OSNews

Reload the page and you should be able see them.

yT have surpassed Be's sales figures 3 times over according to Bernd.

amazing what advertising, even on a shopping channel will do for sales.

Tracker preferences, disable Single Window Browse, and the old spatial Tracker is back.

The fact that they made non-spatial default still seems to alienate the original BeOS design, which was largely based around the very well designed mac os classic UI, without all the technical crappiness. If only apple had acquired BeOS instead of NeXT--it might've kept them from destroying the UI like they did with OS X.

-bytecoder

The Mac Classic interface was well designed for 1984, by 2005 its utterly unusable. Spatial file managment is a joke on modern systems - try delving into the /boot/home/config/* heirarchy on a BeOS system with a spatial file manager. Not possible on a small monitor without going insane.

The right click to move to/link to/copy to/etc functions are all still there, no matter wheter the single-window-browse is activated or not.

The Mac Classic interface was well designed for 1984, by 2005 its utterly unusable.

What did you base that on?

Spatial file managment is a joke on modern systems - try delving into the /boot/home/config/* heirarchy on a BeOS system with a spatial file manager.

So your blaming something caused by a broken hierarchy on spatial interfaces? I'm using spatial nautilus right now, and I don't see any problems with it, even though the linux hierarchy is generally way too deep.

Not possible on a small monitor without going insane.

I'd rather have to deal with a lot of stuff visually than a lot of stuff in my head. The brain is much better at recognizing geometric patterns than it is textual, which currently isn't being exploited to its fullest, even in spatial file managers (why do all my folders look the same?!).

Stop me if I'm wrong, but it looks as though you haven't given spatial file managers much of a chance, as most people who don't like it do.

-bytecoder

What people are forgetting here is that Zeta ain't designed for die-hard uber-geeks. It's designed for 'normal' people, and hence a browsing file manager is better, because that's what these people are used to.

Period.

The discussion which paradigm is better without this 'being-used-to-browsing' is another matter, of course.

What people are forgetting here is that Zeta ain't designed for die-hard uber-geeks. It's designed for 'normal' people, and hence a browsing file manager is better, because that's what these people are used to.

Period.

Actually, I think you're overemphasizing how much regular users care about file management. If this were true, then nobody would ever have changed to browser-mode in the first place, since windows 95 basically had a (really crappy) spatial file manager. I find it unlikely that even the people that used win 95 the most were so disturbed with the change that they couldn't use it at all. Now how many windows users do you think use browser-mode windows explorer now? Probably about 99.9%, which suggests that people don't really care. The fact that they're using browser interfaces right now is merely the biproduct of using windows, which they do for other reasons.


The discussion which paradigm is better without this 'being-used-to-browsing' is another matter, of course.

Not by much.

-bytecoder

Regarding Spartial interfaces; wouldn't it it be correct to assume that if one were delving deep into the hierachy, that they're actually getting right into the system itself, therefore, what they're doing could be potentially done more efficiently by opening up a shell and punching in the required commands?

I mean, with a *NIX system, if you are Joe End User(tm), there should be no reason to leave the /home/user directory for anything.

The brain is much better at recognizing geometric patterns than it is textual

I agree with that, but I don't think that it's really practical in terms of filemanagement especially not when you have >100 documents. How would that be represented?
And spatial filemanagers are pretty far away from that concept anyway. While the idea of them makes sense it doesn't really make sense in practice because very few people realise how they are designed and why. And even if you explain it to them most people will just turn their heads and say "huh?".

I was very pleased when OpenTracker got singlewindow mode. The only thing that made the regular tracker usable compared to other spatial managers was the contextmenu browsing. And trust me, I have given spatial a chance. Many chances actually. I've also gone through other kinds of filesystem navigation, pies and trees for example. Because I'm always eager to find a "better way".
But it always feels more natural for me to navigate the filesystem with a single window in listmode.

I agree with that, but I don't think that it's really practical in terms of filemanagement especially not when you have >100 documents. How would that be represented?

As a bunch of icons? The point I was trying to make is that people can see differences in position, shape, size, etc. much more easily and quickly than they can with things like text. One of the biggest UI elements that use this the least are the folder icons, since they all look the same you have to go by the name of the folder. "Tog on Software Design" (or maybe it was in "Tog on Interface") shows a great example using this effect--have the folder icon incorporate other types of metadata, e.g. make it look old depending on its age, cobwebs for last time it was opened, etc. Aside from obviously showing those properties, it also creates a much more unique identity for a given folder, making it easier to pick out.

You can sort of do this in gnome with emblems, but you have to do it manually, and it's really only worth your time to do it for your top level folders (see http://67.175.144.120/~bytecoder/screenshots/spatial.png).

That's ridiculous! Do you think everyone had 21" monitors back in 1984??? Contrary to what the anti-spatial advocates might spout, the BeOS GUI was extremely usable and stayed OUT of your way. The small window borders you could grab anywhere to move, the small tabbed title bar... every object, every window was designed to minimize the use of space, and logically represent each folder.

The Deskbar was unobtrusive as well.

As you mentioned, the menu system was good. The contextual menu system was perfect and at least you knew where all your files would be located, as the FS layout for programs was quite consistent.

I think the majority of people today don't want spacial file browsers.

I personally hate spacial file browsers, opening one window just to have to go back to the other to close it, that's a waste of my time. They may work for you, but I'm glad they're optinal. All that hype around spacial file browsers hasn't changed my opinion at all, I still think they're the worst UI design ever concieved.

Windows, KDE, OS X and now Zeta default to a non-spacial mode, that looks to me like a clear indication that I'm not alone in my dislike for spacial file browsers. So why set the least preffered option as the default?

I think the majority of people today don't want spacial file browsers.

I personally hate spacial file browsers, opening one window just to have to go back to the other to close it, that's a waste of my time. They may work for you, but I'm glad they're optinal. All that hype around spacial file browsers hasn't changed my opinion at all, I still think they're the worst UI design ever concieved.

I've already responded to this. The majority of people today don't even know what a spatial file browser is, let alone whether or not they'd like it. Like I said before, most normal people don't really notice the difference. Once you start getting into the "power user" realm, where it's actually considered an issue, opinions rub off on people, usually opinions hastily formed based on 2 minutes with a spatial file manager. Others are just too stubborn to try anything else, suffering from "good enough" syndrome.


Windows, KDE, OS X and now Zeta default to a non-spacial mode, that looks to me like a clear indication that I'm not alone in my dislike for spacial file browsers. So why set the least preffered option as the default?

You're not alone, but your in the minority in the general public.

-bytecoder

oops, meant "spatial file manager."

IMO, the best solution is in two pane File Browsers that allow people to view two different folders at the same time(like some old ones I've seen) of course, leaving it to the user to enable or disable this feature easily.

IMO, the best solution is in two pane File Browsers that allow people to view two different folders at the same time(like some old ones I've seen) of course, leaving it to the user to enable or disable this feature easily.

What would be better is a spatial version of that: directory structures as tree-structures when folded out or automatically, with optionally files as leaves as well. Add the option to get multiple panes, and you'd have the perfect file browser/manager.

Spatial browsers are mostly disliked because most desktops default to the icon view of files, and have one window pop up over another and obscuring 90% of the previous window automatically makes that previous window 90% useless. The one thing Windows 95 actually had over tracker IMO was that you could get at the various windows in 1 click instead of 2.

I disagree with you, people will notice the diference. It is very important the first impression for new users and the spatial browsing will be the first thing that will annoy them. And yes, lots of people prefer single browsing, you can't deny this. I haven't liked this in Windows 95. I tried to use spatial browsing in GNOME, however it wasn't very convenient. What is more, it is not a problem, because you always can return spatial browsing by one click if you like this.

What exactly are you basing this on? I think you're severly overestimating how much end users actually care about such things. As long as they can do what they want, they could care less whether the interface is spatial, browsable, or eatable.

"The majority of people today don't even know what a spatial file browser is, let alone whether or not they'd like it."

Actually it wasn't that long ago that most operating systems used spacial file browsers. The reason file browsers are no longer spacial is because that was inconvenient for most people compared to non-spacial file browsers.

"Like I said before, most normal people don't really notice the difference. Once you start getting into the "power user" realm, where it's actually considered an issue"

I'm a power user, and I can't stand the spacial view in file browsers. You're generalizing to make it sound like the majority want spacial browsers, but if they did don't you think it would still be the default?

"usually opinions hastily formed based on 2 minutes with a spatial file manager. Others are just too stubborn to try anything else, suffering from "good enough" syndrome."

So it they actually tried it for an extended period of time they would miraculously like it as if it were better? Not likely. Spacial views are not better for everyone, some people like it, others don't.

"You're not alone, but your in the minority in the general public. "

I'm not the minority, you are. Otherwise why is it that most commonly used file browsers today default to the browser view? It wouldn't make sense to please the minority and inconvenience the majority now would it.

Gnome is the only desktop to date that I can name which still uses the spacial view, and still several gnome users choose to switch it back to the browser view.

Yes some people preffer the spacial view, but no they are absolutely not a majority.

"The majority of people today don't even know what a spatial file browser is, let alone whether or not they'd like it."

Actually it wasn't that long ago that most operating systems used spacial file browsers. The reason file browsers are no longer spacial is because that was inconvenient for most people compared to non-spacial file browsers.

"Like I said before, most normal people don't really notice the difference. Once you start getting into the "power user" realm, where it's actually considered an issue"

I'm a power user, and I can't stand the spacial view in file browsers. You're generalizing to make it sound like the majority want spacial browsers, but if they did don't you think it would still be the default?

"usually opinions hastily formed based on 2 minutes with a spatial file manager. Others are just too stubborn to try anything else, suffering from "good enough" syndrome."

So it they actually tried it for an extended period of time they would miraculously like it as if it were better? Not likely. Spacial views are not better for everyone, some people like it, others don't.

"You're not alone, but your in the minority in the general public. "

I'm not the minority, you are. Otherwise why is it that most commonly used file browsers today default to the browser view? It wouldn't make sense to please the minority and inconvenience the majority now would it.

Gnome is the only desktop to date that I can name which still uses the spacial view, and still several gnome users choose to switch it back to the browser view.

Yes some people preffer the spacial view, but no they are absolutely not a majority.

Well, this is getting boring. You obviously don't get it, and I'm not going to restate exactly what I just said, so I guess this discussion is done. You might've learned something, but oh well

"Well, this is getting boring. You obviously don't get it"

That's very arrogant, I could easily say the same thing about you but I didn't.

"You might've learned something, but oh well "

I learned that you're very arrogant, you have the makings of a troll from what I've observed. You can't accept that you're wrong on some topics and when you know you're beat you pretend to casually walk away while patronising the people you didn't agree with in your last post.

The simple fact that so many people disagreed with you is proof enough that you were wrong, and still you insisted on pretending that your fantasy of spacial browsers being everyone's favourites was fact. If you can't see that then you need to take five, and then read over the entire thread again, hopefully then you'll see where you started going wrong.

>>Who in the world is designing this thing
Somebody who knows OSX pretty well... Check the possibility to search in the preferences panel. Did they implement a little spotlight showing the results as well?

So you're congratulating them for reinventing something already present in tracker instead of actually using tracker? I fail to see how this is a good thing.

-bytecoder

It is possible. Kinda at least. You can specify what preferences entry you wanna start with. "Preferences Screensaver" for example.

Sounda like a local proxy is caching the page for you.
You may be able to force a refresh with shift-F5.

Personally, the fastest and easiest way to manage files have always been a Norton Commander like interface..

Heh. You keep thinking that...

-bytecoder

Be, Inc closed doors 4 years ago. Get over it. If you don't like Zeta, fine, then don't use it. Get a Mac, Ubuntu or XP if you feel that these are better, or stay with R5 forever if you insist on sliding tabs.

I don't understand why this prevents us from having a perfectly rational discussion about it... That's a nice little tactic you tried there, though--make us sound like we're whining and you become the good guy. Well, except we're not whining.

People have differing opinions and discuss things that you might not like, get over it. If you don't like our discussion, fine, then don't read it.

-bytecoder