probably the most advanced filesystem ever made; there's also been a reimplementation to OpenBSD.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Take a look at BeOS' filesystem BeFS. A lot of the creators (like Jean Louis Gassée) came from Apple to create the successor of MacOS 8/9. It is probably the most advanced filesystem ever made; there's also been a reimplementation to OpenBSD.
Now there have been accusations against you for not reading posts before replying or conveniently egnoring the contents, but I don't want to go into that here.

Suffice to say, we (as in Horsepoo!!! and I) were discussing the merits of a pure metadata based NON-hierarchial file system, structure and navigation.

You are talking about a combination (according to your post above) AND the BeOS was a combination of hierarchy and metadata.

Suffice to say, that is not what we are discussing and if you are trying to argue with me about a BeOS like file navigation you are wasting your breath. In general I like and agree with what I've heard about the combination of metadata searching and hierarchy that was in BeOS.

Not dissimilar from what we enjoy today with OS X and Spotlight.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by runejoha
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?
They arnt the same application, IE just allows explorer to hook into it's engine. This has caused numerous security issues, and should be done away with. The internet 'layer' should run seperately from the file finder so that no one has access to your files, but you.


MS knows this, but they simply dont seem to care.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2005, 06:14 PM
 
One thing about the Vista explorer that I like is the way it allows you to display information. You can have many different list views, icon views, and tile views. All sizes, and amounts of displayed info can be chosen at the slide of a slider bar, or by ctrl scrolling in the window. It's neat.
     
dharknes
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Those are NOT volume names; they're drive letters (logical or physical-makes no difference). This is a paradigm that works and makes sense in an historical sense, but needs to be tweaked to ensure that it continues to make sense; users need TRAINING before they can make effective use of the paradigm.
Drive letters NEVER made sense. They were a kludge and a very pool one at that. Volumes as define in MacOS 9 are only a little better, simply because the names can be more descriptive. The unix model of one hierarchical directory actually make the most sense and allows for the best organization of a filesystem. OS X does improve this model a little bit by providing "short cut" icons on the desktop. Several Linux distros have tried this but haven't been able make it work as well as OS X.

Originally Posted by ghporter
It takes a couple of seconds to NAME a volume (right click on a drive/volume, select "Properties" and then type a name in the box next to the little drive icon). It's the fact that nobody (in general) tells newbies about this that is the problem.
Volumes are renamed just like files are renamed select the volume and hit return.
     
dharknes
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by runejoha
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.
God I hope you're joking! Since this really is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. I don't browse for files (local or network) the same way I browse the internet. Nor do I want too. This is actually the one overriding feature that keeps me from using Windows and/or KDE on linux. My file browse should NEVER be able to "become" a web browser. If I want to browse the web I'll open Safari, Omniweb, Firefox, or some other browser
     
ApeInTheShell
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: aurora
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 02:00 PM
 
Is it just me or was the camera out of focus and tilted at the wrong angle? How can we take Windows users seriously if they have bad camera men. They could of least developed a screen capture utility for their temporary previews.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 02:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by dharknes
Drive letters NEVER made sense. They were a kludge and a very pool one at that. Volumes as define in MacOS 9 are only a little better, simply because the names can be more descriptive. The unix model of one hierarchical directory actually make the most sense and allows for the best organization of a filesystem. OS X does improve this model a little bit by providing "short cut" icons on the desktop. Several Linux distros have tried this but haven't been able make it work as well as OS X.



Volumes are renamed just like files are renamed select the volume and hit return.
Interestingly enough-and as I mentioned earlier in this thread-Microsoft lifted drive letters straight from Unix. Thus the "unix model" was followed from the get-go.

Always keep in mind that there is nothing in the world "intuitive" about ANY computer paradigm. It is always "intuitive relative to one's own experience." If you had started using a Windows (or DOS) computer, drive letters would make a lot of sense, and automatically named volumes would be a bit odd. If you'd cut your proverbial teeth on a Sun system, you'd have a slightly different set of expectations, and drive letters would be familiar, but not as comfortable as a Windows user finds them.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
cleanup
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 04:47 PM
 
Windows Explorer is more cluttered and less elegant than Finder. The Finder is simple and refined, it only gives you want you need. The little bar underneath data storage devices is neat, but as a previous poster said, you can just sneak a peek at the bottom of any Finder window, which is less obtrusive than a big colourful bar.
     
lavar78
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Yorktown, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2005, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by dharknes
God I hope you're joking! Since this really is the dumbest idea I've ever heard. I don't browse for files (local or network) the same way I browse the internet. Nor do I want too. This is actually the one overriding feature that keeps me from using Windows and/or KDE on linux. My file browse should NEVER be able to "become" a web browser. If I want to browse the web I'll open Safari, Omniweb, Firefox, or some other browser
Agreed. When I was a Windows user, this was probably my #1 pet peeve. The same can be said for a lot of users, because there was a very popular program (98lite) that stripped out all of that crap.

"I'm virtually bursting with adequatulence!" - Bill McNeal, NewsRadio
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2005, 03:53 AM
 
Because of all your wonderful suggestions, I decided to try and photoshop the ultimate Finder experience, sure it does look a lot like Windows, but you guys all agree that Microsoft truly knows the value of a good GUI, after all 95% of the computer users in the world can't possibly be wrong, now can they.

http://www.talesmud.com/finder.png

Click above to see a revolution in the file browsing experience!
Aloha
     
seanyepez
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Pleasanton, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2005, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Link
Because of all your wonderful suggestions, I decided to try and photoshop the ultimate Finder experience, sure it does look a lot like Windows, but you guys all agree that Microsoft truly knows the value of a good GUI, after all 95% of the computer users in the world can't possibly be wrong, now can they.

http://www.talesmud.com/finder.png

Click above to see a revolution in the file browsing experience!
That is an excellent rendition of where file browsing is headed.
     
ShotgunEd
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2005, 04:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Link
Because of all your wonderful suggestions, I decided to try and photoshop the ultimate Finder experience, sure it does look a lot like Windows, but you guys all agree that Microsoft truly knows the value of a good GUI, after all 95% of the computer users in the world can't possibly be wrong, now can they.

http://www.talesmud.com/finder.png

Click above to see a revolution in the file browsing experience!
     
MindFad
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2005, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Link
Because of all your wonderful suggestions, I decided to try and photoshop the ultimate Finder experience, sure it does look a lot like Windows, but you guys all agree that Microsoft truly knows the value of a good GUI, after all 95% of the computer users in the world can't possibly be wrong, now can they.

http://www.talesmud.com/finder.png

Click above to see a revolution in the file browsing experience!


Nice Triforce, though.
     
dharknes
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
Interestingly enough-and as I mentioned earlier in this thread-Microsoft lifted drive letters straight from Unix. Thus the "unix model" was followed from the get-go.

Always keep in mind that there is nothing in the world "intuitive" about ANY computer paradigm. It is always "intuitive relative to one's own experience." If you had started using a Windows (or DOS) computer, drive letters would make a lot of sense, and automatically named volumes would be a bit odd. If you'd cut your proverbial teeth on a Sun system, you'd have a slightly different set of expectations, and drive letters would be familiar, but not as comfortable as a Windows user finds them.
In my 10 years of unix administration (Solaris, Linux, BSD) I've never used a drive letter.

My filesystem starts at a / if I insert a floppy is gets mounted at /mnt/floppy, cdroms are /mnt/cdrom, and network file system are /mnt/servername. Where's the drive letters? All I see are mount points just mount points. The entire system looks like one very large directory tree.

I will agree that "intuitive" is in the eye of the user. I have always found the single directory tree to be a much easier to use paradigm then separate volumes or drive letters. Makes running around the command prompt easier.

Derek
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by dharknes
In my 10 years of unix administration (Solaris, Linux, BSD) I've never used a drive letter.

My filesystem starts at a / if I insert a floppy is gets mounted at /mnt/floppy, cdroms are /mnt/cdrom, and network file system are /mnt/servername. Where's the drive letters? All I see are mount points just mount points. The entire system looks like one very large directory tree.

I will agree that "intuitive" is in the eye of the user. I have always found the single directory tree to be a much easier to use paradigm then separate volumes or drive letters. Makes running around the command prompt easier.

Derek
Maybe ghporter was thinking of the device names /dev/ad3s1 (FreeBSD notation). However, I find Unix more stringent than Windows style.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
SMacTech
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by seanyepez
That is an excellent rendition of where file browsing is headed.
Exactly how is this where file browsing is heading? I sure as hell don't want advertising and some stupid paperclip on my desktop.

Looks like what we have today with some desktop html links and an old M$ idea that truly sucked.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 06:09 PM
 
Here is a damn fine example of a good file browsing environment

Sorry OS X zealots



I guess most of us wanted Mac OS 10 -- instead we got Mac OS X. Es la vida. Still it isn't too late to return to the Light Side of the Force. Mac OS X can yet become Mac OS 10.

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 07:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Here is a damn fine example of a good file browsing environment

Sorry OS X zealots



I guess most of us wanted Mac OS 10 -- instead we got Mac OS X. Es la vida. Still it isn't too late to return to the Light Side of the Force. Mac OS X can yet become Mac OS 10.

cheers

W-Y
The truly sad part is that you're serious.
     
Weyland-Yutani
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: LV-426
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 07:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!
The truly sad part is that you're serious.
Ditto

cheers

W-Y

“Building Better Worlds”
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 07:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by dharknes
In my 10 years of unix administration (Solaris, Linux, BSD) I've never used a drive letter.

My filesystem starts at a / if I insert a floppy is gets mounted at /mnt/floppy, cdroms are /mnt/cdrom, and network file system are /mnt/servername. Where's the drive letters? All I see are mount points just mount points. The entire system looks like one very large directory tree.
My point was not the "drive letter" as such but the structure of the path, sorry for the confusion. However the concept of a drive identifier that could indicate separate and distinct drives was indeed pulled straight from Unix, as were most of the original DOS commands.

Originally Posted by dharknes
I will agree that "intuitive" is in the eye of the user. I have always found the single directory tree to be a much easier to use paradigm then separate volumes or drive letters. Makes running around the command prompt easier.

Derek
Oh most definitely! But the Microsoft file system was intended for "small" computers that would never have the need for such an involved and flexible system as Unix computers had... At least that was the theory. The best laid plans and all that...

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Kerrigan
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Apr 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 07:50 PM
 
It looks as though the GUI has reached a level of complexity and clutter that makes it frustrating to use, in the same way that people were getting fed up with the complexity of command line interface in the 80s.

There needs to be a fresh approach to interacting with your files that doesn't require half the window to be filled with tasks and previews.
     
Link
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hyrule
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 10, 2005, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Ditto

cheers

W-Y
Aloha
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 04:44 AM
 
Hmm, hunting windows that popped up to the left, right, top, bottom, middle was a good file browsing environment?

Having a ton of windows on screen or your finger permanently glued to the option key to prevent a ton of windows when you needed to find a file was a good file browsing environment?
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 05:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by SMacTech
Exactly how is this where file browsing is heading? I sure as hell don't want advertising and some stupid paperclip on my desktop.

Looks like what we have today with some desktop html links and an old M$ idea that truly sucked.
You need to be smacked with a clue-stick.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Ditto

cheers

W-Y
Nothing's stopping you from using OS 9 and categorizing immense amounts of photos, music files, etc. manually using tons of folders and multiple windows.

But the browsing methods have to evolve for those that don't have the time and patience to categorize their files or dig through a maze of folders.
( Last edited by Horsepoo!!!; Aug 11, 2005 at 08:23 AM. )
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 09:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter
My point was not the "drive letter" as such but the structure of the path, sorry for the confusion. However the concept of a drive identifier that could indicate separate and distinct drives was indeed pulled straight from Unix...
No, it wasn't, unless you're talking about the /dev filesystem tree or something like that. The filesystem itself, as far as the user and most programs (anything higher-level than the VFS layer, which is almost everything) cannot tell the difference between separate disks and different folders. There is no external drive, only Zuul... I mean, The Filesystem.
as were most of the original DOS commands.
If only they were; things would be so much easier if that were the case. The original DOS commands, however, were pulled not from Unix but from CP/M, which causes endless frustration for those of us who have to use both on a regular basis.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
Why? Is it good simply by virtue of being OS9? For all that you've said, that may as well be what you believe. You're used to it, therefore it is good.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL
Hmm, hunting windows that popped up to the left, right, top, bottom, middle was a good file browsing environment?

Having a ton of windows on screen or your finger permanently glued to the option key to prevent a ton of windows when you needed to find a file was a good file browsing environment?
No, the Mac had a true spatial interface, that was the point. File browsing == Windows/Unix/etc. We used to make fun of their poor interfaces and navigating tools, I'm sure a few of us remember that.
For nearly twenty years nobody had a problem with the proven spatial interface of the Mac until NeXT replaced it for their failed Windows-like scheme and the sheep thought it was good.
The rest is history.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 10:25 AM
 
[QUOTE=mAxximo]No, the Mac had a true spatial interface, that was the point. File browsing == Windows/Unix/etc. We used to make fun of their poor interfaces and navigating tools, I'm sure a few of us remember that.
For nearly twenty years nobody had a problem with the proven spatial interface of the Mac until NeXT replaced it for their failed Windows-like scheme and the sheep thought it was good.
The rest is history.
You seem to think NeXT failed because its interface was poor. This is not the case. NeXT failed because their computers were so expensive they made Apple look like eMachines, and by the time they got out of the hardware business they were too far in the red to make it up in software. I very much doubt you ever used NeXT, and I don't mean this as a slight against you; hardly anyone got a chance to use it. Thus, it is grossly unfair to call its interface concepts "failed" when those interface concepts never actually got a proper chance to be evaluated in the open market.

By the way, NeXT was anything but "Windows-like" in terms of interface. It was, in fact, almost as different from Windows as it was from the Mac. It may have been the first truly original GUI since Apple's, as much as the term "original" applies to GUIs.

No one is saying that spatiality is bad. Spatiality is good. However, just because it is good doesn't mean there is nothing better, and this is where NeXT comes in.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by mAxximo
No, the Mac had a true spatial interface, that was the point. File browsing == Windows/Unix/etc. We used to make fun of their poor interfaces and navigating tools, I'm sure a few of us remember that.
For nearly twenty years nobody had a problem with the proven spatial interface of the Mac.
My thumb had a problem. I just hated the window hunting. And by using list view and the reveal triangles, you lost the spatial features anyway.


Originally Posted by mAxximo
until NeXT replaced it for their failed Windows-like scheme and the sheep thought it was good.
The rest is history.
Windows is a failed NeXT-like scheme.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 10:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL
My thumb had a problem. I just hated the window hunting. And by using list view and the reveal triangles, you lost the spatial features anyway.
No, because the fundamental 'one folder, one window' principle was never broken. Any open windows would automatically close as soon as you disclosed its triangle in List View.
     
SMacTech
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 11:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
You need to be smacked with a clue-stick.
Go ahead smack me. Just WTF is your problem?
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 11:10 AM
 
You still don't get it?
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by mAxximo
No, because the fundamental 'one folder, one window' principle was never broken. Any open windows would automatically close as soon as you disclosed its triangle in List View.
Yes, but that doesn't mean this principle is the best one when you have several orders of magnitude more disk space (and files). My first computer (Amiga 500) came with an 800 kB floppy drive, my second one had a whopping 250 MB harddisk. My first Mac came with a huge (for that time) 5 GB drive. I have close to 500 GB of space combined now, now that a factor of 100. And the spatial interface is supposed to deal with it without any issues?

I think it's hopeless to argue that one scheme will be good enough even though the requirements are very much different today than they were a couple of years ago. Right now, I have 9 apps (plus dashboard) open, now that's somewhere close to 20 windows (without the Finder). Browsing in the one-window-one-folder system would extremely increase window cluttering (as most of my file hierarchies are deeper than 4 or 5 folders).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OogaBooga
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani
I don't know about you guys, but I much prefer the simplicity of OS X over this^.

I switched to the Mac about a year ago, so I admit I've never really used OS 9. However, back in the day, I used System 7 in a webmastering class and all I remember is how to restart the computer, since it crashed so often.


Also, am I the only one that prefers the combination of Spotlight and the Finder to find my files? When I can't remember the name of something, I open Finder. When I can't remember where I put something, I hit Cmd-Space. I don't think either one was meant to be used exclusively.

The best of both worlds.
     
SMacTech
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 11:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by JLL
You still don't get it?
Yes, I get it, now! I thought he was serious. [smack]
     
mAxximo
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 12:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
Yes, but that doesn't mean this principle is the best one when you have several orders of magnitude more disk space (and files). My first computer (Amiga 500) came with an 800 kB floppy drive, my second one had a whopping 250 MB harddisk. My first Mac came with a huge (for that time) 5 GB drive. I have close to 500 GB of space combined now, now that a factor of 100. And the spatial interface is supposed to deal with it without any issues?
I work with tons of media files daily for many different projects and I sort of manage to use the flaky “spatial” interface of OS X for that. Other than the general suckiness I don't have many issues although I sorely miss having my perfectly organised Pop-up folders at the bottom of the screen. (No, folders in the Dock can't get even close to what I need. Unfortunately.)

I don't mind browser mode in the “Finder”. I welcome the addition of new ways to manage the many different workflows people may have. What really bothers me is Apple's obvious intentions of getting rid of the Mac's spatial organisation and replace it with NeXT's browser scheme. Only user feedback saved the spatial Finder from becoming extinct and it shows. They can't get it right to this day.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2005, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by mAxximo
I don't mind browser mode in the “Finder”. I welcome the addition of new ways to manage the many different workflows people may have. What really bothers me is Apple's obvious intentions of getting rid of the Mac's spatial organisation and replace it with NeXT's browser scheme. Only user feedback saved the spatial Finder from becoming extinct and it shows. They can't get it right to this day.
I think Apple is simply convinced that an OS9 style Finder can't cope with today's challenges as well as OS X' Finder which is already very much beyond NeXT's file manager. I for one prefer the new style as do all Mac heads I have personally met.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,