Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MacNNUK · 01:29 AM

First thing I do after downloading images from digital camera to a desktop folder is copy the folder, and store in a separate "Camera Originals" folder

Using C, V for speed

I have noticed under 10.5.4 (not noticed it before) that if I name original folder with date, ie Bunnies 200708, when I C V it adds one to the folder name ...

ie 200708 become 200709.

My get around is to add a space after the date on original folder name.

I could date as 20/07/08, but it's extra typing, and windows doesn't seem to like / in a folder title.

Nor some of my USB sticks.

Annoying, but at least I noticed it.

Yet funnyingly enough, if I put the downloaded folder into another folder, it add the word copy to the title

JKT · Jul 21, 2008, 05:49 AM

Man, the Finder in 10.5 is the utter pits. Much, much worse than it ever has been. How about this for completely inconsistent behaviour:

1. In your Downloads folder, create a new folder and call it 200807, then command-C, command-V to duplicate it - you get 200807 copy.

2. Option drag the original folder to copy it and you get 200807 2!

3. Call it Bunnies 200807 and com-C, -V to copy it and you get Bunnies 200808 as MacNNUK states. Option-drag and drop it and the same month increase occurs.

4. Drag Bunnies 200807 to your documents folder then repeat 3 above and you get Bunnies 200807 copy using com-C/-V (different to the result in the Downloads folder), but the month increase if you option-drag and drop!

Unbelievable.

voodoo · Jul 21, 2008, 01:20 PM

Yes, the Finder is still utter crap. I just don't use it any more if I can help it. I never would have guessed that Apple would make the Finder so bad in OS X that I'd rather interact with the file system through save-dialogues and FTP applications.

Whatever. It's been a while since I stopped using the Finder. Doing file management through applications is lame, but better than actually *using* the Finder. Great job Apple! It's only been SEVEN years since that POS was released.

Chuckit · Jul 21, 2008, 01:37 PM

Does the fact that sometimes it adds a "2" and sometimes it adds the word "copy" really cause such catastrophic consequences that it makes the entire program "utter crap"?

voodoo · Jul 21, 2008, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Does the fact that sometimes it adds a "2" and sometimes it adds the word "copy" really cause such catastrophic consequences that it makes the entire program "utter crap"?

No, not really. It's just a symptom of a larger problem. But hey, I can't even get a consensus on what constitutes 'the Finder' with some of the more nerdily-inclined people here, so I'm leaving it at this: What I consider to be 'the Finder' is to me such crap that I work more effectively by not using it.

It is less of a headache to just use the file management offered from within applications.

My other gripes with the Finder have been posted in numerous other threads and are off topic in this one. This silly bug is just one of many indications of a larger problem.

JKT · Jul 21, 2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Does the fact that sometimes it adds a "2" and sometimes it adds the word "copy" really cause such catastrophic consequences that it makes the entire program "utter crap"?

No, but when it is tied to all the other inconsistencies and downright **** behaviour of the Finder in 10.5, it does.

However, this is a fundamental feature of every OS that shouldn't be messed about with - a copy should be a copy no matter how you performed it. That is, the result should be the same every single time, not some random nonsense which provides results that the end user can't be expected to predict. For it not to be is criminal sloppiness on the part of the coders writing this utter pile of bollocks (and for it to suddenly start doing something completely new and unannounced like incrementing a number with each copy - and only under certain circumstances as well - is unbelievably retarded).

Fwiw, although not ecstatic about the Finder in prior versions of OS X, I belonged to the camp of agnostic indifference - it worked OK enough and I didn't have any real problems with it... it had its annoyances but I could live with them. However, the Finder in 10.5 is abysmal. Not just bad, but abysmal. How could they have made it so much worse? Given that this is the fifth revision of OS X, shouldn't we be expecting an app that has been critically slated since its inception to be improving with each new version, not getting worse and worse?

ibook_steve · Jul 21, 2008, 02:43 PM

Wow. OK, so can somebody post how the Finder *should* behave (if you were programming it) in these circumstances?

Steve

MacosNerd · Jul 21, 2008, 03:00 PM

I've really not noticed or cared about the inconsistencies of the folder naming issue when you duplicate a folder. Why, because regardless of what the finder does, the user needs to rename the folder either to remove the word copy or rename it to something else.

Seems much ado about nothing. The folder (and contents) are duplicated, so what if in one case it increase the number, another case it adds the word copy and yet another the number 2. In nearly 99% of the time I needed to duplicate a folder, it had to be renamed anyways.

mduell · Jul 21, 2008, 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Does the fact that sometimes it adds a "2" and sometimes it adds the word "copy" really cause such catastrophic consequences that it makes the entire program "utter crap"?

Sometimes adds a 2, sometimes adds "copy", and sometimes just increments the last number?
I can't even imagine how much

there would be on the forum if Explorer in Vista (or the latest fweetard file manager) did that.

turtle777 · Jul 21, 2008, 07:17 PM

The Finder killed my grandmother. I swear.

I agree with the general sentiment here, Apple has really been slacking on the Finder front.
It's gotten a bit better with 10.5, but it's still a big PITA.

In the Finder's defense: Windows File Explorer is even worse, IMO.

-t

MacosNerd · Jul 21, 2008, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by turtle777

In the Finder's defense: Windows File Explorer is even worse, IMO.

No, Vista's file explorer is the worst. I can easily cut and paste files, I can easily move or copy them. Its a simple yet effective application. Microsoft took that and made it almost completely unusable in vista.

wataru · Jul 21, 2008, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by ibook_steve

Wow. OK, so can somebody post how the Finder *should* behave (if you were programming it) in these circumstances?

Steve

Easy: Choose one, consistent naming scheme for copies. It doesn't matter if it's appending a number (and incrementing it for additional copies) or appending the string "copy" and a number (and incrementing).

But incrementing part of the original name (e.g. "Photos 200807" to "Photos 200808") just seems like a bad idea, especially since such a scheme can't accommodate non-numerical names in a consistent way.

ibook_steve · Jul 22, 2008, 01:01 AM

If I recall, in the OS 9 days, didn't the word "copy" keep getting appended to the end so it could become "file copy copy copy"?

I think it kind of makes sense: if you make a copy of a file yourself, it adds the word "copy."

If you download something with the same name in the same folder, it appends a number to the file. It's not really a copy of the original. It's just another of the same-named thing.

As for incrementing numerical file names, well, yes, that does seem pretty stupid.

Steve

TETENAL · Jul 22, 2008, 06:11 AM

Duplicating something adds the word "copy" because the Finder knows the duplicate is a copy of the original.

Pasting something with the same name adds a number because the Finder does not know whether what you paste is a copy or something totally different.

And pasting something again increments that number. It's unlucky that in the case of the original poster the number at the end is not a result of pasting before, but how should the Finder know?

So as far as I can tell, the Finder behaves correctly.