OSNews

"I mean, are there any AMD 64 laptops out there right now?"

Yes, there are.

that's how I group mine, yes (although I have some little kinks in there, and I also have separate bits for other things like bootlegs). However, Brad explained in the article how he organises his, and it's a perfectly sensible system that's *not* like that. Besides, the point is the principle, as Brad identified; no app should move user data around unless it's unavoidable, and moving music files around is entirely avoidable. What else are id3 tags _for_?

Well, guess how iTunes organizes your music! Yep, using metadata. You can even keep your ID3 tags as iTunes maintains its own XML database or you can even export iTunes metadata directly to ID3 tags.

I really don't know what is that you don't like abt iTunes guys. It keeps my mp3 in folders by artist and album. You can even tell what tunes are in a compilation so it can keep tunes from different artists in a single directory for that album. I only edit metadata and all file management is done by the software, it's that easy. A file manager for a special kind of file: music.

No, I don't think iTunes thinks my music files are its files. I just granted it the right to organize them, that's all. Do you think I could not delete them if I wanted ? Or I couldn't copy my music anywhere else? It keeps my music in such a beautiful order (with ID3 tags and dir names and file names) that finding them with Finder and moving albums around is as simple as hell .

I think the way iTunes works scared you a bit . Don't be afraid, iTunes is your friend ! Think of it as a database system for music. I don't think you would hate Oracle because it moves some data round so you could find them faster, more easily and in a flexible way. I can find my tunes by Genre, by Artist and by Album (plus another category for compilations) and it still keeps my files organized by album and artist and as compilations in filesystem level.

You can always turn the copy and organize options off thou so it only maintains its internal metadata database. But it still will help you quickly find you music, faster than you could in your own filesystem based organizastion, I bet!

the point is that iTunes is a typical monopolist app; it assumes it *owns* your data. It's a bit autistic, frankly.

iTunes: "let other computers or apps play with your music? Why should I? You gave it to ME! IT'S MINE MINE MINE NOW! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!" (goes off and has hissy fit in corner).

iTunes is great if all you need to do is organise your music in iTunes, transfer it to *your* iPod, and play it. It downright sucks if you want to let any *other* app or player or anything take a crack at it. That's the point brad was making; if you organise your music properly yourself, the organisation stays across operating systems, apps and players.

This is a comment from someone who obviously knows nothing about iTunes that or a totally clueless troll.

There are these things most applications have called Preferences. You should learn how to use them.

Go to your Itunes preferences and finde the advanced section. Find the option "Keep iTunes Folder organized" and uncheck it. Organize your music any way you fricking want! Also, if you don't like Apple's default location for where the music is stored, change it within the same preference panel.

Not to mention that the first time you launch iTunes it asks you whether you want it to organize your music or not.

Grow a brain--or crawl back under your bridge.

No, I don't 'make those claims' about computer illiterate people. I observe computer illiterate people struggling with OS X. I watch them go into deep frustration trying to figure things out.

I'm not sure what Windows/Linux bias you're talking about. I'm certainly biased in favor of Linux about some things. But that's neither here nor there. The OS X GUI is far superior to the Windows GUI in many respects, and superior to any GUI I've used with Linux, although for very different reasons. But I'm not sure what your agenda is here, since I haven't claimed that any GUI is superior to OS X. I've just pointed out that OS X has its problems, and that the 'science' of GUI design is ass-backwards when it claims that its 'principles' matter more than user experience does. I'm not really even taking issue with OS X; I'm taking issue with your statement that a user who is dissatisfied with an element of OS X needs to go read research papers about design. That is plainly absurd. If the design doesn't satisfy the user, the design is wrong.

Are Macs easier to use than Windows machines? Sure they are. Are they easy to use? No, they're not. Interface design is crap all around. The question is, which crap is least deep? Which interface is least horrible? Yes, for the sake of argument, I'll admit it: Macs take that one. They still have problems.

Things like that should be obvious. That's exactly what makes it bad design. I mean, hell, I can blame people who complain about desktop Linux for not bothering to read tons of manuals. If the design were better they wouldn't have to. Blaming the user is rediculous; it's nothing but a lame excuse for poor choices.

well you did a damn fine job of omitting the fact that it is the best UI wise but far from perfect (see how I did that? I showed my opinion of the OS compared to the others and then made a comment about it still not perfect)

If you don't like the current mouse trap. Build a better one. Or do you "GUIs are evil" just like to complain?

Quit bitching and build a better interface. If other people agree that your interface it better they will use it. If they don't, they won't. Put your interface where your mouth (or fingers) is (are).

Things like that should be obvious. That's exactly what makes it bad design.

Oh, really? Can I now complain that Windows doesn't make it obvious that closing the last window will also close the application? After all, there is no logical reason for it to act that way...

Besides, in OS X there is this neat little triangle displayed in the Dock under the icon of active applications.

If the design were better they wouldn't have to. Blaming the user is rediculous; it's nothing but a lame excuse for poor choices.

In this case it's justified: you were talking about students at a university, which I'd expect to be somewhat above the lowest common intellectual denominator.

As someone once said: "The only truly intuitive UI is the nipple, everything else requires learning." And as nursing moms will tell you, even the nipple has to be learned.

So many messages here, I can't respond to all of them individually. But thank you all for the feedback on the column, it has been a VERY interesting learning experience for me.

Note though that it was not a formal review of OS X and should not be considered such. It was just a column about my own impressions and experiences coming at it from the perspective of a total mac newbie.

Thank you all for your tips too. There's quite a lot I still don't know about OS X but I'm learning a lot from all the excellent messages here and in the ExtremeTech forum.

To the guy who felt that my column wasn't "serious journalism", please try to lighten up. It wasn't meant to be written in a formal, cold or impersonal way. It was meant to be entertaining as well as informative.

I tend to write the same way I manage Ziff's forums, in an informal and friendly way. That doesn't mean it's bad journalism. It just means that it's a different style of writing. To each his own though, most people seemed to enjoy reading it so that tells me I was on the right track.

Here's an INCREDIBLY stupid thing in Windows. When you open an app it creates in icon on the TaskBar. So far so good. Now the bad. Why can't you organize these? Stupid, stupid stupid. So if you don't open up apps in the exact same order every time you have to go looking for them (yes I know you can ALT-TAB - which you can also do in pretty much ANY OS).

Now, in Mac OS X we have the Dock. At any time you can add an icon and arrange them, if the app is running or not. That way it is always in the same place every time.

"As someone once said: "The only truly intuitive UI is the nipple, everything else requires learning.""

Actually babies have to _practice_ sucking on their thumbs while in the womb to get used to the idea of the sucking action. Then the mom has to guide them to the nipple and work with the baby until it realizes it can suck on this instead of their thumb. Of course some kids never want to give up their thumb...

Just found this new news site, look like they focus on more alternative OS'es and not only Windows.. ohh i want a PowerBook G5

Sabon, did you even read what I wrote? In particular the second sentence?

Lars: oops. Normally I read the whole message. My bad.

"that's how I group mine, yes (although I have some little kinks in there, and I also have separate bits for other things like bootlegs). However, Brad explained in the article how he organises his, and it's a perfectly sensible system that's *not* like that. Besides, the point is the principle, as Brad identified; no app should move user data around unless it's unavoidable, and moving music files around is entirely avoidable. What else are id3 tags _for_?"

Eh, it's been a while for me, but I don't think iTunes does that if you don't want it to?
You can keep your files where they are, it'll just go looking for them.

Of course, if you're really smart about it, you'll let iTunes take care of it. That's what it's designed for.

I don't actually need 'third party apps' to manage my music. I don't need them. How many applications do you want to do the same thing?

So, to summarise, iTunes *uses* metadata to organise your music, and then *defaults* to assuming you're a simple-minded moron who needs it to organise the files for you based on the metadata it has read. Even though it could do everything it actually does for you _as an application_ without ever moving the files at all. This, in a nutshell, is my objection to it. It's like the Office Assistant, it's being "helpful". The fact that it's a configurable behaviour makes it less of a felony and more of a misdemeanour, but it's still wrong.

"Of course you can see the file tree in Finder windows: just use one of three methods to select "Column View". Under the "View" menu select "Column View"; or press Command-3; or click the extreme right-hand section of the view widget in the window toolbar. You can also open the "View Options" window (Command-J) and set Finder windows to open in column view."

Mwahaha, OF COURSE I tried that. Let me repeat, I'm looking for a DECENT filemanager that shows me nice, DEEP trees, not a 3 colomn view for three-year-olds.

Anyway, I don't need it anymore. I gave my iMac away to my mother, who is kind of computer illitarate, and she loves it. I liked the Mac but I need a good filemanager to get serious work done.

My spelling and grammar lacks alittle, so I'm going to say no! But I'm sure someone else would love to volunteer.

2005: Linux users realize that for reasonable $500 they can buy well made OS with the extra bonus point: not from Microsoft.

My prediction: 2005 will be yet another year of Linux not on desktop.

Mac Mini rules. Proves that you always get what you pay for.

i>crimany... you think apple should toss their UI design principles for that ow Microsoft's? are you serious? [/i]

Apple have been doing a pretty good job of throwing out many of their UI design guidelines ever since they started building OS X.

"Anyway, I don't need it anymore. I gave my iMac away to my mother, who is kind of computer illitarate, and she loves it. I liked the Mac but I need a good filemanager to get serious work done."

I doubt you ever had one.

One of MANY ways to get around this "problem." This is assuming that you aren't building a whole big tree structure just for the sake of it.

Open Finder. Find each directory that you use often enough to worry about. Then ...
1) Drag that folder to the top of the Finder where the other icons are just to the right of Eject. You should see a box appear. When you do, drop the folder icon. There - a quick link to that folder. or ...
2) Drag that folder to the dock near the garbage can and drop it. A link will be created.

When you put your cursor over either the name of the directory appears. Tada....a fast easy link to the directory.

3) You can also create a folder with folder links to your most used folders. That works pretty cool too. That way even if you have 50 plus folders you go to, you always have a quick way to any of them.
3b) And that folder you put the folder links (aliases actually), drag and drop that folder on the Dock near the garbage can so you don't have to go looking for it.

Now go get that iMac back.

"1) Drag that folder to the top of the Finder where the other icons are just to the right of Eject. You should see a box appear. When you do, drop the folder icon. There - a quick link to that folder. or ..."

10.2? It's also on the sidebar in the Finder now.


You could also check out other file managers.
http://www.cocoatech.com/pf.php


As for iTunes defaults, why would they default to something other than the most newbie friendly way? Power users know to change defaults.

Since when is Apple a hardware monopoly? They may be a hardware company that uses way cool software to sell their hardware. But they are NOT a monopoly!! They have plenty of competitors that will sell you comparable hardware at way better prices if you don't care about the software that runs on it. So get a grip.

Since when is Apple a hardware monopoly?

They're the only people that sell hardware you can legally run OS X on.

Last time I checked, I could go out and buy any sort of desktop computer - an Intel box, an Athlon box, a Mac, something I build myself... So, why is Apple a monopoly?

"Because they're the only people that sell hardware you can legally run OS X on."

So... every single manufacturer in every single field is a monopoly? If I buy a car, I can only use the parts made for that car in it. I can't use a BMW dashboard in a Ford. Similarly, if I buy a DVD player from Sony, I can't use a faceplate from Panasonic. Hell - you can pick pretty much anything and this applies.

Either we're surrounded by monopolies on every front, or... your definition of what a monopoly is lacks substance.

True - you can only run OS X on a Mac. But running OS X is a choice in itself. You choose to go Windows or OS X. Both have their requirements, and for Windows you have to have a PC to run it well. For OS X you have to have a Mac to run it legally.

While you have the choice to buy a PC, Apple have no monopoly.

And since when can anyone seriously put forward an argument that a 3-5% marketshare defines a monopoly? We continually hear people harping on about the demise of Apple due to low marketshare, but then sometimes they turn around and say it's a monopoly!

"So, to summarise, iTunes *uses* metadata to organise your music, and then *defaults* to assuming you're a simple-minded moron who needs it to organise the files for you based on the metadata it has read. Even though it could do everything it actually does for you _as an application_ without ever moving the files at all. This, in a nutshell, is my objection to it. It's like the Office Assistant, it's being "helpful". The fact that it's a configurable behaviour makes it less of a felony and more of a misdemeanour, but it's still wrong."

And you know you can turn this behaviour off, leaving just the metadata to organise things. Of course, the majority of users prefer the iTunes way, but you don't have to follow that path if you don't want to. You have an option.

A question - do you plan on having all of your files in a single folder, or spread across other sub-folders. If you're spreading them out, how are you going to organise them?

I've got about 18GB of my CDs now in iTunes, and that make quite a few thousand files. Before iTunes, I used artist folders to arrange them, but this was painful to manage manually. I prefer iTunes' way myself, but I'm curious as to how your files will be arranged.

Those who can't adjust to database driven file and media managers are just getting old and set in their ways. I would call them tech-cavemen. All your database are belong to us!

iPhoto '05 finally brings it on par (in most respects) with iTunes. Now apple just needs to add the same database driven media organization to Quicktime, because im getting a lot of movies and clips that i want organized for me.

If you are not with us - you are against us.
There is something fundamentally wrong in not having a QT player port here. And it's not just economics - Apple does often decide things on a whim/personal level at times.

When you have companies like HP, Novell, IBM, Oracle (somewhat) all being Linux-friendly / Linux-allies .. When you have Flash player ported, RealPlayer ported, Yahoo Messenger ported, Skype ported, what does you reluctance says about you? That you take more than you give. Safari is not proof of your alliance but proof of such statement. You are as greedy and power-hungry as Microsoft. The mini-mac move is but a move to reverse a scenario of dominance - hardly an altruistic gesture. Your MS-pact is but cunningly employed:

http://www.apple.com/education/hed/compsci/linux/guide.html

Ally my arse.
Cues serves only one purpose: replace tyrants with tyrants.
What I lack is power (damn) otherwise I would hold you in the same contempt as you've held RealNetworks.
You media-manipulating h0e.

"So, to summarise, iTunes *uses* metadata to organise your music, and then *defaults* to assuming you're a simple-minded moron who needs it to organise the files for you based on the metadata it has read. Even though it could do everything it actually does for you _as an application_ without ever moving the files at all. This, in a nutshell, is my objection to it. It's like the Office Assistant, it's being "helpful". The fact that it's a configurable behaviour makes it less of a felony and more of a misdemeanour, but it's still wrong."

This is absolutely wrong. itunes only copies the music into it's control if you select the "consolidate music" option otherwise it uses the files exactly where they are on the filesystem.

I was just helping a friend on XP with iTunes. He was getting multiple copies of music because iTunes was finding an extra copy in a hidden recycler folder.

I did a ctrl-a and clear on the library three times and all the files on his drives where exactly where they were and only the iTunes listings got deleted.

It is a blatant lie that iTunes sucks up all your files and manages them. iPhoto doesn't do that either.

You can dump a bunch of photos and music in a folder and point iPhoto or itunes at the folder and say add to library. Both these apps just creat metadata and organize the files virtually in them but leave the physical files untouched.

The only time they manage the files up is if you connect a camera to iPhoto or rip a CD in itunes. You can always not use iPhoto or ITunes to do these tasks and till use them to organize your stuff with out them touching the physical files.

1. iTunes - the default behaviour is to copy your music into an organized tree based on artist, then album. You can turn this off. By default, don't you think users want to keep their music all in one place without thinking about it? Wouldn't a folder tree in ~home/Music/iTunes based on Artist/Album would be the best way for most users? Again, if you have a better way, you are free to do it, but don't assume your way is what most people want. Most people don't want to manually manage their files. And why should they? It's an incredible waste of time for both novice and expert.

2. Tree view. It's called list view or column view is a different take on it. Click the little triangles, there's your tree. The two pane Windows way is stupid and a waste of space - why list the folders in both panes. Not only that it's got two big flaws:
a) it lists folders and files sorted separately instead of alphabetically, causing confusion if you don't know or remember if you are looking for a file or a folder containing a file
b) When you modify a file, why can't Windows keep it sorted in the list? Why does it always jump to the bottom of the window?

" liked the Mac but I need a good filemanager to get serious work done"

Uh-huh sure buddy. And what work do you do that something else is a better solution? What is that solution anyway?

Either we're surrounded by monopolies on every front, or... your definition of what a monopoly is lacks substance.

Well, personally I'm playing Devil's advocate - I don't really think Apple is a monopoly.

But I don't think Microsoft is (or ever was) either. Any rational definition of "monopoly" that considers Microsoft to be a monopoly must also consider Apple to be one.

And since when can anyone seriously put forward an argument that a 3-5% marketshare defines a monopoly?

Firstly, % marketshare has nothing to do with whether or not a monopoly exists.

Secondly, it depends entirely upon the definition of "market". Remember, Apple weren't even considered to be participating in the "market" that Microsoft was found a monopoly of. If your definition of "market" is "computers that can run OS X" then Apple most certainly *are* a monopoly.

We continually hear people harping on about the demise of Apple due to low marketshare, but then sometimes they turn around and say it's a monopoly!

Again, marketshare and monopoly status are independent.

According to Googles dictionary...

(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"

Apple is by all means a monopoly in their market, but not a monopoly in the PC market. Keep in mind monopolies are very legal so long as you became a monopoly through legal means, as in not shutting out your competition. Because Apple owns their own OS, they can sell it or not sell it to whoever they want, so it's not illegal to make themselves their only hardware supplier. When they cut off the clones they never said the other hardware makers couldn't still buy MacOS, they just raised the price to cover development costs (which their hardware used to cover, and now does once again), then when they had no more customers, they stopped selling it. It all depends on what market you are refering to.

Tree view. It's called list view or column view is a different take on it.

List view isn't a "different take" on Tree view. It's a very different thing (and IMHO nowhere near as functional).

The two pane Windows way is stupid and a waste of space - why list the folders in both panes.

Because it makes navigating around deep and/or complex directory structures *much* easier.

It's not the "Windows way" either, the split pan tree+file list file manager has been around since *at least* the early DOS days.

Not only that it's got two big flaws:
a) it lists folders and files sorted separately instead of alphabetically, causing confusion if you don't know or remember if you are looking for a file or a folder containing a file
b) When you modify a file, why can't Windows keep it sorted in the list? Why does it always jump to the bottom of the window?

These aren't flaws, they're matters of taste. Personall I *hate* the way Finder mixes files and folders in together. Files and directories are conceptually different things, it makes sense to keep them separated.
Additionally, I find the way modified files are moved to the end of the file list very, very useful. Again, I much prefer it to the Finder way.

Probably the two things I find most frustrating in the OS X UI are the file management and the different keyboard shortcuts for positioning the cursor and selecting text.

These are very much matters of personal preference, however. Most Mac users I know hate the way Explorer works and most switchers I know are similarly frustrated with the way Finder does file management. Those of you looking for an Explorer-like file manager should check out Macintosh Explorer:

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

Uh-huh sure buddy. And what work do you do that something else is a better solution? What is that solution anyway?

A directory tree+file list layout (or even better, a few windows with that) is far, far better for navigating and managing complex or large directory structures than *any* of the modes OS X offers. It makes jumping and moving/copying files between different directories much easier and quicker.

"Files and directories are conceptually different things, it makes sense to keep them separated."

True, files and directories are conceptually different, but files and *folders* aren't. Also sounds like you should try using the 'sort-by' option in list view (which they should incorporate into column view).

"A directory tree+file list layout (or even better, a few windows with that) is far, far better for navigating and managing complex or large directory structures than *any* of the modes OS X offers. It makes jumping and moving/copying files between different directories much easier and quicker."

On the contrary, I find the sidebar in OS X a huge help when combined with column view. Works wonders when you are developing multiple website and the directory structure is very important.

A directory tree+file list layout (or even better, a few windows with that) is far, far better for navigating and managing complex or large directory structures than *any* of the modes OS X offers. It makes jumping and moving/copying files between different directories much easier and quicker.

You forgot to qualify that blurb with an IMO. Your welcome!

I find the multi-colum view of OS X far far better than any "directory tree+file list layout". Spring loaded folders make all the things you claimed far easier to do with the finder. Couple that wih expose and you have an unbeatably powerful way to manage files.

Good points, very good points.

My understanding is that Apple *were* considered as being in the same Market as Microsoft, which led to some Apple execs taking the stand in the anti-trust trial. This also accounts for Microsoft's attitude to Apple in those days - they invested $250M (a token amount of stock, long since sold) and promised continued development of MS Office. They needed the Mac platform to be viable so that they could point to a serious competitor and say "See! We can't be using monopoly power illegally, because we're not a monopoly!"

Dictionary.com notes that a monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service."

If you define the group as "users of OS X", then Apple certainly has a monopoly power over them. I think that definition of the group is too restrictive though, and should be "users of personal computers" - that is, I'd put Mac users, Windows users, Linux users and even Amiga users in there (and maybe BeOS users, so I don't appear to be an insensitive clod to them). That's because although software and hardware provide some level of lock-in on all platforms, it's a choice people make. They can easily choose again and the apparent monopoly power then does not apply to them by virtue of stepping outside of the group.

In fact, many would argue the benefits of stepping outside the Apple platform, in pricing and in choice, so I'd have to state that the definition of the group must be as broad as possible in order to correctly determine who is, or is not, a monopoly.

If you can step outside of the group easily, then maybe there was no monopoly.

Is Microsoft a monopoly? Well, no matter how I define it, a bunch of very smart lawyers proved that it is, and that they used their monopoly power illegally. Microsoft's legal team failed to make their case that they were neither a monopoly nor illegally abusing their monopoly position. In terms of the Dictionary.com definition, they have *almost* exclusive control, which apparently is good enough for the US legal system at pretty much every level.

A clearer example of a monopoly would be a regional power company who has no competitor. They can act as they please, to some extent, increasing prices and doing other nefarious things. The group affected can't feasibly just pack up and leave.

My understanding is that Apple *were* considered as being in the same Market as Microsoft, which led to some Apple execs taking the stand in the anti-trust trial.

An incorrect understanding, I'm afraid. From the "findings of fact":

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#ii

"Therefore, in determining the level of Microsoft's market power, the relevant market is the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems world-wide."

Dictionary.com notes that a monopoly is "Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service."

A dictionary definition is *not* a legal definition.

Well, call me a moron for letting iTunes get the CDDB info before imporintg a CD, copy the songs under Artist/Album directories, name the songs by track number and title and put metadata in its database for fast access. You are free to do all these by hand but guess whose being organized and listening to music first? While you play along with the filemanager, rename and stuff, I listen to music and go on making more money that pays me my Mac hardware . Well, your choice, your life. I live, not rename .

And as the other guys said, you can always turn the copy and organize options off if you don't want it to mess up you carefully organized dir structure. But in one thing you're right. There should be an option (besides swithcing these on and off) to ASK you whenever you start an import to copy/organize or just import metadata and leave the files in their original places. Think I just write this to Apple. This could be a nice feature. Or you can write them too. Doesn't matter as long as we get the feature .

Well, I was faster to post . Hope this feature will help you guys! (Hope they put it in

And as the other guys said, you can always turn the copy and organize options off if you don't want it to mess up you carefully organized dir structure. But in one thing you're right. There should be an option (besides swithcing these on and off) to ASK you whenever you start an import to copy/organize or just import metadata and leave the files in their original places.

iTunes never messes up the original directory structure. The emphasis is on copy, iTunes copies the files into the iTunes music folder. It never moves or deletes the original files. This does lead to wasted disk space.

There is an option in perfrences->Advanced-> Copy files to iTunes Music folder when importing to library. Uncheck that and, guess what iTunes won't copy it.

Here is the iTunes help page describing the consolidate feature.

All this nonsense about iTunes being this evil app that sucks in all your files and messes our organization techniques, holds as much weight as the presense of Bigfoot or the Lochness monster.

Repeat after me "iTunes non-intrusively manages your music".


Copying your audio files into a central location



Depending on how you've added songs to iTunes, your library might include songs that are located anywhere on your computer's hard disk or other media. To organize your files, you can choose to place a copy of all the files in your music library in your iTunes Music folder.

Choose Advanced > Consolidate Library.


Any song files that are located outside the iTunes Music folder remain in their original location; copies of them are placed in your iTunes Music folder.

With all your music in one place, you can more easily copy it to a new computer or back up your music library to an external hard disk or other media.

For more information about the iTunes Music folder, finding out where your songs are stored, or backing up your music library, click "Tell me more."

Brad,

I used to agree with your point of view, but have evolved my thinking.

I don't care where the physical jpg file is in on my hard drive. I like having another abstraction layer which allows me to organize, edit, et al in a way customized for photographs. Plus, it's one folder to back-up, always.

I don't feel the need to organize at the jpg level because I can always move or copy photos to a new folder if I want. It's brain dead simple.

It's no different than the OS taking care of where the bits are on a physical disk. All iPhoto is doing is taking the abstraction up a layer.

Just my $.02

Yeah, but what does iTunes do when you turn copy off and leave organize on? Organize metadata data only? I never tried that one cos I let it do the hard work so I can enjoy music . Probably I was wrong, sorry for that.

Of course you're right that it only copies the files. I wonder why I haven't mentioned that yet .

much better than Slashdot by leaps and bounds.
Love you all

This is a problem of process.
Posit, you've plonked 10,000 songs on your hard disk [I'm somewhere at 6k+ myself]. You have software that serves as a jukebox and with which you manage the songs.

Question: why is it a better solution to start digging in your file manager to manage your files [which is what? copying, moving, adding and deleting, right?] individually than it is to let the app find where the data is and work with it.
Am I to believe that you're so busy with your files that you scurry around in the file manager doing -things- with your music files that the app couldn't? I haven't touched any of the individual files in... ages. I don't care. I don't need to know where they are. I don't care. If I want to burn my own CD, I create a list of songs I want on the CD, I click the button, and there it is.

It's not that I don't believe the people who choose to manage their own files. I just don't see what the added value is. To manage your songs, in the file manager, equates to a humongous time sink. Not very power-userish.

Monopoly.
I've heard Steve Wozniak being attributed with words to the effect of that Apple is a monopoly in the Apple sphere. But when Microsoft has 90%+ of the desktop marketshare, and the old definition [is anyone still using that] of a monopoly was about 40 to 50% of marketshare, and they refused to be called a monopoly... does the term still have any meaning?
As far as I can tell, Apple is the only computer manufacturer [I think Sun too?] who designs their own machine and software. So it's not even a true comparisson. Nobody does what Apple does [in more ways than one]. That's why the Linux users are now starting to appreciate Mac OS X: they no longer have to fight arduous battles to get the machine up and running -before- they can start hacking away, now they only have to start the computer and fire up the terminal. Innit neat ?
This argument will never hold water with the people who still want to invoke the old runes and incantations to awaken the code of yore that sparks life into their machines. They will be among us forever. There is no shame in it. It's a bit like the clubs that re-enact the life on the frontier in the good old days. It's a great day's healthy fun for the whole family. Quite endearing really.

Column View
This is my prefered way to cruise through the contents of my hard drive and IMO does a great job of letting me quickly dig through the directory structure. It is possible to change the width and number of columns that display in a single window - i currently view 5 columns at a time. And if I ever need to do a lot of dragging and dropping from one place to another, i just open another identical 5-column window, put it directly beneath the original window, and quickly shuffle my files between multiple folders.

Graphic or Photo Viewing
I gather that the talk with iPhoto and Preview started due to a need to see/browse/edit photos or graphics in whatever directory structure one wants. Well, the finder may not provide a satisfactory solution, but perhaps the app GraphicConverter would? It comes bundled with Apple's pro line of computers (PowerMac and PowerBook). It has a file browser feature which allows a tabled thumbnail view of all graphic files contained in a folder. See a preview at http://www.lemkesoft.com/en/gcabout_browser.htm . You can even segregate folders and files in the browser.

Last Comments
I use my own organizational structure for my 1,000 songs in iTunes. I just told iTunes the parent folder of all my music, i don't want it to consolidate my library or copy music files. I manually add files, but iTunes can handle any deletions and I use it for all the metadata. I also must be one of the few who loves the dock. Having Expose to manipulate and reveal every open window is phenomenal. I love Adium, the best and most customizable IM program ever.

I must admit, I found it difficult to adjust to the iTunes way of designating itself as centralised music app. When I fist started using OSX I even looked for a Mac version of winamp because I disliked iTunes so much.

I can safely say to all those people screaming about how iTunes "monopolises" their music etc I can understand.
However- the way you play your music on your OS of choice, is purely behavioral based.

Like anything new, it took me a few days to adjust to OSX and its different approaches to computing. Once I let go and stop expecting it to behave like windows XP I truly started to have fun.

iTunes is now one of my most frequently used apps. The iTunes philosophy is simple: play your music with ease.

I have set up iTunes so all I do is hit one button then I close the window and get to work. Or I can chill out and organise / listen to my music and its so ridiculously easy- all within one interface. Its probably the best mp3 player I have had the pleasure of using.

After using Apple products, I can't go back. OSX all the way

Chech: FFVIEW

It is free, and IIRC, open source.

It is getting new features all the time.

It is like the old ACD SEE for Windows, sans the crap.

(It can also read comic book compressed formats (cbz etc) if you are into that)

iPhoto does that now... all your Quicktime .MOV movies you take with your camera get organized by iPhoto 2005.

For those that have tried Mac OS X's preview to view multiple graphics at the same time. What EXACTLY does Preview NOT do that you want? It does everything I want and need for viewing graphics (including photos) that I don't know if I want or need to import into iPhoto.

(written in the small hope that anybody is still reading this thread)

I liked the Mac but I need a good filemanager to get serious work done."

This is something I don't quite understand: what kind of serious work is this people are always talking about and wanting a 'good filemanager' for?

I'm really asking out of curiousity here.

But in Mac OS X they sit at the top on the Apple taskbar for no reason that I can figure out. Frankly, it's kind of a stupid way of doing things. I can't even use the top part of the screen for the Dock if I wanted to!

I disagree. The only reason it is a "stupid" way of doing things is because you are unfamiliar with this method. Honestly, after I got used to my mac it didn't matter to me anymore where the menu bars were. I do, however, believe that the menu bars in OS X are more standardized in general, in terms of what fucntions are under each of the menus.

I'd at least like the ability to put the damn things back into the application windows myself. Unfortunately, no such option exists in OS X that I know of. I'm adjusting to this though but, at first, I couldn't figure out where to change settings in applications

Well buddy, this is part of switching to another OS/platform. Does Windows give you the option of putting the menu bars at the top of the screen? No. I know KDE does, not sure about Gnome. I do know that when I tried to put the menu bars at the top of the screen in KDE the whole thing turned out to be a mess; some applications would keep their menu bar with the application window, others would put it at the top. The whole thing was basically useless.

@Lars

I agree...

Some people just have things they want that don't translate into the largest number of users.

There is a program called "MacExplorer" that implements a Windows Style Filemanager on MacOS.

I've never wanted it, as I find Finder to be fine for everything I need to do.

Although the finder is getting better with each release, it is far from perfect. Here's to hoping that they continue improving it with each new release. I would love to see it get multi-threading, so it boosts responsiveness when waiting for the Divx codec to load a movie in the preview pane. Currently it locks up the finder until the movie loads, which for some reason is a much longer wait than any other movie file type.

The around that is have a Drive or directory on the Dock. You can click on that when the Finder is busy. This will bring up another Finder box which is fully usable. I do this all the time having three, four, or five Finder boxes on my screen at once "doing things." Of course I pull something else on top of those once they start and work on other things while something is downloading or copying.

"So, to summarise, iTunes *uses* metadata to organise your music, and then *defaults* to assuming you're a simple-minded moron who needs it to organise the files for you"

It's incorrect to refer to this as the default behaviour. It was a choice you made when installing iTunes. It asks whether you want it to organize your music files. If you decline it will not move any of your files.

Unfortunately many Windows users are accustomed to clicking Ok-Ok-Ok-Ok-etc to installation dialog boxes and never even noticed that they in fact requested this behaviour.

"Mwahaha, OF COURSE I tried that. Let me repeat, I'm looking for a DECENT filemanager that shows me nice, DEEP trees, not a 3 colomn view for three-year-olds."

You mean like this?:

http://hem.bredband.net/b214686/images/osx11column.jpg

You could have tried dragging the lower right corner of the Finder windows to add more columns before giving the mac to your mom (which was nice of you btw) Also note the width of each column is individually adjustable by dragging the little button with two lines in the bottom of each divider.

cheers

You could have tried dragging the lower right corner of the Finder windows to add more columns before giving the mac to your mom (which was nice of you btw) Also note the width of each column is individually adjustable by dragging the little button with two lines in the bottom of each divider.

Ironically, this is actually a good screenshot to show the weakness of the column view when it comes to non-trivial file management tasks.

If you want to move (or copy) files from the directory you currently have open, to one, say, 4 levels deep under /Users/codey, the operation will be (comparitively) quite fiddly and slow - whereas with a dir tree + file list layout, you can have the target directory already displayed in the dir tree pane and drag the file directly into it quickly and easily.

Basically, the big problem with the column view is you can't directly access directories under a different parent to whichever directory you're currently in. Yes, there's popup folders, but it's just not as easy IMHO.

There are two things Apple could have done to make operations like this much simpler, either of which would be ok (although still not as good as the dir tree + file list):

1. Implemented a "Cut" for files to go with the "Copy".
2. Left in the "shelf" functionality of the NeXT file browser. This gave you a section of the UI - similar to the existing drive/favourites pane - where you could "park" files temporarily while you navigated to another directory. So you could grab a file, drop it onto the shelf, navigate to the new directory and then drag the file out of the shelf to the new location.

So you could grab a file, drop it onto the shelf, navigate to the new directory and then drag the file out of the shelf to the new location.

What's the difference between this and using spring loaded folders? The method you state above takes two extra steps (droping it in the shelf and retrieving it from the shelf), where as grabbing the file and navigating it to it's new location takes only one (assuming you know exactly where you're going).

Using the sidebar you can spring-load to any where on the computer (not including hidden directories). If you were to want to navigate back to the root of the system drive simply drag the file over the system drive icon in the sidebar and it'll spring-load to root.

1. Implemented a "Cut" for files to go with the "Copy".
That would be a nice feature. Though the name may scare some people off. Move might be a better term since this is a unix system after all...

What's the difference between this and using spring loaded folders?

If you're manipulating a single file to a single destination, not much.

However, if you're manipulating multiple files, from multiple sources, to multiple destinations, it's far more efficient to "batch up" a half dozen of them at once (eg: all from the same source) and move/copy them to their destinations at the same time (eg: to different destinations under the same target).

The method you state above takes two extra steps (droping it in the shelf and retrieving it from the shelf), where as grabbing the file and navigating it to it's new location takes only one (assuming you know exactly where you're going).

However, taking into account the popup delay - particularly if there are keyboard shortcuts - it would probably be *quicker* to do it via a shelf.

Using the sidebar you can spring-load to any where on the computer (not including hidden directories).

Only if you've already had the foresight to put those directories into the sidebar (and the number of entities is limited by screen space).

That would be a nice feature. Though the name may scare some people off. Move might be a better term since this is a unix system after all...

OS X isn't really a unix from the GUI side. "Cut" would be consistent with the copy-paste metaphor OS X copied from Windows for "icon" manipulation.

What exactly are you doing all the time that has such strict file management requirements? I ask because I can't think of a single thing, and even though it's been asked before, you still haven't answered.

http://www.cocoatech.com/download.php


"OS X isn't really a unix from the GUI side. "Cut" would be consistent with the copy-paste metaphor OS X copied from Windows for "icon" manipulation."

Funny, I thought it came from NeXTSTEP.

However, taking into account the popup delay

Finder->preferences ->spring-loaded folders and windows. drag the delay to short.

Also while you are there. click on always open folders in new window. Then you can drag a file go the the previous colum and hold it there for a few seconds. The folder will open in a new window and so on. Just move the mouse away from the new windows that have opened like you changed your mind and the all the windows vanish like magic.

It is quite simple really.

What planet (or drugs) are you on?

"OS X isn't really a unix from the GUI side. "Cut" would be consistent with the copy-paste metaphor OS X copied from Windows for "icon" manipulation."

Apple, hense Mac OS and then Mac OS X, did NOT get this from Windows. They got it from PARC in the 1970s. Windows got it from Mac in the 1980s. Actually, even OS/2 had it before "Windows" since both the Mac and OS/2 were shipping to customers before any version of Windows existed (even in test labs). Actually Amiga also had it beore Windows.

Apple, hense Mac OS and then Mac OS X, did NOT get this from Windows.

I'm talking about using cut/copy/paste in the file manager/desktop.

They got it from PARC in the 1970s. Windows got it from Mac in the 1980s.

Windows 95 was the first version of Windows to do this. MacOS Classic *definitely* didn't do it. OS X sort of half does it. I don't think OS/2 did it.

Actually, even OS/2 had it before "Windows" since both the Mac and OS/2 were shipping to customers before any version of Windows existed (even in test labs).

The first OS/2 w/GUI (Presentation Manager) shipped in 1988. Windows 1.0 shipped in 1985. Windows 2.0 shipped in 1987.

The first Mac shipped in 1984, if you were wondering.

Not that any of that is really relevant, though, since the first version of Windows that had the feature I'm talking about was Windows 95 and I'm pretty sure no earlier version of OS/2 had it.

Not that any of that is really relevant, though, since the first version of Windows that had the feature I'm talking about was Windows 95 and I'm pretty sure no earlier version of OS/2 had it.

Are you sure NeXtStep didn't have it? I would be loathe to assume that just because Win95 had it that OS X must have copied from it.

NeXTStep was way ahead of it's time and even in 1992 was showing things that win95 didn't have. It is quite possible that some version of NeXTStep had said feature that appears in OS X given that OS X was derived from it.

Are you sure NeXtStep didn't have it?

Fairly sure, although it's been a long, long time since I've used *STEP (I do have an old PC that I keep around for old OSes that like without updated hardware drivers, but I lost my NeXT CDs many years ago in a move and have never been able to find replacements).

I would be loathe to assume that just because Win95 had it that OS X must have copied from it.

I was actually having a bit of a go at all the people who say Microsoft copied it from Apple whenever the two UIs have anything vaguely in common.

NeXTStep was way ahead of it's time and even in 1992 was showing things that win95 didn't have. It is quite possible that some version of NeXTStep had said feature that appears in OS X given that OS X was derived from it.

NeXTStep was way ahead of it's time and even in 1992 was showing things that win95 didn't have. It is quite possible that some version of NeXTStep had said feature that appears in OS X given that OS X was derived from it.

It's worth keeping in mind that while OS X is certainly little more than a warmed over NeXT, it doesn't have a lot in common with NeXT's UI. Most of that was thrown out in favour of a (mostly worse, IMHO) rehashing of the MacOS Classic UI.

OS X isn't really a unix from the GUI side. "Cut" would be consistent with the copy-paste metaphor OS X copied from Windows for "icon" manipulation.

Personally, "Cut" has never really made much sense to me whether your using a text editor, managing the file structure, or whatever. Panel view does a fairly decent job at displaying paths visually that I don't think it would be too far of a leap to bring the 'mv' command into the GUI. It makes more sense, though I don't think it'd be possible simply because users are indoctrinated with the whole 'cut' metaphor.

I can see how "cut" made it into word processors, but it's too abstract (especially for new users) when manipulating objects such as files and directories. Looking at the command, I wouldn't know that by selecting it I'm able to move the data around and would probably fear losing my data.

It you control+click/right-click on an icon in the finder you have the options to "copy (filename)", and to "move to trash" (among other things). If I saw "move (filename)", I'd have some idea what the command does.

It's worth keeping in mind that while OS X is certainly little more than a warmed over NeXT, it doesn't have a lot in common with NeXT's UI. Most of that was thrown out in favour of a (mostly worse, IMHO) rehashing of the MacOS Classic UI.

It's funny that you say that because many of the Mac OS 9 users I know who have resisted upgrading to MOSX, view the new Finder as a completely foriegn beast and it makes little sense to them.

I've found it fairly difficult to introduce concepts such as home directories to them and their main frustration is that they can't make the GUI just like the classic finder(to some degree they can, but man are they resistant).

Personally, "Cut" has never really made much sense to me whether your using a text editor, managing the file structure, or whatever.

The mind boggles .

Panel view does a fairly decent job at displaying paths visually that I don't think it would be too far of a leap to bring the 'mv' command into the GUI. It makes more sense, though I don't think it'd be possible simply because users are indoctrinated with the whole 'cut' metaphor.

"Cut" *is* "mv". It's just an "mv" that's consistent with the rest of the UI.

Windows <95's file manager used to actually have "move" and "copy" commands. When they moved to the cut/copy/paste metaphor in Windows 95, "move" was translated in "cut". They perform the same function.

I can see how "cut" made it into word processors, but it's too abstract (especially for new users) when manipulating objects such as files and directories. Looking at the command, I wouldn't know that by selecting it I'm able to move the data around and would probably fear losing my data.

If you can grasp the concept of "cut" in a word processor, there should be no trouble grasping the same concept in the file manager, because they do exactly the same thing - "cut" something from one place and "paste" it into another.

If you can grasp the concept of "cut" in a word processor, there should be no trouble grasping the same concept in the file manager, because they do exactly the same thing - "cut" something from one place and "paste" it into another.

I have to disagree on the "cut" metaphor in the context of files. You "move" files, cut makes no sense in the action of file management. Cutting a file means you cut it into multiple pieces. Most users won't be able to grasp "cut/paste" means "move". DnD to move makes more sense and is more real.

The whole cut/paste concept of windows is stupid IMO. There is not point in debating who did it first. Copy/paste makes more sense becuase it is less destructive. In case the cut/paste operation isn't completed you may lose files.

Also on MacOS X the copy/paste feature is hidden in a right click, considering that 100% of Macs ship with a 1 button mouse, it is plausible to assume the feature is not intended to be modus operandi.

I have to disagree on the "cut" metaphor in the context of files.

There's your problem. They're not "files", they're "objects" - documents, shortcuts, etc. When you're not trying to relate it back to "traditional" methods of file manipulation it's easier to understand.

You "move" files, cut makes no sense in the action of file management. Cutting a file means you cut it into multiple pieces.

Not at all. When you "cut" text in a word processor does it get divided into multiple pieces ?

A "file" in the Desktop metaphor is the same as a block of text you select - a discrete object to be manipulated.

Most users won't be able to grasp "cut/paste" means "move". DnD to move makes more sense and is more real.

As I said, if they can grasp "cut" to move text around a document, there's no conceivable reason they shouldn't be able to understand the same principle applied to icons representing files. It's exactly the same thing, just with icons instead of text. The concept is identical, unless the user has already been trained to make a distinction.

In case the cut/paste operation isn't completed you may lose files.

This isn't true (and it's actually a slight weakness in the metaphor and ostensibly the reason Apple don't do it. When you "cut" text it is removed from the document and placed in the clipboard. When you "cut" an icon it's not removed until it gets pasted. Personally I think the latter behaviour is preferable everywhere (as its failure mode is not destructive) and should also be used when cutting text, graphics, etc in documents as well (ie: whatever it is you're cutting isn't actually removed until it gets pasted).

Also on MacOS X the copy/paste feature is hidden in a right click, considering that 100% of Macs ship with a 1 button mouse, it is plausible to assume the feature is not intended to be modus operandi.

It's accessed in exactly the same ways in OS X it is in Windows - either from a context menu, the Edit menu or via the standard Cmd+C keyboard shortcut. It's no more "hidden" in OS X than it is in Windows.

Not at all. When you "cut" text in a word processor does it get divided into multiple pieces ?

Cutting text is akin to clipping a news paper article and pasting it in another book. How do I cut and past a file or folder on the real world? I move it.

A "file" in the Desktop metaphor is the same as a block of text you select - a discrete object to be manipulated.

Then why can't you cut a window and paste it in another location?? why can't I cut and paste the taskbar? they fit your definition of a discrete object. In any object oriented system objects have properties and operations you can do on them . Cutting a file from a window and pasting it doesn't fit any such paradigm. It is stupid, illogical and counterintuitive.

This isn't true (and it's actually a slight weakness in the metaphor and ostensibly the reason Apple don't do it.

It is quite possible to accidentally override the operation by accidentally clicking something else and mistyping Ctrl-c instead of ctrl-V on another object before the paste. In that case you lose the orginal in the clipboard. Copying is less destructive and accident prone, coz you never intended to delete the orginal from where is was.

It's accessed in exactly the same ways in OS X it is in Windows - either from a context menu, the Edit menu or via the standard Cmd+C keyboard shortcut. It's no more "hidden" in OS X than it is in Windows.

You are aware of it becuase you right clicked and saw it there. Most users who have single button mice would never find it. Also Mac users wouldn't expect it to be there because as you pointed it out MacOS 9 never had it. For all purposes for most mac users the feature us hidden. People from other Oses might understand it but the average mac user won't.

This is getting ridiculous, however:

You are aware of it becuase you right clicked and saw it there. Most users who have single button mice would never find it. Also Mac users wouldn't expect it to be there because as you pointed it out MacOS 9 never had it. For all purposes for most mac users the feature us hidden. People from other Oses might understand it but the average mac user won't.

This is exactly the same situation existing Windows users were in when Windows 95 came out and exactly the same situation new Windows users are in every day.