View Full Version : Finder Wishlist (and why you think the current Finder sucks)
Ok, so a significant sore spot for many Mac users seems to be the improvements needed in the Finder. It seems that people are posting one issue in one thread, another complaint in another, etc. This thread is a place for you to voice ALL of the problems/dislikes/wishes you would like to see addressed in 10.5 that pertain to the Finder. I'll start with some topics posted by both myself, and others throughout the forum. Feel free to add to or correct the list as you see needed, and be specific!
1. Resolution Independent UI
2. *(Native)* Spotlight functionality across networks
3. Burnable DVD folders
4. Quartz 2D Extreme enabled
5. Instant (see Firefox/Spotlight style) searching within a page on Safari
6. FTP and/or SFTP support
7. Folders retaining their display setting properties
PS: "Stop the Finder from ever crashing again" isn't specific, and is also very unlikely to happen, try to keep this realistic...
*PWEET*! Brad! Get yer butt in here!
*PWEET*! Brad! Get yer butt in here!
To be honest, I made this thread with the intention of luring you and Brad in.... :D
PS: "Stop the Finder from ever crashing again" isn't specific, and is also very unlikely to happen, try to keep this realistic...
How about "Stop the Finder from crashing all the damn time?" ;)
julesstoop
2005-12-01, 17:07
Stop the Finder?
1. Resolution Independent UI
2. *(Native)* Spotlight functionality across networks
4. Quartz 2D Extreme enabled
5. Instant (see Firefox/Spotlight style) searching within a page on Safari
What do these have to do specifically with the Finder?
jonnycherry
2005-12-01, 18:56
I want stickies that you can literally stick anwhere...
for example on a finder window, folder, inside a document etc. When you close the doc or window the stickes go away, when you open them up they re appear. Just like the real world.
Cant see this being very difficult to implement.
What do these have to do specifically with the Finder?
The resolution independent UI deals with the way one views the Finder (litterally), Spotlight is destined to replace many of the functions of the Finder (searching through folder after folder to find documents, smart folders), Quartz 2D Extreme enabled will drive the resolution independent UI, and as for the Safari gripe....errrr.....well that's just always bugged me :devil:
The resolution independent UI deals with the way one views the Finder (litterally)
Or any other application, for that matte.r
Spotlight is destined to replace many of the functions of the Finder (searching through folder after folder to find documents, smart folders)
Smart folders are a Finder feature. They work through Spotlight, and Spotlight improvements are thus also Finder improvements, but the two are still separate.
Quartz 2D Extreme enabled will drive the resolution independent UI
Presumably. So far, the Res-Ind UI works fine (well, it's buggy as hell) without Q2DE. But Q2DE will give Res-Ind a decent boost, without doubt.
Really, though, a lot of your items aren't exactly Finder-specific concerns any more than they are, say, iTunes-specific concerns or NetNewsWire-specific concerns.
Exactly. Those are general system enhancements, not Finder enhancements.
mine is short
1. More responsive & faster
Okay, you've opened a floodgate. Stand back...
Metadata. The use of metadata in the current Finder is a pale flicker of a shadow of what's possible. Windows already does a better job of this. Look to BeOS for some inspiration. For crying out loud, you hired the designer of Be's filesystem.
Offer variable icon spacing. The default is way too wide unless you're blind and use the 128px-size icons.
Make WebDAV/iDisk transfers move data faster than I can type it over a telegraph. It can't be too hard; see Transmit and Goliath.
Make directory listing faster, especially on network devices. You have a placeholder icon in the system. USE IT.
Stop resizing the sidebar every time some drive/DMG with a long name mounts. I set it to a certain size for a reason.
Spotlight integration. Scrap the whole UI and start over. This monstrosity (http://media.arstechnica.com/images/tiger/finder-smart-folder.mov) should have been aborted long before any sort of release candidacy.
Regarding the previous item, I STILL CAN'T CLICK TO THE LEFT OF THE TEXT IN THE SEARCH FIELD. WTF.
Also regarding the previous, 1) searches should not overtake a window if it is not frontmost and 2) there needs to be an easier way of escaping a search and returning to what you were looking at.
Why is there a tiny clickable "reload" button in the bottom right of the window when my search field is blank? Get rid of it.
Make the interface actually accessible with the tab key. If I was handicapped, I would have to resort to typing Terminal commands (or using a Windows machine, regrettably) to get things done because the Finder is so bad in this area.
Get rid of the idiotic nonstandard horizontal "menu item" thing for setting labels. Regarding the previous item, it's IMPOSSIBLE to set a label on an item without very carefully mousing over a tiny square. Every single normal menu item everywhere else in the system responds to arrow keys except the special label thing. What idiot designed that thing anyway? What dodderhead in the UI department decided that you should interrupt a rapid vertical stroke with a pause for slow horizontal precision into such minscule areas?
The labels themselves: a joke. Classic Mac OS's tinting did a better job. Try using labels in list view. It's a mess.
Desktop icon text looks fine on dark backgrounds. It looks terrible on white or light backgrounds.
The drive size on the desktop STILL doesn't update EVER. This has been reported yet completely untouched since the earliest pre-release 10.3 builds!
The toolbar toggle widget is a joke.
Expect for spring-lodaded folders (which were late to the party anyway, as I recall), column view has been untouched since before Apple bought the OS from NeXT and made it into Mac OS X. Give it some options, for crying out loud.
Why is the toolbar and menu icon for the "computer" the sunflower iMac G4? Why can't some genius put together a dozen icons and a few lines of code to actually set the icon based on what kind of computer the user has? Heck, a no-name developer did this very thing several years ago. Why can't you, Apple? I don't own an iMac G4, I never have, and I never will. Why am I looking at its icon?
Fix the undo. Too often it forgets the very last thing I did.
When I drag a window proxy and release it over a non-target, why does it shoot to the top of the screen? It shouldn't. Fix it.
Why can't I drag the proxy for the trash? It's a folder just like any other.
When I change the default application for a document, don't just change the icon for one's I haven't seen in this session; change them all immediately!
When I change the default application for a document, present a dialog that actually makes sense.
Why does Spotlight Comments get a gaudy bright blue bar in the info window? It should be like every other disclosure triangle.
In the info window, fix the behavior of the Ownership & Permissions block. It works most of the time for things I already own. It rarely works properly for things that I don't own (yet I've authenticated and should be able to change).
That's it; I'm cutting myself off! I could keep going on, but thinking about all these problems is so frustrating and... bad thoughts... BAD THOUGHTS. :mad:
billybobsky
2005-12-01, 20:49
You scare me, Brad.
I want to give my mac a hug now...
But you are right on everything that you said...
How did these things get through?
How did these things get through?
Simple.
This is a photograph of the current Finder development team:
http://www.pillowofwrongness.com/3-idiots.jpg
BuonRotto
2005-12-01, 21:19
I hope they don't change the Finder. I want to see Brad's head asplode.
Oh, yeah, I want to see full content-meta-whatnot tagging with a good UI, file grouping a la Aperture's light box view and different ways to organize/filter column view. I want to be able to see content in any number of views within the same window arbitrarily chosen by the user, i.e., panes (one for columns, one for previews/groupings of all files, one with the file path, one with folder/file info, etc.).
I want that thing where I can create a new folder, move, copy, rename a file etc. in any file chooser dialog.
I want that thing where I can create a new folder, move, copy, rename a file etc. in any file chooser dialog.
Ugh! No. Please, no. :no:
Although that's not really related to the Finder, you can already create a new folder in any file save dialog. With the dialog expanded, there should usually be a New Folder button at the bottom. Even if there's not, I believe command-shift-n does the job for you.
Ugh! No. Please, no. :no:
Agreed. Hehe. :) Right tool for the right job, etc.
It's not that I specifically need to create new folders, I was talking about that functionality that I got used too whilst (formerly) doing my work on windows boxen :)
Please, no ? You don't have change the look of the file dialogs, hide it in a contextual menu or the menu bar.
Agreed. Hehe. :) Right tool for the right job, etc.
Why isn't a file dialog box the right tool for manipulating files ?
Why isn't a file dialog box the right tool for manipulating files ?
An open file dialog box is for, tada, opening files. A save file dialog box is for, gasp, saving them. In the process of saving files, you may need to create new folders to put them in, which is why that option is there.
Manipulating files inside a dialog box is stupid.
I would like a button, though, that opens the current folder in the open/save box in a Finder window. That would be smart.
Why is the toolbar and menu icon for the "computer" the sunflower iMac G4? Why can't some genius put together a dozen icons and a few lines of code to actually set the icon based on what kind of computer the user has? Heck, a no-name developer did this very thing several years ago. Why can't you, Apple? I don't own an iMac G4, I never have, and I never will. Why am I looking at its icon?
While you're on the topic, the "Displays" icon in System Preferences is the old Apple display that went with the old Power Macs.
Manipulating files inside a dialog box is stupid.
That may be your opinion, but that particular feature has increased my productivity in the past. I don't want to argue about whether I *should* have saved the file in some arbitrary location and used another program to manipulate it later.
There is nothing wrong with every file chooser dialog allowing you to manipulate files. In fact if the functionality was present but hidden from you, how would it even effect you ? (rhetorical)
In fact if the functionality was present but hidden from you, how would it even effect you ? (rhetorical)
No, not rhetorical. If the functionality was so obscure as to not affect me, it wouldn't be of much use to begin with. If it was, on the other hand, anywhere near as extensive as it is on Windows, it would be very much in my way.
No, not rhetorical. If the functionality was so obscure as to not affect me, it wouldn't be of much use to begin with. If it was, on the other hand, anywhere near as extensive as it is on Windows, it would be very much in my way.
I have never found any of the functionality of a windows "Save As.." dialog box to get in my way.
And... I even thought of an example that I commonly came across.
I am working in a shared folder, where the documents are all the same type and the filename is a date (maintenance records in this case). I'm in charge of the maintenance for this particular piece of equipment and responsible for keeping orderly records but I don't always do the maintenance or the paperwork. So while saving my paperwork one day I notice that the last guy who did it saved the date with an all caps month which just bugs me, or they reversed the month and day. Why shouldn't I be able to just rename the file then and there when I see it and then continue with my work. I can do this on windows but not in OSX :(
Okay, you've opened a floodgate. Stand back...
<really long post>
You, good sir, are winner. :D
How about "Stop the Finder from crashing all the damn time?" ;)
I don't see what the problem is, I've had the Finder crash maybe 5-10 times in the 2 1/2 years I've been using OSX. OS9 on the other hand, well, no need to even go there. ;) :lol:
intlplby
2005-12-01, 23:24
replace file dialog needs more info
when i copy files and folders from one folder to another i want to be able to see filesize and file date of the files i am about to replace and the one i will replace it with......i hate having to cancel and then do ctrl click Get Info for the two files in question..... if you want to keep it simpler by default for most users you can, but give more advanced features for those of us that want it
give a merge option for folders in addition to replace......i hate having to merge folders manually......
-set color label toolbar button would be nice..... kind of like choosing a color from a preset palette in many other programs....
column view..... allow an option to automatically set the column widths to the longest file name by default. (like option double clicking the dividers)
how about an Auto-Hide the side-bar option..... i like the toolbar... the side bar wastes space most of the time..... have the option to set the side bar so it only shows the icons ALL OF THE TIME
meta-data - ctrol-click gives the option "Add comment to all folder contents"
someone said something about stickies in folders earlier..... how about a "New Stickie" option in addition to new folder option when you control click...... it automatically makes a file with a yellow label that popups a stickie note with single click and hides with single click ..... it would have a title and content...the file name would be determined by the title...... in addition you can set other options like due date, this would automatically be linked to your iCal..... this can also be added to files instead of folders in column view in the rightmost column with file info.... you can then have a smart folder containing all your stickies and giving you ability to jump straight to the folder or file from that smart folder
ability to view MP3 tags in the preview column... currently i use the MP3 Contextual Menu add-on but it is not the best solution...
ability to duplicate the menu bar on additional screens so you don't have to mouse over to the other screen
ability to automatically tile finder windows like in the operating system whose name we shall not speak......cascade would be nice as well
the width of the label column in list view need only be as width as the widest label (Orange/Purple)
when i have the "View options" open and i have All windows selected and i resize column in list view (like date modified for example) don't make it switch to This Window Only, instead modify the width of it for All Windows
if my system clock is set to the 24hr clock all the file info in list view should be on the 24 hr clock for date modified/created
ability to abbreviate months to 3 letters in "date modified/created" in list view.... just like the weekday is abbreviated in the menu bar (Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec)
basically i want to get the most out of the viewing window for list view.... on my 12 inch powerbook, screen real estate is valuable.
ability to change finder text color...... for example.... if you change the desktop to white..... the text labels are white too and you can only read it with difficulty because of the drop shadows...... another example.... in icon view if you set the background to black the names become unreadable because they are black too.
that's all i can think of before i have to go
Moonmonkey
2005-12-02, 06:43
Have a look at my finder mockup in this thread, it doesn't cover everything but its an improvement.
http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=472&page=19&pp=30
HezMah19
2005-12-02, 07:40
This may sound really stupid, but something really small I would like to see changed in the Finder is the way folders open.
I know its a small thing...but couldn't it have a bigger "cool" factor?
Perhaps some kind of morphing appearance rather than scaling ...
Bring back the spinning zoomrects! ;)
Thanks for the title change..... :lol:
I don't see what the problem is, I've had the Finder crash maybe 5-10 times in the 2 1/2 years I've been using OSX. OS9 on the other hand, well, no need to even go there. ;) :lol:
Finder crashes for me at least once a week.
rollercoaster375
2005-12-02, 10:53
Finder crashes for me at least once a week.
I've never had a crash, although we've only had a Mac for 9 months.
I've never had a crash, although we've only had a Mac for 9 months.
I'm pretty much in the same boat, I've had a Mac since May, and the Finder has never crashed on me. Individual apps have crashed, but the beauty of the Mac Finder is that it itself has never crashed. Coming from Windows, this is extremely significant because whenever an individual app would crash, XP would crash too....
Well, Finder *is* just another app under OS X. ;)
I've had Finder crash on me about three or four times in the past year, and that's it.
Once last night, actually. I was coping about 28k items from a remote server, and then initiated two other smaller copies and a batch delete on the server - poor thing threw up its little hands and went "AAAAAAAA!" and disappeared.
I also would like for finder to stop crashing so often. Finder crashes on me at least once a week.
Make finder more responsive. There is NO reason why the finder should slow down considerably on a dual G5 when MDS (spotlight) is indexing @ 80% CPU usage. This is my biggest gripe with finder. It can take 1-3 seconds to switch to another open application and can take forever to open a new application.
Fix mounting of shares. About 1/2 the time when I open my iDisk finder will slow to a crawl. I'll see the iDisk icon but I can't unmount it or open it or even move the damn icon. In order to fix this issue I have to do a complete reboot, relaunching finder doesn't help.
Why is copying large numbers of files (a few thousand) or a few large files from one place to another (on the same computer) so slow with finder? It can take 4-6 minutes to copy a 26,000 file, 2GB folder from my desktop to another place on my Mac (same hard drive). I can do the same using the CP command in the terminal MUCH quicker.
I think it's a pain in the ass to try and delete things you've searched for using Spotlight. Sometimes I can click on something and hit command-delete to move it to the trash but sometimes I have to actually drag the icon to the trash and then you don't even know if it went. There's no good way to view the file path for something in the Spotlight search window. You have to click on the little info button next to each individual file name to bring it up and once you do, it just lists the path - you can't open any of the folders. Also, it's very hard to search for invisible files. It use to be easy before Tiger. I can add a visibility parameter to the search box but it doesn't find most of the invisible files on my computer. I guess they just put that in as a joke.
There's plenty more problems. All in all, I don't really care about getting any new features, I just want them to fix the Finder they have now. Make it more consistent and more intuitive.
torifile
2005-12-02, 14:10
The "Network" icon? What the heck is that for? It only "works" half the time. Some times, I'll be at home, accidentally click on that icon and all the network drives from WORK show up. :no:
The error that comes up pretty frequently "The alias blahblah cannot be opened because the original can't be found" or something like that when clicking on the "connect" in the preview of the network tree. Stupid and incomprehensible. double :no:
Unmount my damn CF card when I tell you to! The past 4 or 5 times I've tried to correctly unmount my CF card, I get the interminable spinning beach ball. The only way to get out of it is just to yank my card reader from the USB port (well, I don't NEED to yank, but it feels SO GOOD). I've experimented, and, yes, there are NO other applications using the card. Hell, if I got that error rather than the SBOD, I'd prefer it. But I do get the "device has been removed" warning when I disconnect.
I hate the finder. It's always been the weakest part of the system, but now it's just a joke.
These would make me happy:
- A toolbar item for "parent folder", like Windows has, but supporting drag and drop, and springloaded. This can be hidden as default and available via "customize toolbar", I don't care.
- Have every Finder UI designer read Edward Tufte until they cry. Then have them re-design the whole damn thing to show data instead of empty space, borders, bars, more empty space, and brushed metal.
Tufte - great call (just spent a semester examining theories of design ... was worth every penny too!) :)
I like. It reminds me of the computer's 'homepage'. :) I want.
EDIT: Is it possible for a programmer to make 'plugins' for Finder do and act this sort of stuff?
BuonRotto
2005-12-02, 23:48
I'll reinforce the idea of a more transparent network if possible. Also, I'd still like to see more batch/multi-file and folder operations within the Finder rather than having to spin Applescripts or Automator actions.
In column view, when I select a file, I should be able to select that file and move on. I should not have to wait while Finder beachballs as it tries to preview the file contents.
Consistency, in Finder preferences and window display sizes and modes etc... At this point I'm so tired of it that I don't even care what kind of consistency it gets, just make it so it's not so freakin random.
The Finder chokes on large numbers of networked files. Allot.
SpecMode
2005-12-03, 11:05
Reinforcing the Finder's stability (or lack thereof)...when Console can't open the entire CrashReporter log for Finder because it's TOO DAMNED LONG, you know you've got problems. :mad:
I wonder what you guys are doing to make the Finder crash. I do a lot of file management in various environments (multiple physical drives, AFP networked drives, SMB networked drives) and I can't remember the last time the Finder outright crashed.
In fact, I don't even have a crash log for the Finder on my PowerBook.
intlplby, why did u bother to capitalize the munths in your post?
there reeelleee is no point as you obveeously dont need thum enywhur else... ;)
The "Network" icon? What the heck is that for? It only "works" half the time. Some times, I'll be at home, accidentally click on that icon and all the network drives from WORK show up. :no:
Actually when I have my G5 and my G4 on at the same time I have to be carefull which I shut down first.
Quite often the G4 will sit there for about 5 or 6 hours waiting to shut down if my G5 was shut down before it and they have been connected at all that day...
What the hell happened to this promise for 10.4 that we would have all these networking issues sorted out, and ultra fast connect and disconnect..???
SpecMode
2005-12-03, 11:15
I wonder what you guys are doing to make the Finder crash. I do a lot of file management in various environments (multiple physical drives, AFP networked drives, SMB networked drives) and I can't remember the last time the Finder outright crashed.
In fact, I don't even have a crash log for the Finder on my PowerBook.
I really, *really* wish I knew what I was doing to make it crash. I rarely do any particularly large file transfers, I don't use the Finder to burn CDs, I don't use network shares (Windows or otherwise), I rarely use my iDisk... et cetera, et cetera. If I knew what was causing it, I would stop it, but until I figure it out, I'm stuck.
Reinforcing the Finder's stability (or lack thereof)...when Console can't open the entire CrashReporter log for Finder because it's TOO DAMNED LONG, you know you've got problems. :mad:
Hmm. My wife's iBook has insanely huge console.log files because her Canon LiDE 30 scanner drivers CONSTANTLY ping the USB port, and whine at console.log when they can't find one. Yup, the drivers poll the port instead of waiting for the USB system to alert them. Nice scanner. Stupid drivers.
intlplby
2005-12-03, 14:36
scratt---- huh? (were you drunk when you posted that? i'm not trying to question you, but your spelling looks like my own when i post intoxicated)
scratt---- huh? (were you drunk when you posted that? i'm not trying to question you, but your spelling looks like my own when i post intoxicated)
You missed the point. :p He was parodying your last post, pointing out that you took care to capitalize the month names even though you completely ignored capitalization and the general rules of grammar everywhere else.
drewprops
2005-12-03, 21:50
Yeah, Brad's post goes way beyond my knowledge of problems with the Finder. I almost threw my lappy out the door after reading that list. However, I have one more thing to this public wishlist. Oh how I so hate to do this to Eugene, but....
I Want a Tabbed Finder.
or something better
When I'm working between multiple folders, locally and remotely, it's a pain in the ass to move windows around to resize them so I can see what I'm moving and to where it's going. Somehow this seemed better in OS9.x - was it because of windowshades? maaayyybe, maybe not.
I want elegance to file browsing and right now it's clunky. Perhaps some of you ICS graduates can reference some precedents of more elegant file navigation?
I figure the Finder programming team isn't drinking the right kind of hooch.
I think thats why Apple added Expose to Panther, beacuse people where having trouble with a lot of windows open. I love using it for just the thing you are talking about.
Expose is a wonderful solution to that problem...
However, I still find that all the minimized windows on my screen after a certain number are just not clear enough.. You still end up running your mouse over each to check which is which... I find this a lot when I am working with a few open emails and more than a couple of web pages open..
What I find more of a boon is sending all the windows off the screen and being able to open up a new finder, or access the desktop (which *ducks* is still probably my most important storage area for active projects).
intlplby
2005-12-04, 03:11
ahhhhh.... i see..... gg
Ok. I'm probably asking for trouble now, but I kinda like the Finder.
It rarely crashes on me (even by Mac standards) and it's a very straight forward app to use. Sure it would be nice if it was resolution independent, had even tighter Spotlight integration and native ftp stuff. But I does what it's supposed to do nicely, so why complain? :p
Perhaps a more consistent relationship between Exposé and Dock? I don't like that these two different places a hidden window can be found. But I don't think of that as a Finder issue.
Actually I think .mac synch is my most misbehaving app, but I can't rule out that it's because of my c****y ISP :grumble:
My #1 Feature Request: make the next version of the Finder worthy of being compared to PathFinder 4.
PF4 is going to kick serious ass, complete with a rewrite for Tiger, tabbed browsing, integrated full size preview panel and a very customizable workspace, among many things. The 10.5 Finder doesn't have to have feature parity with PF4, just make it good enough to be worthy of a comparison because right now, it isn't. All the same rough edges and design flaws exist, despite Apple having had four years to fix the damn thing.
Once PF4 comes out and people start using it, there won't be much to think about regarding the 10.4 Finder. Unless PF4 is really buggy (which I seriously doubt), I won't even being launching the Finder at login. Neither will a lot of other people. That's sad commentary, Apple. I'll pay my $40 bucks or whatever it is (just to support Cocoatech, even though I qualify for an upgrade), because someone made a serious effort to make a serious file management and browsing tool for OS X.
What's your excuse, Apple?
Something I'd like to see would be Smart Labels. Let us set up spotlight-style criteria for labels and have files that match automatically get labelled appropriately. You'd need a revamped labels interface (yeah, like that would be a shame) to manage regular and smart labels, and prioritise them properly should a file match multiple criteria, but it could be really useful.
i.e. anything with a due date in the next month gets labelled green, anything due in the next week gets labelled red.
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
Ok. I'm probably asking for trouble now, but I kinda like the Finder. Honestly, I would probably like it too if not for the host of bugs I listed above. The general design isn't so terrible, but it's riddled with rookie mistakes that should have been fixed ages ago.
drewprops
2005-12-04, 20:57
This is the first I've heard of PathFinder and I'm really impressed with the specs. I might get PF4 after it's been out a little while. Wow.
PathFinder is the result of one developer's hard work, as I recall, and has been around since Mac OS X 10.1 (but it had a different name then). I'm not a huge fan of its GUI, but its wide array of functionality highlights just how little Apple invests in the Finder.
PathFinder is the result of one developer's hard work, as I recall,
One and a half, so to speak. One main developer and one who mainly does bug triaging, support, etc.
and has been around since Mac OS X 10.1 (but it had a different name then).
I don't remember its previous name. You sure it changed?
I'm not a huge fan of its GUI
It is vastly improved for version 4, but I'm still not sure it's worth it. I occasionally try it out as a Finder replacement for a week or two, but in the end, it doesn't quite fulfill that job.
, but its wide array of functionality highlights just how little Apple invests in the Finder.
That statement, well, I'm sure you didn't quite mean to put it like that. ;) More functionality does obviously not necessarily mean better. However, Path Finder does a lot of things in a smarter way than Finder does.
I don't remember its previous name. You sure it changed?Yes. It used to be called SNAX.
i haven't read all the posts in this thread, so this might've been mentioned already, but i would like to see more seamless customization options. take the dock for instance. i use a program called A-DockX, and it's got basically all of the customization i would like to see built into the standard dock. same with themes, fonts, colors etc etc. basically give us all the same options Windows users have from within the Appearance tab of the Desktop Preferences box.
i'd also like an option to have itunes in the menu bar, either as a menu or a "bar" of sorts that would have "Pause/Play, FF and RW" buttons, and a small maybe 10-15 digit scrolling display with the song name/artist/album.
i'd also like the finder to be slimlined. it's very frustrating to have things be slow on my 733mhz G4 "digital audio" that don't need to be. if they could implement an option that would un-aqua the interface and make it more of a simple pixelated-style similar to WXP's "Classic" look, it would help quite a bit.
another dock option i would like to see is to turn it basically into a "Start Bar" clone or sorts, where it is a slim bar that goes from one side of the screen to the other, and a more winxp approach to accessing programs and the like. this might piss some people off, but i freakin love the start bar on my windows 2000 machine (slot-style PIII 750 and 384mb ram no likey XP), and i'd like to have an Apple version.
there are a million other small things i would like to see happen, but basically i haven't had any real problems with the current Finder (i've only had it crash on me once under Tiger), so i'm just nit-picking. i really really would like to see a revamped dock, however...
Yes. It used to be called SNAX.
Oh right! :) (What a stupid name. ;) )
i haven't read all the posts in this thread, so this might've been mentioned already, but i would like to see more seamless customization options. take the dock for instance. i use a program called A-DockX, and it's got basically all of the customization i would like to see built into the standard dock. same with themes, fonts, colors etc etc. basically give us all the same options Windows users have from within the Appearance tab of the Desktop Preferences box.
i'd also like an option to have itunes in the menu bar, either as a menu or a "bar" of sorts that would have "Pause/Play, FF and RW" buttons, and a small maybe 10-15 digit scrolling display with the song name/artist/album.This is a thread about the Finder specifically. Please direct general criticisms of other parts of the OS elsewhere!
it's very frustrating to have things be slow on my 733mhz G4 "digital audio" that don't need to be. if they could implement an option that would un-aqua the interface and make it more of a simple pixelated-style similar to WXP's "Classic" look, it would help quite a bit.How would changing some bitmaps make it run any faster? Answer: it wouldn't.
another dock option i would like to see is to turn it basically into a "Start Bar" clone or sorts, where it is a slim bar that goes from one side of the screen to the other, and a more winxp approach to accessing programs and the like. this might piss some people off, but i freakin love the start bar on my windows 2000 machine (slot-style PIII 750 and 384mb ram no likey XP), and i'd like to have an Apple version.Again, this thread is about the Finder, not the Dock, but a simple answer to your request here would be to just drop the /Applications folder on the Dock.
drewprops
2005-12-04, 23:30
Oh, and here's another vote for "my Finder hangs more than I'd like", on a Powerbook with tons of apps cranked open, flipping between them frequently. Well, at least when I was on Panther. I've upgraded to Tiger and don't have as much experience.
What is the current rationale for Apple's lack of attention to the Finder? Who are its most vocal and public critics? Oh yeah, I should google "finder sucks"....
this one is entertaining.... Fix The F****** Finder (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/18)
This is a thread about the Finder specifically. Please direct general criticisms of other parts of the OS elsewhere!
that WAS directed towards the finder. the menu bar is an integral part of the finder as is the desktop, which if that were integrated would clean mine up a bit.
How would changing some bitmaps make it run any faster? Answer: it wouldn't.
simpler graphics speed everything up. the fewer the colors, effects, etc etc the machine has to deal with, the smoother it runs.
Again, this thread is about the Finder, not the Dock, but a simple answer to your request here would be to just drop the /Applications folder on the Dock.
ummm...no. i have the applications folder in the dock, but it is hardly a replacement for the start menu in XP.
and if the dock isn't part of the finder, what the hell is? the wallpaper? the dock is a huge part of the finder, as is application integration into things like the menu bar or the desktop. you can turn things like the dock off, but that does little more than cripple the finder's usefulness.
the menu bar is an integral part of the finder as is the desktop, which if that were integrated would clean mine up a bit.
Having an iTunes menu extra has nothing to do with the Finder.
simpler graphics speed everything up. the fewer the colors, effects, etc etc the machine has to deal with, the smoother it runs.
That was the case with QuickDraw, but hardly so with Quartz.
As for the last question chucker didn't answer:
and if the dock isn't part of the finder, what the hell is?Dock is an application launcher primarily.
Finder is a file manager (and finder) primarily and an application launcher secondarily.
Dock and Finder are wholly separate apps.
you can turn things like the dock off, but that does little more than cripple the finder's usefulness.How so? Hiding or disabling the Dock doesn't affect Finder in any special way. Finder can still navigate and move about files and folder without it. Finder can still launch applications fine without it. You can't minimize windows without a running Dock, but that's nothing specific to Finder.
edit: Now that I think about it, Dock does give you quick access to the "Trash" folder which is otherwise hidden in the filesystem and difficult to open in the Finder unless you know its hidden path. Is that all?
no, but nobody in this day an age of start-bars want's to wade through directories to get to what they're looking for. and if your like me and want a clean desktop, putting alias' on the desktop is also a no-can-do. setting the dock to auto-hide isn't turning it off, it's getting it out of the way of application windows that might take up the whole screen, or you might just not like to look at it all the time.
as you said, even with the dock turned off the finder still keeps most of it's usefulness intact, but turning it off hinders a person's ability to navigate.
spotlight and quicksilver are ways of finding what you're looking for, i suppose, but it's just easier to have what you need right there at the bottom of your desk (or whatever side you choose to put it on) that's neat and out of the way but allows for quick access to all things in your computer.
the finder is much more than just a glorified data-base keeper, it's how the user interacts with the data that is on the machine. the dock is quite a large part of that in my eyes.
Having an iTunes menu extra has nothing to do with the Finder.
don't you think you're being just a tad bit overly anal about this? i mean honestly. i'll admit that itunes itself doesn't directly effect the "finder", but all silliness aside, having it tucked away in the menubar would be a nice addition to the finder's ability.
don't you think you're being just a tad bit overly anal about this? i mean honestly. i'll admit that itunes itself doesn't directly effect the "finder", but all silliness aside, having it tucked away in the menubar would be a nice addition to the finder's ability.
How?!
I think that's the question weighing on our minds here. Yes, you describe potentially useful functionality but, no, it does not directly affect the Finder. How does a global shortcut to skip tracks in iTunes add anything at all specifically to the Finder's functionality? It adds a nice system-wide feature, but it doesn't in any way enhance the Finder in particular.
drewprops
2005-12-05, 10:58
If the Finder were less amorphous in function the distinction between it and the Dock would be clear. This argument is partially a result of there being no clear delineation between the two (not that the integration between the two isn't GOOD, redundant paths to an end goal can be helpful).
Has Jobs or the OS dev team ever stated that they'd left the Finder alone for a specific reason? The only reason that I can imagine is that it has acted as a bridge of sorts for OS9 users. I'm thinking of the LIST and ICON views right now. There were enough changes to the OS that they wanted to provide some relationship with the OS's previous incarnation.
Nah. They're just lazy.
no, but nobody in this day an age of start-bars want's to wade through directories to get to what they're looking for.
Which is why you put the applications you frequently use in the Dock. For all other applications, you can quickly find them using Spotlight.
don't you think you're being just a tad bit overly anal about this? i mean honestly. i'll admit that itunes itself doesn't directly effect the "finder", but all silliness aside, having it tucked away in the menubar would be a nice addition to the finder's ability.
Controlling how your music is played doesn't affect the Finder.
i haven't read all the posts in this thread, so this might've been mentioned already, but i would like to see more seamless customization options. take the dock for instance. i use a program called A-DockX, and it's got basically all of the customization i would like to see built into the standard dock. same with themes, fonts, colors etc etc. basically give us all the same options Windows users have from within the Appearance tab of the Desktop Preferences box.
i'd also like an option to have itunes in the menu bar, either as a menu or a "bar" of sorts that would have "Pause/Play, FF and RW" buttons, and a small maybe 10-15 digit scrolling display with the song name/artist/album.
i'd also like the finder to be slimlined. it's very frustrating to have things be slow on my 733mhz G4 "digital audio" that don't need to be. if they could implement an option that would un-aqua the interface and make it more of a simple pixelated-style similar to WXP's "Classic" look, it would help quite a bit.
So... you want to add features in order to "slimline" the finder? ;)
Remember, one man's features are another man's bloat.
Also, keep in mind that aqua has exactly zilch to do with execution speed with regard to what we're talking about. Aqua is a theme, a set of bitmaps. You could swap any bitmap in and it would still run at the same speed. Perhaps you meant quartz, QE, and Q2DE? Even then, quartz doesn't have anything to do with the speed of the finder. The finder is slow... but for other reasons.
Me? All I really want to see is improved speed and impecable consistency.
Aqua is a theme, a set of bitmaps. You could swap any bitmap in and it would still run at the same speed.
Well technically, a simpler texture will theoretically cause greater speedups. It could be speculated that the change from brushed metal to smooth metal between iTunes 4.9 and 5.0 caused some UI performance improvements because the texture was easier to replicate.
:err:
Um, no. A bitmap is a bitmap is a bitmap. The *only* time there would be any possible difference is in the first decompression from disk into memory, assuming a compressed file such as JPEG or compressed TIFF. After that, caching into VM will be equal for any bitmap of MxN size.
What you're talking about in brushed metal is a programmatic rendering, which in some cases will be faster with a simpler texture, but at the CPU speeds on most modern equipment, the difference for something like a title bar will be negligible... *and* once it's rendered once for a given window/size, it's cached by the Window Server.
What you're talking about in brushed metal is a programmatic rendering
No, I'm talking about resizing of windows which, for the most part, are filled with a tiled/stretched background texture.
Here's your solution to the start bar look alike. Make a folder of Aliases. You can arrange this in any way that you like. Even put a little start icon on it.
Heck, if you're lazy you could just use your Favorites folder. When you click "Add to Favorites" it automatically places an alias of the selection into that folder.
Keep it on the Dock, and right click. Voilà.
Honestly, I would probably like it too if not for the host of bugs I listed above. The general design isn't so terrible, but it's riddled with rookie mistakes that should have been fixed ages ago.
Guess a rookie like me wouldn't notice them then :D
Actually the consistency between Dock, Exposé, Finder and Spotlight could be done better. Not that it's bad from my point of view, but somehow I feel they could be more intuitive if they were somehow fused together.
:rolleyes: I can't really think of how, though.
julesstoop
2005-12-05, 16:56
Through similar behaviour in similar situations.
One example would be to let the global Spotlight search window behave more like a Finder window. I believe people expect to search through their files with a tool that is directly related to their file browser.
At least I do. When I want to go and find something, I still go to Finder instead of pressing the spotlight key sequence.
Smart folders could be much better. They need an overhaul. I want to be able to restrict the search criteria like a smart folder (for example, only find files of a certain type in a certain folder), and then add a Spotlight query to the smart folder. So if I want to organize my MP3s on my own instead of letting iTunes do it (lé gasp!), I would like to create a smart folder for my music that lets me restrict the contents to only MP3 and MP4 files inside my Music folder, while also doing a Spotlight query that looks at ALL the metadata of my music files. Right now you can add all sorts of criteria to a search but you can't use a general-purpose Spotlight search. If I type "pepper" into Spotlight, I get, say, every song in the Sgt. Pepper album as well as every song by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, because it searches all the tags. But in the smart folder I have to specify whether to search in the author, album, song title, genre, etc. tags, and you can only search one at a time.
No, I'm talking about resizing of windows which, for the most part, are filled with a tiled/stretched background texture.
In which case it's just a bitmap, see the first part of my post.
In which case it's just a bitmap, see the first part of my post.
So you're saying it is as computationally easy to resize a 2 KB bitmap as it is to resize a 200 KB bitmap? :err:
I'm saying it's computationally insignificant. You can do it ten times a second, and the difference between the two on modern hardware will be negligible to the user.
Case of premature optimization, if you ask me. ;)
Surely the calculations needed for the Genie effect and the suck effect are just as if not more complex as resizing, and so we've proved that they're possible to integrate into the OS with the current processing power available?
Surely the calculations needed for the Genie effect and the suck effect are just as if not more complex as resizing...
No. The genie effect is actually very simple by comparison. Minimizing a window just takes a static bitmap and performs a nonlinear transform on it. Resizing a window involves reflowing potentially hundreds of elements (calculating each one's new proportional position and size), re-rasterizing lots of line art (mostly text), and compositing it all back together.
No. The genie effect is actually very simple by comparison. Minimizing a window just takes a static bitmap
Does the genie effect always use a static bitmap? I don't think that's the case, seeing as when you kill the Dock while minimizing, you actually retain interactivity with the semi-minimized window.
I'm saying it's computationally insignificant. You can do it ten times a second, and the difference between the two on modern hardware will be negligible to the user.
I really don't know. It feels as though textured windows (i.e., traditional brushed metal windows) are generally much slower to resize even though they're not necessarily more complex regarding the widgets and controls on them (often, the opposite is the case). It's not a Cocoa vs. Carbon thing either, nor a QuickDraw vs. Quartz one. No; I'm quite sure it has to do with the texture-related rendering.
Q2DE will probably help a lot with this, but my machine won't benefit. ;)
Does the genie effect always use a static bitmap? I don't think that's the case, seeing as when you kill the Dock while minimizing, you actually retain interactivity with the semi-minimized window.
Generally speaking, I believe so. The most obvious method would be for it to take the composited result of the window and then perform a transform on it. Anything else would be outrageously wasteful. So, the contents continue to update, yes, but the actual "genie" effect is done after everything else in the layer is combined, taking that in a simple bitmap and spiting out the warped image.
Does the genie effect always use a static bitmap? I don't think that's the case, seeing as when you kill the Dock while minimizing, you actually retain interactivity with the semi-minimized window.
No, it's not a static bitmap, but a nonlinear interpolation is *MUCH* simpler and faster than a multi-level hierarchical UI element position query with constraints.
The interpolation can be done on the window buffer, and that's quick quick quick.
*shakes fists at Brad*
I really don't know. It feels as though textured windows (i.e., traditional brushed metal windows) are generally much slower to resize even though they're not necessarily more complex regarding the widgets and controls on them (often, the opposite is the case). It's not a Cocoa vs. Carbon thing either, nor a QuickDraw vs. Quartz one. No; I'm quite sure it has to do with the texture-related rendering.
Right - but those aren't static bitmaps, those are programatically generated on the fly.
Q2DE will probably help a lot with this, but my machine won't benefit. ;)
Only if they can do the rendering through GPGP. :)
I just discovered KDE can browse using sftp, that is sooo cool.
Has anyone tried Konqeuror on OS X ? I know it can be done, I was just wondering how well it worked.
Additionally, I thought I'd add that it does that thing like subethaedit, where if I want to edit a file that I'm browsing I just double click it, it copies it to a temporary folder, opens it in my editor, and then copies it back when I'm done, completely seamless.
spotcatbug
2005-12-06, 07:02
seeing as when you kill the Dock while minimizing, you actually retain interactivity with the semi-minimized window.
Does this work even without QE? I wonder if they just deform the window's shape and continue to update its texture as normal. Basically no overhead for a weirdly deformed window (except may the GPU is doing more work).
Does this work even without QE?The genie effect does not need QE. I don't have a non-QE machine handy, but it should work fine.
I wonder if they just deform the window's shape and continue to update its texture as normal.Scroll up about four posts. :)
spotcatbug
2005-12-06, 07:27
The genie effect does not need QE.
I know the genie effect works without QE. I meant the interative genie effect, where the window continues to update even as it's... genie-ing.
It seems to me the best/easiest way to do it would be to let the GPU handle the deformation of the window and just continue to use the window's texture as normal.
Scroll up about four posts. :)
Oh, I see, "the composited results of the window" is what I meant by the window's texture.
intlplby
2005-12-06, 08:41
let's all just send a message to steve@apple.com and stevej@apple.com
according to the rest of the corporate naming paradigm that should be his email address (i think it is the first one).... yes of course secretaries see it, but if enough of them inundate his secretaries the message might get through
it's worth a shot... everyone send an email with your finder grievances and a link to this and every other finder sucks thread
let's all just send a message to steve@apple.com and stevej@apple.com
You want to use sjobs@apple.com, and no, you don't want to spam him with the same message over and over again. If you have something concise and useful to say to him, go ahead.
...nor do you just want to link to this thread. No one up there is going to care enough to wade through these posts. Threads like this come a dime a dozen.
Costumers who post spam in his steveness inbox with their petty little thoughts, gets banned from the Apple Store (!)
;)
intlplby
2005-12-06, 11:57
"finder sucks" threads should not be a dime a dozen.....
if they are it should be made clear that they are a dime a dozen..... who is going to MWSF?
maybe someone can start a FFF petition and print shirts and pins for sale.....
then people can show up and sign there name and write down what they think should have been fixed yesterday....
the only time things get done is if gets media attention (think ipod battery issues and nano scratching issues)
if someone where to set up outside the Moscone Center with a petition i'm sure it would get some coverage.
Yeah, in the Whiner Bin column. :P
Come on... really... some PR stunt like that is just childish.
"Oh noes!@!1!!!! The product they sold me works *exactly like advertised*!!!! But I don't like it! But I bought it!"
:rolleyes:
What would be the point of such a stunt? 'Public humiliation' for Apple? More like public humiliation for the people pulling it.
And just for the record, I think the iPod battery 'issue' was *asinine*. It was just ignorant children who were badly misinformed as to how batteries work, and then decided to whine about reality. Wah wah wah.
The nano scratching wasn't much better, IMO.
You really want to get yourself lumped in with those yahoos?
Do I even need to say it?
:(
...maybe someone can start a FFF petition and print shirts and pins for sale...If you plan to do anything remotely like this, make no relation to AppleNova. I don't want this site to be associated with that kind of rabel-rousing.
"finder sucks" threads should not be a dime a dozen.....
if they are it should be made clear that they are a dime a dozen..... who is going to MWSF?
maybe someone can start a FFF petition and print shirts and pins for sale.....
then people can show up and sign there name and write down what they think should have been fixed yesterday....
the only time things get done is if gets media attention (think ipod battery issues and nano scratching issues)
if someone where to set up outside the Moscone Center with a petition i'm sure it would get some coverage.
:no:
Ok guys. Give the poor Finder a break now. It's not like it's evil, it has feelings too. It does it's job as good as it can, just for your sake ;)
drewprops
2005-12-06, 18:14
Who's the Project Manager for the Finder division of the OS team? THAT is who you might want to direct your well thought out, concise and polite queries to instead of Mssr. Jobs.
intlplby
2005-12-06, 22:28
for the record,
" The product they sold me works *exactly like advertised*!!!!"
isn't relevent to the finder.. it's not advertised..... it doesn't work the way it should.... it's the achilles heel of OS X in my opinion....... i do think those other claims were bogus, but did they work? to a degree yes they did..... this is a far more legitimate complain than those
it's more likely to do a whole lot more good than bitching about it on a message board that no one but apple lawyers read....even they admit that their own message boards don't really have participation from those in the company...
DMBand0026
2005-12-06, 22:56
:no:
Ok guys. Give the poor Finder a break now. It's not like it's evil, it has feelings too. It does it's job as good as it can, just for your sake ;)
The problem is that it's been doing the same thing since the day it came out and they stopped development.
it's more likely to do a whole lot more good than bitching about it on a message board that no one but apple lawyers read....even they admit that their own message boards don't really have participation from those in the company...
Which is why you should use the available feedback mechanisms on the Apple site. Those get read. This doesn't. Public displays just get you reviled by people inside and outside Apple, and nobody wins.
DMBand0026
2005-12-07, 12:08
Kick, I think you and I both know that many people have been sending feedback about Finder for many years. Look at where it has gotten us. Finder is the most widely used piece of abandonware out there.
intlplby
2005-12-08, 02:32
reviled maybe.....but both of the past campains have gotten apple to react in at least someway......
companies hate bad press..... you give it to them and they have to react
okay, one more thing:
I would LOVE to see live updating of file size numbers in list view finder windows and info boxes. When I'm rendering or downloading large files, it would be great to watch the number grow on its own, instead of seeing for example, the size stuck at "Zero KB" until i highlight it, then stuck at "80KB" until i un-highlight it and highlight it again then stuck at "160KB", and so on and so forth. I wonder how difficult that would be... It would make finder look so fluid and alive.
Ok. This is kinda strange. I thought Finder didn't support ftp, and many old threads here at AN seems to confirm this. But when I typed "ftp.fejaa.dk" (our student unions website) into Safaris addresbar, I was prompted for my username and password, and once they where approved Finder popped up a window:
Linky (http://www.homepage.mac.com/troels.mogensen/ting/Finderftp.jpg)
It works like ftp (I can upload/download stuff), it says ftp on the little icon on the desktop and Cyberduck isn't active. I'd say we have ftp in Finder, or am I just off on a wild goose chase here?
:err:
EDIT:
Ok. Now the link works.
That picture URL doesn't work.
FTP is supported in Finder and has been for quite a while, but it's vastly limited. It's pretty much only useful for downloading.
I continue to argue that that's good enough.
Yeouch. I couldn't disagree more. That's like having a phone that can only take incoming calls and calling it 'good enough'.
FTP is about the most ubiquitous, brain-dead, works-everywhere File Transport Protocol (*cough*) there is. It should work in the Finder *both* directions, or it's pretty damned useless for most of us. If all you want to do is download, why not just use a browser with an ftp: URI, and ditch it from the Finder altogether? 'FTP support' in the Finder has been a joke from day 1, and I'm still a bit disgusted they claim to support it at all.
Yeouch. I couldn't disagree more. That's like having a phone that can only take incoming calls and calling it 'good enough'.
With the ever-so-slight difference that phones are still a good technology. FTP is not.
FTP is about the most ubiquitous, brain-dead, works-everywhere File Transport Protocol (*cough*) there is.
For downloads, it's okay. For uploads, it is not.
If all you want to do is download, why not just use a browser with an ftp: URI, and ditch it from the Finder altogether?
Because the Finder is designed to browse FTP-based sites in a file-type manner. A web browser is not.
'FTP support' in the Finder has been a joke from day 1, and I'm still a bit disgusted they claim to support it at all.
So move on to SFTP, SCP, Rsync, whichever you prefer.
Seriously, your argument is exactly the same argument as wanting Apple to support floppy disks and serial and parallel ports.
Ok. On closer inspection, I just figured out I can't upload, as Dr. Kick correctly said. The green plus thing just fooled me when I tried to hover an icon over the window. The file jumps back on the desktop if I release it. Talk about a huge disappointment.
:grumble: WFT? This is a joke. And I feel like I'm the bud of it! :o
Now I also think that Finder sucks.
:mad:
With the ever-so-slight difference that phones are still a good technology. FTP is not.
How not?
For downloads, it's okay. For uploads, it is not.
How not?
Because the Finder is designed to browse FTP-based sites in a file-type manner. A web browser is not.
A web browser downloads, and that's all you want FTP for. Apache/IIS both support browsing directories natively. ie, from the rationale, a web browser would be a much better choice for a download only tool.
So move on to SFTP, SCP, Rsync, whichever you prefer.
I do, at the command line. The fact that the Finder claims to have FTP support but then cuts it off at the knees is asinine.
Seriously, your argument is exactly the same argument as wanting Apple to support floppy disks and serial and parallel ports.
Hardly. They claim to support it, yet they don't.
I'd like to hear your solution for uploading files to servers.
I upload files all the time to my iMac server using the Finder.
How not?
How not?
No compression, no secure authentication, no encryption, no atomism, ... all of which are easy to implement and have been implemented for years by alternatives. It's not rocket science.
Even HTTP with WebDAV (which incidentally the Finder does support, and as of Tiger finally with SSL, too) is significantly better than FTP.
A web browser downloads, and that's all you want FTP for. Apache/IIS both support browsing directories natively.
Except, of course, that Apache is not an FTP server. (IIS is.)
ie, from the rationale, a web browser would be a much better choice for a download only tool.
In the case of IE/Win, yes. It provides a file browsing view. Safari does not. Finder does.
Yes, you can copy files to other Macs using AFP, but we're talking about FTP. Every computer on the planet supports it, yet the Finder can't seem to upload files to them. Download, yes. Upload, no. Idiotic.
Oh, okay. Then I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll just leave.
No compression, no secure authentication, no encryption, no atomism, ... all of which are easy to implement and have been implemented for years by alternatives. It's not rocket science.
No it's not. Now show me which of those alternatives is ubiquitously installed on pretty much every machine on the planet sold in the last two decades. FTP is a good solid mechanism that can be guaranteed to be just about everywhere you want it to be. If you *need* compression, security, etc, then sure, there are better solutions. But if you find yourself just needing to *move the damned file*, and nothing else matters (which is usually the case in an emergency), then FTP will save your bacon. If it's allowed to.
Even HTTP with WebDAV (which incidentally the Finder does support, and as of Tiger finally with SSL, too) is significantly better than FTP.
Well duh, yes, it's a much more comprehensive and industrial strength solution... that requires setting up a comprehensive and industrial strength server on the other end. For just moving a simple file to another machine, anywhere in the world, FTP is the better choice. Pretty much every machine shipped in the last 20 years can speak FTP, it's small, lightweight, and simple. That's the entire *point*. What you're advocating is about like suggesting that someone use a locomotive to do their grocery shopping. Yeah, you can haul more, but the infrastructure setup is much higher.
If I want to copy a file to another machine, I shouldn't have to go to the other machine, set up WebDAV, and then go back to machine one, just to move it. That's asinine. And that's assuming that WebDAV is already installed. How about that 1992 Sun sitting in the back room as the file server? You going to call up the admin and tell him he needs to install a significant chunk of software, complete with new security concerns, just so you can move a file? I think not.
Except, of course, that Apache is not an FTP server. (IIS is.)
You utterly missed the point. Completely.
If all you want is downloading, then Apache or IIS + a web browser gets you the same thing. So if all you want is downloading, then the above over HTTP is a better choice than FTP. If you want uploading to pretty much any computer on the planet, then FTP is the better choice. Unfortunately, we're not allowed to do that simple task.
In the case of IE/Win, yes. It provides a file browsing view. Safari does not. Finder does.
*slaps forehead*
I can only assume you've never seen an open file directory on a web server. ANY browser can traverse such a directory. No fancy schmancy GUI needed, just simple file traversal. Jeez.
The core problem, and the only real issue, is simple: FTP is a ubiquitous, simple, fall back solution for moving files, and the Finder, idiotically, only allows downloads, which can be done just as easily via a web browser in most cases, and eliminates the most useful feature for most of us, which is pushing files. The 'FTP support' in the Finder is useless to the point of redundancy with other mechanisms, *because* it only allows downloads. There's really no point in having it in there at all.
No it's not. Now show me which of those alternatives is ubiquitously installed on pretty much every machine on the planet sold in the last two decades.
It doesn't matter, because most people don't use computers from two decades ago.
FTP is a good solid mechanism that can be guaranteed to be just about everywhere you want it to be.
So are floppy disks.
For just moving a simple file to another machine, anywhere in the world, FTP is the better choice.
Like floppy disks.
How about that 1992 Sun sitting in the back room as the file server?
Oh yeah, it has a floppy disk drive.
Maybe it also supports IPX, so why don't you advocate bringing back IPX to Mac OS X? Nto to mention AppleTalk; AppleShare over AppleTalk was severely crippled in Tiger compared to Panther, so why don't you have a problem with that? And while we're at it, why not support NuBus cards in PowerMacs?
I can only assume you've never seen an open file directory on a web server. ANY browser can traverse such a directory. No fancy schmancy GUI needed, just simple file traversal. Jeez.
I can only assume you've never used FTP or WebDAV with Internet Explorer on Windows. It can browse such a directory just as if it were local. And it has a fancy schmancy GUI, just like Finder. Jeez.
The core problem, and the only real issue, is simple: FTP is a ubiquitous, simple, fall back solution for moving files,
Floppy disks are a ubiquitous, simple, fall back solution for moving files.
Welcome to the 21st century.
I give up. You're absolutely right. Every one at home should set up a WebDAV server from scratch, period. That goes for every computer out there. In fact, everyone should upgrade every machine they have, regardless of how well it is running, because it's *soooooo* outdated, and like, it's just not cool anymore. Nobody should ever have an option but to use the most complex, convoluted solution, and anyone who might have a need to fall back to a simpler approach is just deluding themselves and living in the past.
I give up. You're absolutely right. Every one at home should set up a WebDAV server from scratch, period.
Everyone at home doesn't have a 1992 Sun. In fact, I would argue about 0.00000001% of Mac users do.
No, I'm not suggesting everyone go setup their WebDAV servers. Apple already provides solutions for the vast majority of people -- SMB, AFP and NFS. And whilst the Finder unfortunately does not support it, SCP or SFTP are another option, which as it happens are built-in to OS X as well. System Preferences -> Sharing -> Remote Login. That simple. Lots of clients like Fugu, Cyberduck, Transmit, ... are available.
In fact, everyone should upgrade every machine they have, regardless of how well it is running, because it's *soooooo* outdated,
I hate to break it to you but yes, a 1992 machine is outdated.
I upload files all the time to my iMac server using the Finder.
Really not trying to be a jerk here, as there are a number of people that seem to be taking this discussion personally. But can you tell me how you do that through Finder? I am really interested in learning. Thanks in advance.
- Jay
I think our little AIM conversation has shown that we don't disagree that much, really. Here's the thing: people are reluctant to change their usage patterns. They like things to be as transparently as possible. And right now, as you and I agree, there is no transparent solution to copying files over the internet. For local networks, we have AFP, SMB, NFS and some related solutions (e.g. AFS). For the internet, things are more complicated.
Many file browsers like Konqueror, Explorer and Nautilus fully and transparently support FTP and have for a long time. It isn't hard at all to implement. It probably wouldn't even take Apple a week. And since they were smart enough to implement the whole thing as a virtual file system, it would technically work on the Finder (and any application with standard open/save dialogs, so virtually any OS X GUI apps) just as much as it would on the CLI, thanks to mount_ftp.
Now, the question is whether they should do that, and that's a borderline case. Look at floppy disks. Throughout the 70s and 80s, floppy disks became more and more popular and were for a long time even more prevalent than hard drives. In the 90s, then, it was decided not to upgrade the floppy disk medium any further (there was a brief attempt called "ED", extended density, that allowed 2.88 MB). What wasn't decided, however, was how to replace the technology. Various technologies came up: the Zip drive from iomega, for example. Proprietary, but nonetheless a good technology with largely the same looks at a floppy disk, only thicker, and with electronic rather than mechanical write-protection. 100 MBs at first, then 250, and through the alternative Jaz drive 1 or 2 GB. Many PowerMacs even included a Zip drive.
Then came CD burners, and while they didn't really let you freely add and remove files at first (even with RWs and packet writing, it isn't quite possible; DVD-RAMs finally solve this), they were good enough, and the added capacity was a huge bonus.
And finally, as of late, the new sort-of replacement is USB sticks (in a broader sense, iPods included).
But either way, there has never been a real replacement for floppy disks. There has never been something that was quite as versatile and simple. And your argument of legacy support works, too: USB sticks don't really work when your computer doesn't have easily accessible USB ports (such as on the front), hardly work in a useful manner when you only have USB 1.1 and don't work at all when you don't have USB at all. DVD-RAMs are hardly supported in any drive, DVD+Rs and DVD+RWs aren't supported even in my iBook from mid-2002, DVD-Rs and DVD-RWs aren't supported in every DVD drive either and CD-RWs and CD-Rs aren't supported by every optical drive. Zip disks require a zip drive. Jaz disks require a jaz drive. Zip 250 disks require a zip250 drive and aren't backwards-compatible.
So if Apple were to go by your suggestion and follow your exact argument, they would have to re-add the floppy drive.
Really not trying to be a jerk here, as there are a number of people that seem to be taking this discussion personally. But can you tell me how you do that through Finder? I am really interested in learning. Thanks in advance.
- Jay
He wasn't speaking of FTP or anything Internet-related, but something for the local network.
Really not trying to be a jerk here, as there are a number of people that seem to be taking this discussion personally. But can you tell me how you do that through Finder? I am really interested in learning. Thanks in advance.
- Jay
For the server computer:
System Preferences > Sharing > FTP Access
Then, take note of it's IP address.
From another computer:
Choose "Go" in the Menu bar in Finder then connect to server.
Enter the computer's IP address.
Enter name and Password
Done!
And no, it's not on a local network. I can get to my iMac's files from anywhere I have internet access.
And no, it's not on a local network. I can get to my iMac's files from anywhere I have internet access.
But without write access.
But without write access.
Wait, I have personal file sharing on too. It connects using afp://
THEN I'm able to read/write. Sorry.
Looks like we're getting far enough along in December that PathFinder will be a "Christmas Present"....http://www.cocoatech.com/pf4/
intlplby
2005-12-17, 18:59
i don't think the floppy drive is exactly a fair analogy.... hardware vs software is very different......
adding a floppy drive to every computer costs money for every single computer and adds a relatively large amount of bulk.... let's say 5% volume increase just for shits and giggles....
adding ftp costs money for the one week it takes apple to implement it... it gives the benefit of legacy support.... but beyond that one week of expense it adds no cost to the bottom line for all intents and purposes...... it's pretty much added functionality at no cost... there's no good reason not to add it.... plus it also doesn't add but maybe 500kb to 2mb to the size of the finder, in terms of hard disk space that is irrelevant
using the floppy disk as a rebuttal is a straw man argument
i don't think the floppy drive is exactly a fair analogy.... hardware vs software is very different......
adding a floppy drive to every computer costs money for every single computer and adds a relatively large amount of bulk.... let's say 5% volume increase just for shits and giggles....
An internal floppy drive can be had for $5, for a consumer. Apple could probably get it for $1 at a 100,000 volume discount.
Price is not the issue. Space is not the issue. No, the issue is forcing consumers to move on.
it gives the benefit of legacy support
Backwards-compatibility is not necessarily a benefit.
So you argue that "software and hardware is very different". Fine, do you argue, then, that Apple should support AppleShare over AppleTalk in Tiger? Do you argue that Apple should support IPX? Or NetBIOS/NetBEUI?
Could someone then please force my Windows centric school to move on from plain ol' ftp? As far as I'm concerned Apple can go anywhere they wan't, but if the rest of the world doesn't move along with it, whats the point?
Somenone needs to go over to chief software architect Bill G and tell his fat cheeseburger eating ass to get at a move on :p
Untill that I demand ftp support! Ah, well, I guess I can use one of the many client programs :rolleyes:
drewprops
2005-12-18, 08:02
The transparency Chucker mentions is indeed exactly what we expect. I don't give a flying hoot what the file transfer mechanism is as long as it works. I'm ignorant of the file transfer technologies available but would be quite happy if they were stitched into the Finder's behavior. I personally think that the Finder's FTP abilities are "buried" at the level of "Go" on the menubar... partially because I think of FTP as a special relationship between my machine and a remote computer, not just as an invisible file transfer technology. There ought to be some clever way of making it more comprehensible to the average user... give the remote server's window a different hue from standard finder windows, steal the dual-pane transfer window from other programs that use that analogy, add some sort of "on/off" feel to the process.
If they're going to do it, why shouldn't they do it correctly? Is there in fact some reason why they shouldn't go to the trouble? Is FTP in fact so dated that it will be left behind sometime in the near future? Which of the other file transfer / remote networking services has a longer life expectancy, and why shouldn't Apple add this to the OS if it would only take a week of development (which as we all know wouldn't even be enough time to get everyone's schedules aligned for a sit-down meeting on the subject ;) ).
The only bad thing I could see with this would be the freezeout of good developers like the folks who make Transmit, Fetch, etc.
I'm not sure what this means for the finder, but the OS X open command recognizes "ssh://<hostname>" as a protocol. Funnily enough "sftp://" doesnt work.
for those that are curious...
In the terminal, type "open ssh://<hostname>" and the terminal will spawn a new window with a ssh session.
Is this a sign the next finder will have built in ssh support ?
Is there a way to find all the protocols "open" supports ?
I'm not sure what this means for the finder, but the OS X open command recognizes "ssh://<hostname>" as a protocol. Funnily enough "sftp://" doesnt work.
for those that are curious...
In the terminal, type "open ssh://<hostname>" and the terminal will spawn a new window with a ssh session.
Is this a sign the next finder will have built in ssh support ?
Er, in what way? SSH is just a means to securely control another computer. It doesn't directly have to do with file transfer. You mean either SCP, SFTP or something else on top of SSH (such as Rsync).
I think not.
Is there a way to find all the protocols "open" supports ?
LaunchServices, I guess.
Er, in what way? SSH is just a means to securely control another computer. It doesn't directly have to do with file transfer. You mean either SCP, SFTP or something else on top of SSH (such as Rsync).
I think not.
LaunchServices, I guess.
I thought it was odd that they had specified behaviour for the ssh:// URL but not sftp://
It caught my eye because in KDE you can type sftp://<hostname> into konqeuror and it will allow you to browse same as FTP. I was thinking maybe they had started laying the framework for that kind of functionality.
I tried looking for a playlist or configuration file for LaunchServices but I couldn't find one, any ideas?
That KDE functionality is based on KDE's VFS, so it can't easily be implemented on OS X.
And RCDefaultApp should help you.
That KDE functionality is based on KDE's VFS, so it can't easily be implemented on OS X.
And RCDefaultApp should help you.
That is a totally sweet app, good find :)
hello everyone
happy new year and such... :)
hello everyone – long time reader – first post ;)
this thread has its rights and I'm ALL for a revamped finder. Lots of the problems have allready been mentoned. Like FTP-(not)supprot, responsiveness, multithreading (->network) and so on....
It really made me wonder – APPLE with all it's bells and whistles – but the backbone //the Finder// sux big time?? How comes??
I hope not to disappoint, but I axidentially found the following thread on http://www.macrumors.com/
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=165893&page=7
look for posts from RacerX
I think he gives a good insight of how the things work behind the scene. And it is related to the problems we discuss here in this thread.
"Another important behind the scenes development was that the big name developers didn't trust Apple when it came to Carbon. They felt that Carbon was going to be a second class environment compared to Cocoa. So to prove to developers that Apple believed in Carbon as much as Cocoa they decided to base the most important application in the system on Carbon... the Finder. Of course, Carbon wasn't ready for prime time when Mac OS X shipped (and the Finder showed this weakness off in spades), but by the time 10.2 was release Carbon had become a virtual equal to Cocoa as Apple had promised."
If you are interested in the developements about Cocoa I suggest you read the entire theread –really interesting– .
So – having written all this (hehe, not the quotes and those are a big part) I have to contribute to the main theme of the site: rumors ...
I have no *friend of a friend who works for....* nor other sources, but my prediction is that the revamp of the finder has to wait till at least 10.5.
And this is no good as seen in this thread. I'm for: Finder must be based on Cocoa NOW!!! (mail this to Steve if you want..)
sorry for the long post and small point I made but I found it worth it :-)
I wish everyone health and luck in 2006. May (attention another quote): *The Quad Be With Us* (from a sig.) in the year of Intel – sorry – 2006.
alex
Welcome to AppleNova, alexus! :)
It really made me wonder – APPLE with all it's bells and whistles – but the backbone //the Finder// sux big time?? How comes??
The Finder was supposed to be the poster child of "Carbonization" back when Mac OS X was first released. It was Apple's demonstration of "eating own dog food" (Steve's term, not mine) and embracing the new Carbon API, despite its newness and incompleteness at the time five years ago. At the time, though, Cocoa was also missing some feature that the "transitional" Carbon API already supported; so, that wasn't really the best option either.
Since then, Finder has seen some major [i]performance improvements, but its design has gone down the tubes. We can only speculate that Apple hasn't invested as much serious R&D in the Finder because it wasn't important enough to warrant the costs. There have been other much more exciting technologies like the iLife and iWork apps, the Core* APIs, Spotlight, and so forth. Hopefully when Apple slows the release cycle of Mac OS X, the developers will take some of that time to invest it properly rewriting the Finder.
SpecMode
2005-12-31, 21:18
On the subject of Path Finder 4...there seems to have been a "short delay", and it should be released "very very soon (really!)". Here's hoping the delay is on the order of days, and not weeks/months.
thegeriatric
2006-08-10, 17:53
Bastard. :D
Got to give credit where credit is due. It worked didn't it. :D
thegeriatric
2006-08-10, 17:56
Okay, you've opened a floodgate. Stand back...
Metadata. The use of metadata in the current Finder is a pale flicker of a shadow of what's possible. Windows already does a better job of this. Look to BeOS for some inspiration. For crying out loud, you hired the designer of Be's filesystem.
Offer variable icon spacing. The default is way too wide unless you're blind and use the 128px-size icons.
Make WebDAV/iDisk transfers move data faster than I can type it over a telegraph. It can't be too hard; see Transmit and Goliath.
Make directory listing faster, especially on network devices. You have a placeholder icon in the system. USE IT.
Stop resizing the sidebar every time some drive/DMG with a long name mounts. I set it to a certain size for a reason.
Spotlight integration. Scrap the whole UI and start over. This monstrosity (http://media.arstechnica.com/images/tiger/finder-smart-folder.mov) should have been aborted long before any sort of release candidacy.
Regarding the previous item, I STILL CAN'T CLICK TO THE LEFT OF THE TEXT IN THE SEARCH FIELD. WTF.
Also regarding the previous, 1) searches should not overtake a window if it is not frontmost and 2) there needs to be an easier way of escaping a search and returning to what you were looking at.
Why is there a tiny clickable "reload" button in the bottom right of the window when my search field is blank? Get rid of it.
Make the interface actually accessible with the tab key. If I was handicapped, I would have to resort to typing Terminal commands (or using a Windows machine, regrettably) to get things done because the Finder is so bad in this area.
Get rid of the idiotic nonstandard horizontal "menu item" thing for setting labels. Regarding the previous item, it's IMPOSSIBLE to set a label on an item without very carefully mousing over a tiny square. Every single normal menu item everywhere else in the system responds to arrow keys except the special label thing. What idiot designed that thing anyway? What dodderhead in the UI department decided that you should interrupt a rapid vertical stroke with a pause for slow horizontal precision into such minscule areas?
The labels themselves: a joke. Classic Mac OS's tinting did a better job. Try using labels in list view. It's a mess.
Desktop icon text looks fine on dark backgrounds. It looks terrible on white or light backgrounds.
The drive size on the desktop STILL doesn't update EVER. This has been reported yet completely untouched since the earliest pre-release 10.3 builds!
The toolbar toggle widget is a joke.
Expect for spring-lodaded folders (which were late to the party anyway, as I recall), column view has been untouched since before Apple bought the OS from NeXT and made it into Mac OS X. Give it some options, for crying out loud.
Why is the toolbar and menu icon for the "computer" the sunflower iMac G4? Why can't some genius put together a dozen icons and a few lines of code to actually set the icon based on what kind of computer the user has? Heck, a no-name developer did this very thing several years ago. Why can't you, Apple? I don't own an iMac G4, I never have, and I never will. Why am I looking at its icon?
Fix the undo. Too often it forgets the very last thing I did.
When I drag a window proxy and release it over a non-target, why does it shoot to the top of the screen? It shouldn't. Fix it.
Why can't I drag the proxy for the trash? It's a folder just like any other.
When I change the default application for a document, don't just change the icon for one's I haven't seen in this session; change them all immediately!
When I change the default application for a document, present a dialog that actually makes sense.
Why does Spotlight Comments get a gaudy bright blue bar in the info window? It should be like every other disclosure triangle.
In the info window, fix the behavior of the Ownership & Permissions block. It works most of the time for things I already own. It rarely works properly for things that I don't own (yet I've authenticated and should be able to change).
That's it; I'm cutting myself off! I could keep going on, but thinking about all these problems is so frustrating and... bad thoughts... BAD THOUGHTS. :mad:
So Brad. Suffice to say it's not perfect then? :lol:
dmegatool
2006-08-12, 15:15
Okay, you've opened a floodgate. Stand back...
Offer variable icon spacing. The default is way too wide unless you're blind and use the 128px-size icons.
Seems like you got it ! http://techpedia.org/a/90 (one of the last screenshot)
LudwigVan
2006-08-12, 17:38
Unfortunately, those screen captures are gone now.
Got to give credit where credit is due. It worked didn't it. :D
I think you're about 3/4 of a year late. Please check post dates before bumping threads!
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.