Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 21st Dec 2010 00:09 UTC
Mac OS X It's a public secret that there are many people with complaints about Mac OS X's Finder. It lacks several features common to other file managers, and on top of that, it has several issues with dealing with some types of network shares (SAMBA, specifically). While third parties can't fix the bugs, they can extend the Finder's feature set. TotalFinder is a collection of Finder extensions that tries to bring some of Google Chrome's interface ideas to the Finder. BinaryAge was kind enough to provide me with a free license so I could give a quick review of TotalFinder.
Order by: Score:
Didn't realize 'Finder' was so bland...
by cmost on Tue 21st Dec 2010 00:52 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Wow, I didn't realize that 'Finder' was so vanilla. It's nice to see open source projects like Chrome, Nautilus Elementary, and Dolphin inspiring Mac developers to borrow features from the best of the best!

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Wow, I didn't realize that 'Finder' was so vanilla. It's nice to see open source projects like Chrome, Nautilus Elementary, and Dolphin inspiring Mac developers to borrow features from the best of the best!


I'm actually a bit stunned to see that Finder is so far behind. Windows explorer is not much cop either. Dolphin slaughters them both.

Thom, you are saying you are willing to pay USD 15 just to bring Finder out of the dark ages to be somewhere sadly trailing behind in the dust of some other file managers like Dolphin, and yet you seem to be of the opinion that open source desktop software lacks polish compared to commercial desktop OSes like Mac OSX and Windows 7?

Thom, do try to pay some attention to what is going on! Wake up and smell the coffee!

Reply Score: 7

ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Thom, you are saying you are willing to pay USD 15 just to bring Finder out of the dark ages to be somewhere sadly trailing behind in the dust of some other file managers like Dolphin


Bring Dolphin to the mac and i'll be happy too.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Thom, you are saying you are willing to pay USD 15 just to bring Finder out of the dark ages to be somewhere sadly trailing behind in the dust of some other file managers like Dolphin


Bring Dolphin to the mac and i'll be happy too.
"

Dolphin's wikipedia page says it works on OSX.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28software%29

However, reference link #1 seems to be a dead link.

I'm afraid I don't know what to suggest.

Reply Score: 2

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"Wow, I didn't realize that 'Finder' was so vanilla. It's nice to see open source projects like Chrome, Nautilus Elementary, and Dolphin inspiring Mac developers to borrow features from the best of the best!


I'm actually a bit stunned to see that Finder is so far behind. Windows explorer is not much cop either.
"

Finder is a blend of the OpenStep Workspace Manager (from where the shelf, column view and such come from) and Mac OS classic finder (which IIRC did not do "cut" anyway.) It's not "behind the times", it uses a different paradigm for moving files*... wow. It doesn't use ugly tabs.. again - so what? Nothing added by this app is going to change the way I work. I simply reject your reality and substitute my own.

* So how does one move files? A number of ways. All based on Drag and drop. If you drag a file on to a folder, that folder opens (this includes drives on the desktop).. shocking!! You simply drag the file to the correct location - or use the shelf to store the target folder, or use the desktop as an extra step. Or even, and this works on Windows too, open two file windows and drag between them!! This is the way I generally work in Windows as I shun the awful treeview Windows uses in explorer. None of this warrants adding a whole extra level of complication to the UI just to please Windows users.

Reply Score: 4

chmeee Member since:
2006-01-10

Problem is, the Finder castrated the OPENSTEP paradigm when they got rid of the Shelf. The sidebar is nothing like the Shelf, and completely useless for moving files around.

Short: I want my shelf back!

Reply Score: 6

henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

If I could vote you up, I would. Shelf ruled. Sidebar, kind of works. Not in the same league though.

Reply Score: 2

Governa Member since:
2006-04-09

Problem is, the Finder castrated the OPENSTEP paradigm when they got rid of the Shelf. The sidebar is nothing like the Shelf, and completely useless for moving files around.

Short: I want my shelf back!


Not quite the same but... in many ways a replacement for the old NeXT shelf:
http://homepage.mac.com/khsu/XShelf/XShelf.html

Been using it for years, love it! One of the first things I install on every new Mac.

Reply Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Drag and drop is a pain in the tucus. Bmoving form one directory to a directory farther away is cumbersome, requiring me to hold a mouse button down for a while. Some old school mac people are used to it because there is no other option, but don't pretend its the best option.


Cut and paste is much easier, as long as you're comfortable with the the idea of a clipboard holding a file. Drag and drop is visually more intuitive, but this isn't 1985 anymore. This is definitely the one mouse button again. Apple refuses to add an option that woudl make things easier today, because it would have confused new users 25 years ago.

Reply Score: 4

roger64 Member since:
2006-08-15

I published your link to our Ubuntu French forum and we had a good laugh.

Well, hopefully, if everything goes well, the future Finder will look like yesterday Nautilus.

Congratulations for such a find. There will be a patent for it, for sure... it deserves it

Thanks again for sharing the joke.

Reply Score: 0

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

Wow, I didn't realize that 'Finder' was so vanilla. It's nice to see open source projects like Chrome, Nautilus Elementary, and Dolphin inspiring Mac developers to borrow features from the best of the best!



Then again most of these features were in Openstep 4.0 Beta aka MECCA that never got released, back in 1995.

Reply Score: 2

Finder has problems...
by sigzero on Tue 21st Dec 2010 01:55 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

But those tabs are fugly. That isn't the way to fix finder.

Reply Score: 4

mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

I just went searching in Windows (XP thru 7) and couldn't find any of these features other than Cut / Paste, and as there is no single unified Linux filemanager environment used by all variations of Linux I'm not sure which ones I should be looking at for these other "common" file managers, so I'm intrigued as to why you think Apple need to "fix" it?

There are other actual filemanagers you can run, or addons like this one if you want that functionality. I refer to my comment the other day, why should they "fix" something they don't believe is broken? Especially if it's only to add "features" that may only be important to a very small percentage of users.

The only one of those functions I personally find any value in is Cut / Paste but I have a droplet to allow me to do that anyway, so meh.

Reply Score: 1

stabbyjones Member since:
2008-04-15

How about access to the actual file system?

Reply Score: 3

Kasi Member since:
2008-07-12

I would actually argue that the Finder does give access to most of the actual file-system. The BSD-derived file system as seen from the Terminal is largely ignored by OSX.

You can test this out by making changes in the /etc directory. The changes make only effect the BSD user-land and not the rest of the operating system.

Instead most of OS X defers to Netinfo's binary database in versions <10.4.11 and to Directory Utility binary database in version 10.5+.

Edited 2010-12-21 03:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Kasi
by Kasi on Tue 21st Dec 2010 02:58 UTC
Kasi
Member since:
2008-07-12

This kind of creative cross patching is only possible because of the work of open source software developers. Their willingness to release their work for others to use in new creative ways should be given more attention.

If Chrome was a closed source project, BinaryAge would have a much harder time making these changes than they already do.

Reply Score: 4

Orthodox file manager
by ebasconp on Tue 21st Dec 2010 05:58 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I'm stuck with muCommander in my mac.

I know, it goes behind Total Commander or Krusader; but it does its work ;)

Reply Score: 2

Go Totalfinder!
by pandronic on Tue 21st Dec 2010 07:00 UTC
pandronic
Member since:
2006-05-18

I've been using it since the beta days and let me tell you that it's a real blessing. The lack of Cut, folders first and ability to show hidden files almost made me sell my brand new Mac two years ago.

Also, tabs are a nice addition, which makes sense given Apple's window management paradigm. If they insist to have only one icon (entry on the Dock) for each application then it makes sense to constrain all applications in one window.

I really don't understand why Apple didn't implement this features themselves (given the fact that they recently rewrote Finder to use Cocoa). For fuck's sake ... it's not even finished - the Cut option is there, but it's grayed out.

But I guess Steve has a master plan that shouldn't be questioned - the plan to have the worst file management on all popular platforms. Users don't need files, users need Apps.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Go Totalfinder!
by Neolander on Tue 21st Dec 2010 07:57 UTC in reply to "Go Totalfinder!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

But I guess Steve has a master plan that shouldn't be questioned - the plan to have the worst file management on all popular platforms. Users don't need files, users need Apps.

Meet iOSX ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE: Go Totalfinder!
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 24th Dec 2010 14:12 UTC in reply to "Go Totalfinder!"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

But I guess Steve has a master plan that shouldn't be questioned - the plan to have the worst file management on all popular platforms. Users don't need files, users need Apps.


That's it in a nutshell. And if you use apps to manage your files instead of a file manager, then Apple can lock you into their apps by storing nearly all metadata in closed formats that can only be read by Apple software.

Reply Score: 2

Lack of "folders first"??!!
by rafaelmet on Tue 21st Dec 2010 08:26 UTC
rafaelmet
Member since:
2010-12-21

Lack of "cut & paste" is really painful sometimes. Maybe I'll try to write something during Christmas time.

About missing "folders first" option. Maybe I'm missing something here (correct me if I'm wrong), but you're thinking about this?

https://img.skitch.com/20101221-2m75ftpi5f8nk1q78krdxuah7.jpg

Just click "Size" tab in Finder's window and you've got your folders first.

Happy Holidays!!! ;)

p.s. I know my English is bad, but it's not my native language.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lack of "folders first"??!!
by pandronic on Tue 21st Dec 2010 08:45 UTC in reply to "Lack of "folders first"??!!"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Just click "Size" tab in Finder's window and you've got your folders first.


Sure, or you could add a space in front of the word "Folder" in "InfoPlist.string" and then sort by "Kind", but why bother with these terrible workarounds? I mean, it's not like we're asking for the Sun and the Moon. It's just something that every file manager out there has.

Lack of "cut & paste" is really painful sometimes. Maybe I'll try to write something during Christmas time.


Check out moveAddict ( http://kapeli.com/ )

Reply Score: 2

rafaelmet Member since:
2010-12-21

But if I want "Folders first" I just click "Size".

Do I really need a separate option for that? Why clutter GUI with another button?

The only real problem I've got with Finder is it's "replace 'feature'". Replacing whole folder when I just want to move a few files. That's a pain!

Reply Score: 2

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

But if I want "Folders first" I just click "Size".


Yeah, but then you'll have all your files sorted by size rather than by name.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Lack of "folders first"??!!
by WereCatf on Tue 21st Dec 2010 10:12 UTC in reply to "Lack of "folders first"??!!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

About missing "folders first" option. Maybe I'm missing something here (correct me if I'm wrong), but you're thinking about this?

https://img.skitch.com/20101221-2m75ftpi5f8nk1q78krdxuah7.jpg

Just click "Size" tab in Finder's window and you've got your folders first.


That's a rather lame work-around. I atleast prefer to have folders first, then all the files in alphabetic order. But with your work-around the files wouldn't anymore be sorted by their alphabetic order.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Lack of "folders first"??!!
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 10:34 UTC in reply to "Lack of "folders first"??!!"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

About missing "folders first" option.


I prefer everything in alphabetical order, so honestly, I don't care that the folders are first or last. I think it's like "Focus Follows Mouse"... totally depends on your own personal preference and as to how you learnt to interact with your desktop.

Reply Score: 1

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Fair enough, whatever works best for you. The main complaint though is that there should be an option to switch between the two ways. But as we all know, Apple has a short supply of switches.

Reply Score: 2

MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Exactly! For me "folders first" is one of the major annoyance in Windows Explorer. E. g. having some 1000 folders *and* files in a FS based repo and you want to quickly navigate to the first FILE starting with "org. apache", you simply entering the first letters 'org' which brings you *MEEP - ZERO POINTS FOR EXPLORER* to the first FOLDER starting with the 'org'. From there, you manually scroll down some hundred entries till you get to the file part.

So TotalFinder might be good for the people that like Finder to behave like they are used to from some other file manager but that does not make Finder a broken piece of software. Most long term Mac users have a rather different view on such things.

Care to explain what folder first is good for, anyway?

Edited 2010-12-21 18:44 UTC

Reply Score: 4

pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Well, for me folders are for organization and files are for content, so it makes sense to have them separated. Also, if I need some files that are buried in 5 levels of folders and these folders are also full with files, it's nice to be able to navigate quickly.

So, to sum it up ... files and folders are different and mean different things and don't belong mixed.

On the other hand I've just checked your example, and Windows Explorer in Win7 matches the first file OR folder after the cursor.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Lack of "folders first"??!!
by Panajev on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Lack of "folders first"??!!"
Panajev Member since:
2008-01-09

Best of both worlds? Sort with folders first and sort folders and files by alphabetical order.

In other words, folders first and then sort each group (folder and files) by your favorite criteria (one criteria for both).

Reply Score: 2

Decent OFM
by darrelljon on Tue 21st Dec 2010 09:35 UTC
darrelljon
Member since:
2008-05-29

Give me a decent Orthodox File Manager anyday over Dolphin or so-called advanced file managers.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Decent OFM
by drstorm on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:50 UTC in reply to "Decent OFM"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Exactly!

Sorry, I can't vote you up, 'cause I already posted...

Reply Score: 2

v ;(
by xaeropower on Tue 21st Dec 2010 10:30 UTC
RE: ;(
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 10:35 UTC in reply to ";("
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Mac is for fags. Want total finder use.


Well, aren't you a charming waste of space ;-)

Reply Score: 0

BeOS tracker
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 10:41 UTC
henderson101
Member since:
2006-05-30

I think it is amusing that most of the things Thom is moaning about are also things that were exactly the same in BeOS R5.03 (one of his favoured OS.) The classic Tracker was actually more annoying, as it opened every folder in a new window (no way to stop it doing this without using a keyboard modifier) and did not support "copy" and "paste", let alone "cut". OpenTracker has addressed some of these issues, but pure vanilla R5.03, as in BeOS as Be Inc intended it to be used, has more "flaws" that Finder in OS X. You know what though? I cut my teeth on BeOS, so I was used to all of this. When I moved to Mac, it was all the same - with some improvements. Sure I moved to OpenTracker (I was on PowerPC, so I used to build from source) but most of the crufty bloatware Windows features were left off. All I used to do was turn off the "open in new window" and add the navigation bar. All else was left "as-is". You know what? I survived.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BeOS tracker
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Dec 2010 11:16 UTC in reply to "BeOS tracker"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think it is amusing that most of the things Thom is moaning about are also things that were exactly the same in BeOS R5.03 (one of his favoured OS.)


I fail to see how "I like BeOS" means "Everything about the BeOS is awesome-super-duper".

Then again, I'm not used to being a fanboy like some others around here.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: BeOS tracker
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:05 UTC in reply to "RE: BeOS tracker"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

"I think it is amusing that most of the things Thom is moaning about are also things that were exactly the same in BeOS R5.03 (one of his favoured OS.)


I fail to see how "I like BeOS" means "Everything about the BeOS is awesome-super-duper".
"

Which is why I said "favoured" and not "awesome-super-duper-bestest-most-wonderous" OS. Favoured implies you like it a little more than other OS, nothing more.

Then again, I'm not used to being a fanboy like some others around here.


Well no. There are fanboys and then there are people that simply use the tools they are given and can't understand why others have an issue. Which are you? I'm most definately in the latter camp. I used to be a BeOS Fanboy, but that was another lifetime. I favour Mac above Windows, but I use both equally as much as each other these days.

Reply Score: 1

RE: BeOS tracker
by dragossh on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:12 UTC in reply to "BeOS tracker"
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Are you really comparing 2010's Finder with 2000's BeOS Tracker? My my, some standards we have...

Edited 2010-12-21 12:13 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BeOS tracker
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: BeOS tracker"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Are you really comparing 2010's Finder with 2000's BeOS Tracker? My my, some standards we have...


No. I'm stating that your perception is coloured by your environment.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: BeOS tracker
by MysterMask on Tue 21st Dec 2010 19:19 UTC in reply to "RE: BeOS tracker"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Are you really comparing 2010's Finder with 2000's BeOS Tracker? My my, some standards we have...


What's the problem about this? Old software does not have to be bad just because it's old. I actually liked the old Mac OS Finder (pre OS X) better than the new one (and both are miles better then any other file manager I used so far on any platform).

Of course, newer software might have some additional features but the basics - file management - stays the same and either works for you or it doesn't ..

Reply Score: 1

RE: BeOS tracker
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 21st Dec 2010 20:54 UTC in reply to "BeOS tracker"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The file manager is actually the one part of BeOS I didn't like.

Reply Score: 2

RE: BeOS tracker
by vault on Fri 24th Dec 2010 00:27 UTC in reply to "BeOS tracker"
vault Member since:
2005-09-15

Seems like Tracker used a concept called Spatial Navigation, which was very popular at the time. Opening of every folder in a separate window is a requirement of this concept. You really shouldn't compare it's features with Finder, which uses a completely different method.

Reply Score: 1

Spam?
by raburton on Tue 21st Dec 2010 11:29 UTC
raburton
Member since:
2008-03-25

BinaryAge was kind enough to provide me with a free license so I could give a quick review of TotalFinder.


Sounds like a good old paid-for review (aka a commercial).

Reply Score: 1

RE: Spam?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:24 UTC in reply to "Spam?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sounds like a good old paid-for review (aka a commercial).


Most websites who are not owned by large companies (Engadget, Gizmodo, Ars, etc. are all owned by large and rich parent companies) get their stuff this way. We're not rich you know, and OSNews doesn't make any money.

In this particular case, the answer is simpler. I don't have a credit card (it's a principle thing), so I couldn't wire the author those lousy 15 USD.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Spam?
by drstorm on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Spam?"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

Damn, I'm too late. I was about to write something like this:

"It seems to me that Thom wanted the Chrome-tabs-in-Finder app for free and figured out a way to get it."


Of course, It was meant to be a joke. I don't have a problem with this article. No unicorns; nothing's pink; serious stuff. ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Spam?
by righard on Tue 21st Dec 2010 15:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spam?"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

Watch the screenshots a little better ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Spam?
by drstorm on Tue 21st Dec 2010 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Spam?"
drstorm Member since:
2009-04-24

/facepalm

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Spam?
by SnowBuddha on Tue 21st Dec 2010 17:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Spam?"
SnowBuddha Member since:
2009-04-17

No unicorns? You obviously didn't look at the screenshots :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Spam?
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Spam?"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

In this particular case, the answer is simpler. I don't have a credit card (it's a principle thing), so I couldn't wire the author those lousy 15 USD.


To be fair to Thom - the author actually invites people to request a free license (that they "might" grant), and encourages reviewers to request one also.

Reply Score: 1

Open Source
by macinnisrr on Tue 21st Dec 2010 11:41 UTC
macinnisrr
Member since:
2009-11-12

Since I've been using linux as my daily desktop (about 5 years), I've used Konqueror, Dolphin, Nautilus and Thunar. All of these support not only all the features listed here, but also all the features (like drag/drop) you'll find in Finder or Explorer. Now, while I realize most people will never use all these features, why would anyone think it's a good thing to exclude them, especially when they're presumably so easy to implement? Of course everyone has their own way of working, but I firmly believe the best option is to support them all, first of all so that nobody has to learn a new way of doing things when switching systems, and second so that users can learn a new and potentially faster way of doing things if they so desire. Kudos to the developers of this software. Now if only Apple/Microsoft will take a hint...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Open Source
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:13 UTC in reply to "Open Source"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

why would anyone think it's a good thing to exclude them, especially when they're presumably so easy to implement?


Why do you assume that these features are necessary to function? That is the fundamental issue here. It's not that party A is lacking the features of party B. Not at all. It's all about finding analogues to specific functionality (aka. metaphorical "crutches") that a specific individual believes they can not live without. It's an eternal struggle that humanity seems to need to re-enact on multiple levels and through multiple subject matters, metaphors, paradigms and ideologies.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Open Source
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Blah blah blah excuses blah bah excuses blah blah.

Now go read Siracusa's countless Mac OS X reviews and his other articles on the Finder, and you'll see that even the greatest Mac OS X expert outside of Cupertino believes the Finder is a total turd that needs some serious work. I believe it was him, even, who coined the acronym "FTFF".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open Source
by henderson101 on Tue 21st Dec 2010 12:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Blah blah blah excuses blah bah excuses blah blah.


??? What excuses? That I'm happy with what I have? If that is an excuse to you, I proclaim you a "Foeboy".

Now go read Siracusa's countless Mac OS X reviews and his other articles on the Finder


If you want me to read these reviews, provide some links.

Little Thommy, you are entitled to your opinion, but in the grown up world you must realise that things are not always cut and dry. You hate Finder; that is *your* opinion - others might feel differently. One man's "turd" is another man's treasure. *shrugs*

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Open Source
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 21st Dec 2010 21:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14
RE[5]: Open Source
by Neolander on Tue 21st Dec 2010 21:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Open Source"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, I couldn't disagree more with him on some points, like the need for spatial file explorers and the need to carry around TWO file browsing metaphors (finder and browser).

But on the other hand... His idea of live searches is something which I've been thinking about for some times. And indeed, it might be a good idea.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Open Source
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Open Source"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Agreed. Live searches (as in what the BeOS did in 2001) would rock. I've been hoping that Domonic Giampaolo's influence could have got them in place.

Spatial is not my thing. I started out on the Amiga. It bugged the hell out of me. I then (being British) moved to the Acorn Archimedes and got used to that. I then went to Windows 3.1, Mac system 7, then 95, then NT (oddly 3.5 then 4 - not a common thing), MacOS 8.1, Win2K, Openstep 4.2, XP, Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server 1.x, OS X (10.2, 10.3, 10.5, 10.6), Windows 7 (I managed to skip Vista as a user.) So, nothing stays the same. It changes every few years. I think getting hung up on implementation is pretty pointless. The few times I've used KDE and Gnome, it all just seemed like a variation of the above. Most other X Windows managers I've used are hideous.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Open Source
by MysterMask on Tue 21st Dec 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

Now go read Siracusa's countless Mac OS X reviews and his other articles on the Finder


Funny enough, I can't remember that Siracusa criticized those things you claim to be so important ..

Siracusa's main critics are about the loss of old Mac OS Finder behaviour like spacial finder or file metadata. NOT about tabs or other gimmicks that TotalFinder introduces.

Nice if TotalFinder helps some people being more productive with the Mac. But that does not mean Finder is broken, just different.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Open Source
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 10:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Open Source"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Nice if TotalFinder helps some people being more productive with the Mac. But that does not mean Finder is broken, just different.


+1 :-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Source
by macinnisrr on Tue 21st Dec 2010 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Open Source"
macinnisrr Member since:
2009-11-12

I'm not saying Finder's not just fine if that's what you learn on, all you have, or even compared to other file managers (once you get used to the paradigms you mentioned). I often use drag 'n' drop for cut/paste. But sometimes I use the keyboard shortcuts for cut/paste. Depends what I'm working on.

The thing that I've found really disappointing (and what I originally intended to say; I was pretty sleepy still while writing this) is that the first systems I used were Windows. When I got an ibook a few years back, I had to learn a new way of doing file management. However, when I switched to linux for daily work, both skillsets applied. Not only that, but I found newer, more efficient (for me at least, I realize it's all subjective) ways of doing certain things.

Luckily, I've been able to abandon Windows, and yet sometimes when I'm fixing a friends PC or using a virtual machine (a couple times a year, probably less than 5), I am slowed down a lot, as I have to then remember what the Explorer way of doing things is. And when I use that old ibook (which is just as rarely, but some of the software I use only runs on OSX), I have to remember the Finder way of doing things, which is a separate skillset, although many features overlap.

The point is, though, that when I use either of these file managers, I can go back to any of my linux boxes and use both skillsets and more without any thinking at all. Obviously my preference is linux and not everyone shares that point of view, but as I mentioned, since it's apparently so easy to implement all of these features (if a bunch of open source, non-commercial projects can achieve this, I'll just go ahead and assume that the massive corporate entities of the major players can), why wouldn't you?

There are many areas in which open source software is lagging behind proprietary offerings (I dare say most), why is file management (as an aside, process management as well) - a rudimentary part of any OS - the exception?

P.S. this is "OSNews": why are "linux", "OSX" and even "OSNews" not in the spellcheck dictionary?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Open Source
by lemur2 on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 09:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Open Source"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

P.S. this is "OSNews": why are "linux", "OSX" and even "OSNews" not in the spellcheck dictionary?


The spellcheck dictionary is part of the web browser you are using, not the web site you are browsing.

Reply Score: 2

Choices are good.
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Dec 2010 15:54 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

I generally like a simple file management interface. But then really all I do is save and open files, and I keep them organized so I know where to look for them.

I love the Nautilus look with the bread crumbs. In fact I wish mac os x had retained the breadcrumb-like bar from NEXTSTEP (they KIND of did, but I don't like their implementation of it) which would make dragging and dropping and file organizing a little more simple.

There is an Explorer-like app for Windows that added a bread crumb. I wish Windows would... but I don't need it like I said above, I have my own system and too many gadgets and sparkly bits would just get in my way.

Reply Score: 3

Oh! Forgot to say...
by Tuishimi on Tue 21st Dec 2010 15:56 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice price to add those key features. I think it is a good thing! Your alternative would be to purchase something like Pathfinder which, while a pretty awesome app, is loaded to the hilt with features and costs more than twice what TotalFinder costs.

[edit]

Pathfinder, btw, does great breadcrumbs.

Edited 2010-12-21 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MysterMask
by MysterMask on Tue 21st Dec 2010 19:21 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

I'm somewhat tired of those lamenting about >enter piece of software< just because it does not behave like >enter alternative piece of software<. Most of the times, the problem is people's inability to adapt and not that >enter piece of software< is broken.

E. g. Finder is far from perfect but all those points criticized so fare are from the 'it behaves different than X so it must be broken' categorie and IMHO useless as such.

Believe it or not: there are different ways to work and hence people have different preferences for the tools they use. Most long term Mac users do just fine without cut-paste, folder first, tabs or whatever feature some are used to from file manager XY.

Reply Score: 3

v More Apple legal thuggery
by unclefester on Tue 21st Dec 2010 21:40 UTC
RE: More Apple legal thuggery
by henderson101 on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 10:18 UTC in reply to "More Apple legal thuggery"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

I just had my Ebay account suspended by Apples thuggish lawyers. I was accused of selling counterfeit Apple Inc products.


Um...

"The CECT i68 is one of famous cellphones of CECT. Looks like the iphone but comes unlocked, and with more features, like Dual Sim. Check out other CECT i68 features."

Seems like a cheap Chinese counterfeit iPhone to me. A shockingly bad one too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g98Iet1XxwI

Reply Score: 2

Never knew Finder was broken
by NathanHill on Tue 21st Dec 2010 23:55 UTC
NathanHill
Member since:
2006-10-06

I agree with other commenters. I've been using Mac OS for a long time now, and I've never noticed it being so broken.

I am able to jump between Mac -> Window -> Linux pretty easily. Finder is comfortable, easy to work with, and only occasionally annoys me, but I rarely need to spend a lot of time working with Finder due to the quick folder shortcuts I have on the Dock.

Windows, especially Vista, is annoying to work with - impossible to find things and often files are in some bizarre order that denies any logic.

Linux just feels tacked on still - much more comfortable to work from the command line. I rarely save files in, say Ubuntu, anyway because there are very few good applications to work with. I know gnome has made improvements in its user-friendliness, but everything still feels like an after thought.

I've demoed stuff like PathFinder and own a copy of ForkLift but rarely use them. Finder is fast and easy to use and good enough.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by t3RRa
by t3RRa on Wed 22nd Dec 2010 02:58 UTC
t3RRa
Member since:
2005-11-22

It merely adds features but fixes broken things as other people mentioned, since those weren't there in the first place!

Whenever I use Windows after using unix system for a while or vice versa, I always make mistakes for some time. Even if you think Mac way isn't perfect, that does not mean that other systems are perfect. The problem is habit and adaptation.

Well, I feel like I am just repeating comments from others.

Reply Score: 1