[curmi]

I understand fully why people like the spacial Finder.

I also understand why people like the browser Finder.

It seems that people should just have the choice to use either (or both).

I actually think part of the problem people have with the browser Finder in Panther is because it is so huge, heavy and ugly - dark, big borders, inconsistent, poor usability. I wrote some stuff up on this on this page:

http://homepage.mac.com/curmi/what/#finderwindows

I'm not saying that making the browser Finder better would help improve the spacial Finder. But it would certainly help you live with the browser Finder when you needed to use it. In the meantime, Apple just needs to improve on the spacial Finder some more (and the Desktop - another piece of history - which has become a junk yard rather than being improved upon).

As for this whole thread, it is based on a false premise. Nautilus in Gnome has not banned the browser. All they've done is provide a 'spacial' option. It appears to be exactly the same as Apple did - except that for now the default is 'spacial' not 'browser'. It is not clear that it is truly 'spacial' either - I suspect it is just like OS X and can result in two windows open on the same file.

[rkadowns]

All this time, say years, I have been tinkering around with different utilities and creating shortcuts and doing this and that to the interface of my Windows machine at work to make it more mac like. All this time I have been trying to recreate the spacial metaphor that I consciously didn't acknowledge. I just wanted the damn thing to work a particular way.

This tells me that the spacial interface works very well with the natural state of the human mind. This also tells me that those who don't like this mode of operation have been "trained" either by themselves or by some other means, to think the way they do with regards to the interface. Not that this is a bad thing mind you. It just goes to show that to the untrained individual, spacial works. CLI doesn't.

Just today I was assisting a person who couldn't find a document that was needed to be emailed to her boss. It was one folder deep off the root, but because her interaction with windows is NOT spacial, and she doesn't think like a geek and understand pfiles, she could not find it browsing with explorer. It's sad really. A traditional Mac user would always know where they placed their files and where to retrieve them, without the assistance of the file being listed in the "file" menu.

[darkelf]

both paths have merits, its good to have options. its all soft, implementing directories as bouncing springs with files as small squirrels flopping around on the sides of them would be okay, if that's what makes someone happy.

[el_humpo]

This is a pretty interesting thread. It's funny, I can still remember my reaction when I first used Windows 98 (when MS decided to 'integrate' IE, and Windows Explorer changed to a browser interface).

Who the @#$* thought it would be a good idea to use a web browser to view their hard drive??!?

Sice then, I've gotten more used to the browser metaphor, but I still think it's a poor way to view file hierarchies. Column view is a great innovation, however. It makes organizing large amounts of files in deep folder hierarchies very quick. I keep my Finder in column view partly because I like it, and partly because spatial mode doesn't 'stick' very well.

On a side note, GNOME is really making some excellent progress lately. I've used Linux for quite a while, and the UI has been something to hack around, not something I look forward to using. 2.6 (I'm using the beta) is quite nice, however, and the GNOME apps all behave very consistently and have a very functional asthetic.

[loco]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Photoshop opens the same file twice, it doesn't display the same file in two windows. i.e. you edit one of the two identical pics you opened and the other stays the same.

What the hell are you talking about? Open a PS document, go to Window->Document->New Window. Select an area in one window. Delete. Selection is deleted in both windows. As of PS 7, this works. I don't have CS.

When you go from one window to the other it even retains the selection area. You can even close the file you opened originally, and then when you go to close the second (spawned) window, it'll then ask you to save.

Having two windows CAN be very handy. In one instance, for example, let's say you have a large MP3 folder. You want to move the Abba folder to the Turkmenistan section. With two windows, open both and you can move them easily, with just one, you need to grab abba, and hold it at the edge of the window until the finder scrolls all the way down. Then if you accidentally push it past the edge (because the closer to the edge it is the faster it scrolls, and you don't want to wait forever) you might end up somewhere else.

I, for one, am very glad I can have two windows with the same items open at the same time.

[Link]

having command up/down and having 'browser' interface has worked great for me..

I still think the sidebar is stupid, however. But you can fix that

[JLL]

Originally posted by lookmark:
It seems to me that the next direction in navigating files is using metadata to assist the user in navigation -- based on when, how, in what context, and who used the data. I'm interested in how a spatial environment can factor into this (though not yet quite convinced it's entirely relevant).

It's very relevant. If we get Smart Folders I can't see how they would work in a spatial Finder since they give you the ability to show the same files in multiple folders.

Let's say that you have one smart folder containing all your Word documents and one smart folder containing documents modified within the last two days. The two folders will often show you the same files twice.

Should a spatial Finder allow smart folders?

[11011001]

It doesn't make sense to me to abstract away the way files on a computer are organized. It's not necessary, and forces the user to do something that is counter intuitive.

Managing many windows becomes an enormous pain in the but.. one shouldn't have to keep their workspace constantly organized when all they want to do is copy some files around.

Column view is nice. It's quicker to find the files one needs. They are listed alphabetically, so you always know where in a list to look. You can organize alphabetically in spatial.. yes, but then you are spanning multiple columns and rows. It's no longer a convenient list.

The file hierarchy is a tree structure. It makes sense to present it as a tree structure to the user (hence column view).

I think the current incarnation of column view in Panther is a good mix of both worlds. You have your "places" on the left, and you can navigate those places in the columns.

For a massive and complex file system found in modern operating systems, a interface to that file system more suited for it's size seems appropriate. For individual user accounts, and perhaps when working on a project, spatial makes more sense. I suppose both have their places.

[stew]

Originally posted by 11011001:
It doesn't make sense to me to abstract away the way files on a computer are organized. It's not necessary, and forces the user to do something that is counter intuitive.

[..]

The file hierarchy is a tree structure. It makes sense to present it as a tree structure to the user (hence column view).

The tree structure is already an abstraction. If you don't want any abstraction, feel free to use an interface to the inodes directly.

[Graymalkin]

Recently I've been playing around with spacial Finder windows again after having gotten used to the browser mode. I was stuck on a beige G3 running OS9 for a few days and got back into the special Finder so I set Panther at home to run like that. I've had a little bit of trouble with muscle memory but a lot of the old spacial tricks I used to pull have been coming back to me. In browser mode I find I leave Finder windows in one spot while in spacial mode I'm more apt to move them all over the desktop. I've found moving them is actually faster than having several windows I don't move on screen.

In spacial mode I tend to use spring loaded folders a lot more than I ever have in browser mode. I even turned down the spring time since in browser mode a Medium delay didn't bother me as I didn't use it much. Now I've got the time set to the one notch above Short. SLFs have really changed how I move files around. In browser mode I would find my original files, Command + N to open a new window, browse to the destination folder, then drag the files between windows. Now I just grab the files I want to move hold them over the lower level directory to bring its window forward, then use SLFs to move to the destination folder. I'm doing just as much browsing to the destination but I don't have to interrupt myself to move the folders to where I can see them both and then select and drag the files between them. Using spacial Finder feels much more satisfying in that regard.

Using spacial Finder has also seen me use Expos� ten times more than normal. With more than four Finder windows open at once my desktop is a little cluttered. A quick press of F10 and everything clears itself up. Expos� is an excellent addition to the MacOS UI in my ever so humble opinion. Combined with SLF it is a really indispensable feature. Being able to quickly get at any open window with a single keypress is really valuable when you're using a navigation system that is going to open tens of windows on screen at times.

I can understand the GNOME folks wanting to move away from the browser style navigation in Nautilus. I like using Nautilus and Konqueror but they feel very much like Internet Explorer on Windows. I don't need or want a Windows-like file management UI. I actually suprised myself with how easily I accepted Finder's browser mode when I had always been such a fan of the spacial Finder in Classic MacOS. The spacial Finder's utility has been coming back to me in the past week or so since I've been using it.

[tooki]

S-P-A-T-I-A-L

tooki

[lookmark]

Originally posted by JLL:
It's very relevant. If we get Smart Folders I can't see how they would work in a spatial Finder since they give you the ability to show the same files in multiple folders.

Let's say that you have one smart folder containing all your Word documents and one smart folder containing documents modified within the last two days. The two folders will often show you the same files twice.

Should a spatial Finder allow smart folders?

That's a great example. No, I don't see how it could.

If Apple really cares about maintaining a strictly spatial Finder in non-browser mode (and I'm not sure that they do), seems to me that smart folders would have to always exist in a browser-based (currently designated as metal) Finder window.... with, I imagine, some additional bar or pane showing how the results inside that folder are maintained.... and their toggle buttons disabled.

Question is, at what point does maintaining a spatial Finder become a burden to exploring new ways of organizing and seeing our data, instead of being a pleasure? That's not as loaded a question as it seems; I'm not clear on what the answer is, and when.

[intastella]

Should a spatial Finder allow smart folders?

That's a great example. No, I don't see how it could.

That didn't stop the people working on Copland from dreaming up Smart Folders (though i doubt they actually implemented it). That's where I first heard about smart folders. It was part of the whole V-Twin search engine (what Sherlock became). It not only could update Smart Folders based on file names and dates and such, but look through the contents of files. Really cool stuff. Maybe someday we'll see that.

Smart folders are just a different kind of folder. You just have to let people know what it is. I think the Copland way was to put a little badge on the folder like how you see a lock or a script on a folder. And it's doubtful someone could accidentally create a Smart Folder with search terms and everything and then not know what it did.

Don

[issue]

It isn't true that he suggesting to yank it he is suggesting to move it. He isn't suggesting to abandon different concepts of browsing your folders. He is suggesting to keep the Finder spatial, and yes spatial is mutually exclusive much like the things on your desktop don't appear in three ways in three different locations (unless you ate/drank something wrong). He suggests to move the other ways of browsing to a �you guessed it� browser. People can understand that a lot better, this browser let's me browse, the Finder shows me where I put things, simple. Two different apps, two different approaches for two different uses (or however many browsers and approaches you would like to have).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Millennium:
[B]That's part of the problem with the cult of spatiality.

Note that not all people who like spatial metaphors are members of 'the cult of spatiality'. To be a cult member, you have to decry all other options as inferior, with spatial metaphors being The One True Way. This appears to be Siracusa's stand, as well as many people who hate column view. It is fairly common for people to suggest that column view be completely removed from the Finder ('ditched' is another common term); that is the mark of a cultist.

[Link]

I can't believe this thread is already almost 4 pages long just talking about the way your folders pop up.

Give it a freaking break, people.

[issue]

In Copeland they had smart folders implemented in the spatial Finder already. The list view looked vastly different from a normal browser and the "folders" (which are really database queries) sported different icons. I only saw screen-shots of it but it looked quite intuitve.

Originally posted by JLL:
It's very relevant. If we get Smart Folders I can't see how they would work in a spatial Finder since they give you the ability to show the same files in multiple folders.

Let's say that you have one smart folder containing all your Word documents and one smart folder containing documents modified within the last two days. The two folders will often show you the same files twice.

Should a spatial Finder allow smart folders?

[issue]

Think about how many times you pop open folder. Don't you think there is merit to start a discussion that may spawn ideas to improve how millions of people use their computers and get things done more quickly?

Originally posted by Link:
I can't believe this thread is already almost 4 pages long just talking about the way your folders pop up.

Give it a freaking break, people.

[stew]

How would the terminal deal with smart folders, by the way?

[tigas]

I started using Macs two years ago after 10 years using Microsoft things (DOS, Win2x, Win3x, Win9x, done them all) and everytime I wondered what could the Finder have to have such vocal support.

Then I found it: when you're working in your computer, it's dead simple. Everything is where YOU placed it, and since it scales badly with complexity, you tend to create simple file trees, therefore easy to navigate. Often-used items too deep to be always spatial-findering to end up as an alias on the Desktop or the Apple Menu.

Now, I'm using OSX since Jag, and I've recently upgraded to Panther. Expos� finally gives me quick access to my Desktop and makes Spring Loaded Folders usable again. Sidebar finally gives me "jumppoints" to other often used places, especially mounted volumes. The first time I opened a Save As menu in Jag I wondered "how do I get to my Zip disk?" just to find out that Apple had taken a step back and had placed it at the root of the system, that was not my desktop, or even my home folder, it was the Computer folder - ahh place -ahh whatever... all the way back across a lot of columns... with no shortcut to it...

And yet, I still think that the Browser in WindowsXP is a better browser. That's not necessarily saying that it's the best way to navigate your computer: in fact, I would LOVE column view if I could restrict it to 3 columns (and never more that 3) and could adjust their width. What is the point of having long filenames if anything with more that 15 characters in it will be truncated? I LOATHE column view because of it.

For a better browser: I still need an UP button to get me back in the tree, which is unreachable with just the mouse in List view or Icon view. At the very least, placed in the gear menu. And do you understand why? List and Icon views in OS X still give no indications of where the window is in the filesystem. If the Finder was consistent, maybe, by the position of the icons and the size of the window I would be able to remember where I was: it's "muscle" memory in action. Since it's not, I'm lost. At least PathFinder has a little area over the window with the address of where I am: a path. I'd have to use command-click on a window's title to get the same information in regular Finder - that's a non-discoverable feature and it's a big no-no because to add insult to injury it occupies the two hands when I just want information. Why not a disclosure triangle?

In fact, the more I analyse PathFinder the more I think it's the better filebrowser I have ever used, and would love to have it my Windows computer, because in my G3/400, it's just too damn slow to use. (Viva la Pismo...)

Spatial is very good for simple and familiar things: all folders under the Home folder, for example. Browsing is very good to manage very complex hierarchies like a Unix system, if done properly like PathFinder. Panther Finder is better, but still no cigar on both counts. Keep them separate and improve on both: that's my opinion and I'm not budging.

tigas

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by tigas:
a better browser: I still need an UP button to get me back in the tree, which is unreachable with just the mouse in List view or Icon view. At the very least, placed in the gear menu. And do you understand why? List and Icon views in OS X still give no indications of where the window is in the filesystem. If the Finder was consistent, maybe, by the position of the icons and the size of the window I would be able to remember where I was: it's "muscle" memory in action. Since it's not, I'm lost. At least PathFinder has a little area over the window with the address of where I am: a path. I'd have to use command-click on a window's title to get the same information in regular Finder - that's a non-discoverable feature and it's a big no-no because to add insult to injury it occupies the two hands when I just want information. Why not a disclosure triangle?

Um, everyone else's finder has back/forward buttons and a path menu.

Customise your toolbar.

[Developer]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
Um, everyone else's finder has back/forward buttons and a path menu.

Customise your toolbar.

Back is not the same as up. But you are right, one can customize the toolbar to add a path popup menu button.

[lookmark]

It's quite easy. Besides adding a button in your toolbar, there's command-up arrow key (under the Finder's Go menu as well). All windows have the path hierarchy hidden away in their title bar, too --- command click the window title to see the path, or traverse it.

Safari extends this idea very nicely in its own way.

Anyone have linkage to Copland's original plans for smart folders? Were they just marked with a little badge? I recall a splashy Macword preview about the Wonders of System 8 in 1995 or 96 or something, but I can't find any trace of that online...

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by rkadowns:
All this time, say years, I have been tinkering around with different utilities and creating shortcuts and doing this and that to the interface of my Windows machine at work to make it more mac like. All this time I have been trying to recreate the spatial metaphor that I consciously didn't acknowledge. I just wanted the damn thing to work a particular way.

This tells me that the spatial interface works very well with the natural state of the human mind. This also tells me that those who don't like this mode of operation have been "trained" either by themselves or by some other means, to think the way they do with regards to the interface. Not that this is a bad thing mind you. It just goes to show that to the untrained individual, spatial works. CLI doesn't.

Why is the way you're acquainted with automatically "natural", and everyone else has been "trained"?

Try to show a little objectivity.

[Calli46]

This thread is most interesting... Having used Macs since 1984, I was exposed to spatial then for a couple of years to browser navigation. But as a user, what should matter more? I'd say : ease of use. That implies many things like consistency, predictability, speed, convenience. Many spoke about number of files, folders and complexity of structure. I remember using 400K floppies containing maybe 10 to 15 files a piece! The spatial finder was more than adequate metaphore to manage that. Nowadays, with GB hard disks containing tens of thousands of files and folders, you can just forget spatial organization... When going to OS X, I've found the column view most useful for EASILY managing that abundance of files/folders.

Nevertheless, the real question should be "Why ask the user to view, retrieve, copy or delete his files with the same logical structure kept by the file system?" Do you remember the flat file system of System 1.0 ? Files were all kept on the same hierarchical level. Folders were only views, letting the user regroup his files in logical entities. Later, with HFS did the folders really represent the structure of data kept on disks.

With smart folders, we are just going back to a clivage between the FS organizational structure and the user ability to view his files the way he wants to! Say I've got a good picture of my doggie. I want to use it in my current movie project and in a Word essay about my family environment. Meanwhile, I have not yet finished working on the same picture in Photoshop. In which folder should I keep it ?

I don't mind where the FS will put it as long as I have an EASY and FAST access to it. So I should make aliases of it in many folders giving me many views to the same file. Better yet, the OS should cut the work for me (how? that's another debate!). Besides, the OS should warn me if someday I try to delete the original pic.

In a way, that looks a little bit like Albums in iPhoto but on a system wide scale. I only hope we will see this kind of folders in a future release of OS X.

My 0.014 US $

[issue]

As long as we live in a real world with real world objects spatial relationships are very natural. Things don't tend to change beyond the laws of physics which we became acquainted with.
If you were to grow up in a different type of world (maybe in the future a virtual one) where things don't stay where you put them change appearance and exist in more than one place at a time, you would also be able to cope with that fact and that would be the natural state of things. As it is though natural relationships are spatial.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Why is the way you're acquainted with automatically "natural", and everyone else has been "trained"?

Try to show a little objectivity.

[issue]

Albums are really nothing more than folders. Smart folders on the other hand are more like smart playlists in iTunes that make database calls or search queries and display the data sets of files returned. The database would be user configurable, ie you can create projects and other criteria to group your files.

I think it's only a question of time and when a database will overcome the hierarchical folder structure. Probably at first only to aid the folder structure but then it's may pose an interesting question: Why use any other but smart folders?
Isn't it much better if the computer collects meta data about files and organises them for you, so that you can always find what you want, pretty much instantly? Instead of having to rely on your memory. Ever lost your keys?

In any case. This is going to be an interesting transition and I believe that Apple with the schizophrenic finder (brushed metal (future) and Aqua (old days)) has bred a bit of a bastard child here. Probably with an eye to future, to ease the transition and don't shock people too much when the old finder will ultimately give way to a new way of doing things.

My 2 cents.

Originally posted by Calli46:
In a way, that looks a little bit like Albums in iPhoto but on a system wide scale. I only hope we will see this kind of folders in a future release of OS X.

My 0.014 US $

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
What some people seem to be unable to see is that the Finder is "spatial enough" for 99% of the people out there, including people, like me, who have years of hard core Mac (and other platform) experience under their belts... I, for one, have never, ever found the icon view useful for anything. Some people, however, use it all the time.

Thank you! that about sums it up for me, too.

If there are any newbs browsing this, don't miss the shortcuts CMD-1, CMD-2, CMD-3 . . . very very useful quick keys for switching view mode. I make much use of depending on the type of lists or assets I am navigating.

Column view great for navigating expansive hierarchies.

Back and forward browser arrows, can be convenient ways to make large leaps.

Icon view good for for comparing folders full of photographs and book cover images,

And the traditional list views great for comparing, what else? lists. Also retain their old skool triangle folder expanders that can be accessed with CMD left/right arrow.

I'm a Mac user since around 1994 and I am very happy with the versatility of the new finder. Also love to make use of it's shelf capabilities but that's another story.

Seems like we Mac users have it all except windowshade. It's rare that I open the same window twice, but it's not a problem if I do. My only minor gripe is with the real estate devoted to frames and bars. I don't want to lose functionality, but I think the brushed metal could use a weight loss program and a touch of lightness/transparency.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by vsurfer:
I don't want to lose functionality, but I think the brushed metal could use a weight loss program and a touch of lightness/transparency.

Hmm... transparent metal, not one of your better ideas

[ginoledesma]

Originally posted by JLL:
It's very relevant. If we get Smart Folders I can't see how they would work in a spatial Finder since they give you the ability to show the same files in multiple folders.

Let's say that you have one smart folder containing all your Word documents and one smart folder containing documents modified within the last two days. The two folders will often show you the same files twice.

Should a spatial Finder allow smart folders?

I wouldn't know the definitive answer to that, but we could sort of "emulate" this behavior using the old Mac OS / Finder. For example, the Recent Documents folder pretty much does that. You could perhaps get away with an AppleScript to customize the filter, but you get the picture.

In that case, I don't see how it violates the spatial rules, since the "smart folder" would simply be using links to the correct documents, in much the same way most users keep a folder containing alises to their favorite programs (ala Launcher).

[voodoo]

I think there should be a choice in OS X. Spatial or the other thing. Not both at the same time.

[lenox]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I think there should be a choice in OS X. Spatial or the other thing. Not both at the same time.

I agree. They both have their use (and their vehement supporters and fans, obviously). I think it would make some sense to strictly separate the two ideas, not on a per-window basis as it is now...that's madness.

By the way, I really think it's funny how some of the most opinionated and one-sided folks in here are telling other people to think objectively. Try two tablespoons full of your own advice, with a glass of water.

[tigas]

Thanks, guys! I didn't know there were extra buttons to put on the toolbar! These would have made my Jaguar life so much easier...

For the record, I've added "Path", "New Folder" and "Delete". And if I still was using Jaguar, I would have added "Eject".


wheeee....

[MPMoriarty]

Originally posted by ginoledesma:
I wouldn't know the definitive answer to that, but we could sort of "emulate" this behavior using the old Mac OS / Finder. For example, the Recent Documents folder pretty much does that. You could perhaps get away with an AppleScript to customize the filter, but you get the picture.

In that case, I don't see how it violates the spatial rules, since the "smart folder" would simply be using links to the correct documents, in much the same way most users keep a folder containing alises to their favorite programs (ala Launcher).

I recently came across this piece of software that functions similar to what you are describing and a lot more.

It's even called Smart Folders!

Here's the link...

http://www.ragesw.com/smartfolders.php

I have been thinking about downloading it and giving it a try. Seems like it would be interesting.


Mike

[clarkgoble]

I don't really use the spatial mode ever, although I do use icon mode fairly regularly. What I do *truly* wish for is sorting based upon various criteria like date in column view. Having to constantly switch between list and column view is a pain.

[absmiths]

Originally posted by theolein:
Apple could just rename the Desktop folder to .Desktop and it would dissappear from the finder view as a viewable folder. That is exactly what they did in classic OS in any case. I'm also sure that adding code to the finder for only allowing single open windows of folders when in spatial mode would also not really be that difficult.

please Please PLEASE Apple DON'T DO THIS! Use the Metadata to make the file invisible. I really don't want Apple to adopt the goofy Unix-style invisibility convention.

[Moonray]

Originally posted by absmiths:
please Please PLEASE Apple DON'T DO THIS! Use the Metadata to make the file invisible. I really don't want Apple to adopt the goofy Unix-style invisibility convention.

Oh they already have, and not even so that one would understand. Try renaming a "file" to ".file" in the Finder.

-

[lookmark]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
I don't really use the spatial mode ever, although I do use icon mode fairly regularly. What I do *truly* wish for is sorting based upon various criteria like date in column view. Having to constantly switch between list and column view is a pain.

Same here -- that's long overdue, isn't it? I'm surprised they haven't added this by now -- it seems quite possible to do without making a mess.

I don't use the spatial mode for navigation (shiver), but I do find myself on occasion turning off the toolbar and working spatially for certain tasks.

[clarkgoble]

Pathfinder does allow sorting in column view. Unfortunately the last version I tried had a Panther-like browser that *wasn't* rooted to the sidepane. This bugged the hell out of me since the sidepane rooted browser is one of my favorite features in Panther.

I don't like the UI PathFinder uses for sorting. But it really is something Apple needs to add.

[lookmark]

Hey, get outta my brain, OK?

[Developer]

GNOME 2.6 has now been released.

From the release notes:

"Nautilus, the GNOME file manager, has several significant improvements in GNOME 2.6. In particular, it now has a simpler and more intuitive user interface, and has improved responsiveness. This should make users feel more comfortable and productive.

This new "spatial" user interface presents just one window for each folder, and remembers their location and size. The user can then think of the window as being the folder. When the user opens a folder again, it will appear just as it did before, so that the user can recognize it. If it is already open, it will just be brought to the front."

Also:

"GNOME 2.6 also has improved support for vector themes. Some vector themes are available separately from GNOME 2.6, and you can expect to see full vector themes in GNOME 2.8."

This sounds sort of cool.

[voodoo]

Linux is sounding more and more tempting!

I don't believe I am feeling a desire to buy an Intel box and run GNOME!