John Siracusa from ArsTechnica, author of the famous ‘Metadata, The Mac, and You‘ article, now comes back with an article that describes how a better Finder for Mac OS X should look like and behave. Our Take: My only little peeve with Finder is that I want an option on its context menu for “Open Terminal Here”, and better FTP usability (it cashes out the contents of an ftp dir, and there is no ‘Refresh’ button). BTW, you can always try out Path Finder (a bit buggy sometimes, but its navigation system is superb).
Creating a Better OSX Finder
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
How many people actually use ‘Finder’. The same goes for Microsoft ‘Explorer’. It’s not heavily used, period. So lets stop the rants about Gnome’s/KDE file manager because it is not that big of a deal.
ALL IT IS, IS A WAY TO NAVIGATE THE LOGICIAL FILESYSTEM.
>How many people actually use ‘Finder’
Everyone who wants to find their files.
Maybe you are some bizarre mutant who finds his files using a tentacle through a firewire port.
Personally I prefer to use a mouse and a screen….. and Explorer is the only game in town unless you are a retro type running Norton System Commander
The Mac Finder is a graphical program for finding and launching other programs and doing simple file management. So is the Windows Desktop and the Amiga Workbench.
Because these programs are themselves launched automatically (from a startup script or equivalent) when you boot the computer, people tend to think they _are_ the computer, or at least the OS.
Unix users, who are more familiar with the idea that all these tasks can be done in a command line interface and a GUI is an optional extra, have a clearer view.
As for the “spatial interface”, IMO it is very important not to think that a picture of a control on a screen is equivalent to a physical control. It isn’t. You can’t grip it, rotate it, pull it towards you, or actually do anything to it. (Unless you have a touch-sensitive screen).
All you can do is manipulate your mouse, keyboard, MIDI controller, game pad or graphics tablet. The screen display just illustrates what you do with the actual controls. So it is no good having a picture of a rotary control knob on the screen, for instance, unless you have a rotary knob among your physical controls (most likely on a MIDI controller).
Even with the finder being more closely tied with the OS, many OS X users are familiar with the command line or even other file browser applications.
That doesn’t mean a file browser can’t be spatial and it especially doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be tried.
That’s like saying directory windows shouldn’t automatically update when contents are changed–you should be “forced” to use “F5” to “refresh” the directory view every time you want to see if someone else has added a file to the dir or some other such change…
This is one small example, but do you see how “spatially” orienting the finder has nothing to do with graphically representing a knob on screen?
You clearly haven’t used the Classic Finder much, or have failed to truly examine its real value.
> How many people actually use ‘Finder’.
…
> ALL IT IS, IS A WAY TO NAVIGATE THE LOGICIAL FILESYSTEM.
I use it all the time. Similarly, when I am using a Windows machine, I use the explorer all the time.
OTOH, when I am on a Linux machine, I tend to use the command line a lot more, as I find the “file managers” that are available on Linux to be just that, nothing more than “file managers”. About all they do is perform tasks that I can more easily perform from the command line…
OTOH, both finder and explorer try to be more that that. Rather, they are the means by which you start applications, group related objects into folders, etc. The user shouldn’t even care how that relates to the underlying file system.
Finder does a better job at this than explorer does. However, I personally think OS/2’s WPS did a very good job at this while still being fairly transparent (that is, you could easily see the underlying file system, but you were not forced to think of it as such, and could easily ignore it…)
are entirely technical. It’d be nice if the Finder were a Cocoa application, for one, so add-in applications designed for Cocoa would work with it. Second, it’d be nice if Apple ported the kqueue mechanism from FreeBSD, and used that to monitor the filesystem from within the Finder. One of my biggest problems with the Finder is the seeming lack of synchronization between the command line and graphical environments. Changes made from the command line are not quickly recognized by the Finder.
You know explorer.exe on windows is more than just “Windows Explorer” from the start menu. Try opening task manager and killing explorer.exe. lol. in short everyone uses it just like everyone uses the finder on the mac.
It is sometimes sluggy, but is does the job well.
I like it much more than the OS 9 finder or explorer.
Better FTP support should be a thing to consider not that…
“The Spatial Finder is spatial where it counts. It’s spatial where a failure to do so would lead to confusion or decrease efficiency. For example, if there was a one-to-many relationship between folders and windows, the connection between the act of window manipulation and the state of the folders themselves would be lost. This can be demonstrated quite easily in the Mac OS X Finder. Simply show the contents of the same folder in two different windows, move one window to one location on the screen and the other window to another location, and finally close both windows. When you open that folder again, where will the window be?”
This seems to be one of the biggest issues–a non-spatial browser will allow the user to spawn many windows to view one folder. These views can differ. This breaks a spatial model.
Early in the OS X beta there was discussion of a TOGGLE between a multi-window Finder and a single-window Finder. This got dropped and an attempt was made at accomodating both behaviors.
I think this idea should be restored and modified. (First let’s note that a single-window mode is actually the many-to-one relationship Siracusa is pointing out, and the multi-window mode is actually the spatial metaphor.) Since someone who prefers non-spatial orientation may choose to spawn multiple Finders, this could quickly get confusing… so I almost think that rather than a toggle–two separate apps (with clear visual differentiators) be used.
I don’t know why Apple backed away from the flexibility of a “toggle”–it seemed capable of accomodating both styles. There could be some confusion, but some of the inconsistencies observed in the OS X Finder arise because currently they are attempting to accomodate both orientations in one “view.” This seems like it creates more confusion than two distinct behaviors.
It should also be pointed out that although Apple has the advantage of building Finder at lower levels of the system, they early on spoke of supporting many different types of file browser. And there are a handful of good ones available. Too bad no one has really created anything substantially better than the present Finder nevermind the Classic Finder.
I appreciate (sincerely!) the criticisms of OS X one finds at Ars. They are consistently thorough and honest. Still, sometimes it seems like OS X is held to a far higher standard with regard to UI than other products. I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI. Why is that? Is it a recognition that Apple does it best (usually) and therefore it is fair that they should be evaluated based on that claim? I suspect that this is the reason.
I fear, however, that it gives the casual Windows or Linux-using reader the wrong impression – the impression that OS X UI stinks. It doesn’t. It’s a relatively new UI and needs refinement, but as I said, I believe the level of criticism leveled at it is mostly due to the recognized fact that Apple does it better than most others.
i know, i know this is a different subject, but is the power pc processor dead? I really like apple software(final cut and os we use at school), but if you look at the wintel machines, the dells we have they are speeding alway with intel.
Jaggon, Apple users have far higher standards–they understand these concepts to a far greater degree than Win/Linux users.
That’s simply it. Unfortunately, you then get folks from these two different communities chiming in–offering their own criticism, offering criticisms which are actually invalid and inconsistent with the metaphor, offering criticisms whihc would actually lead Apple UI towards the limitations of the Win/Linux world. This is the problem. These people are unqualified, ill-informed, and have the wrong perspective to be a supportive, positive influence on the matter.
When what they should be doing is learning form Apple and applying the lessons to their own preferred systems and staying quiet about the Mac. (Yes, I coould rip Windows and Linux to shreds if I desired, but it’s just not that interesting or fun, and I know that the criticism isn’t going to be received and developed upon.)
By the way, people should really check out Daring Fireball; John Gruber is one of the more attentive Apple critics, and I find him more astute on FInder issues than Siracusa. So go over to http://daringfireball.net/ and check out his archive of articles.
Eugenia:
John Siracusa from ArsTechnica, author of the famous ‘Metadata, The Mac, and You’ article, now comes back with an article that describes how a better Finder for Mac OS X should look like and behave.
Not sure if it was an intentional omission or not, but I figured I should mention that John has written just about every Mac-related article on ArsTechnica, including very thorough reviews of each version of OS X (starting with DP2, I believe).
Don Cox:
As for the “spatial interface”, IMO it is very important not to think that a picture of a control on a screen is equivalent to a physical control. It isn’t. You can’t grip it, rotate it, pull it towards you, or actually do anything to it. (Unless you have a touch-sensitive screen).
I haven’t gotten a chance to read the article, but that doesn’t sound anything like what John has written previously about the the “spatial interface” concept. Two links I’d suggest reading:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q00/macosx-pb1/macos-x-
beta-14.html#b6
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-9.html
~CdBee~:
Maybe you are some bizarre mutant who finds his files using a tentacle through a firewire port.
Naw, he’s probably one of those people who thinks there’s major a difference between that window you get when double-clicking on My Computer and the typical 2-paned Windows Explorer.
As for my opinion on the OS X finder, after playing around with it a bit on my sister’s iMac, I find it tries to be too much like Windows Explorer and not enough like the classic Finder. Of course, I’m biased in favour of OS 9’s finder because it’s fairly similar to the filemanager of my preferred OS, BeOS’ Tracker. Ironically though, Pavel Cisler – “father” of the Tracker – is now working at Apple. I think some of his influence can be seen already – the simplified (eg: not Sherlock) 10.2 find dialogue is quite similar to the BeOS query window.
So that’s probably good news for those who miss the OS 9 Finder. Between Pavel and Dominic Giampolo (creator of the BFS, also working at Apple now), it looks like OS X is slowly becoming more BeOS-like – and, by extension, more Mac-like because the BeOS borrowed quite a few UI concepts from the classic MacOS. As a graphic artist I know once said after playing with BeOS for a bit on my computer, “Ya know, except for there not being a unified menu, this is more Mac-like than OS X.”
>Not sure if it was an intentional omission or not,
Yes, I am familiar with John’s work, it is just that the metadata article is extra popular and very important IMHO.
Eugenia:
Yes, I am familiar with John’s work, it is just that the metadata article is extra popular and very important IMHO.
Yeah, true – outside of Ars, it probably is his best-known article.
Around the time it came out, I had started work on an a potential companion article on the BeOS and metadata. Maybe something to revisit once Zeta comes out…
OSNews posted last year a similar article by a well known BeOS/OSX user:
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=421
Redux here:
http://www.birdhouse.org/macos/beos_osx/redux.html
“Jaggon, Apple users have far higher standards–they understand these concepts to a far greater degree than Win/Linux users. ”
Wow! If that doesn’t smack of elitism (as well as arrogance), then I don’t know what does. Big hint. There’s a world outside of Apple. There’s a lot of smart people out there, and some of them do have legitimate observations about the Mac and it’s OS. They come from all camps, including the Windows/Linux camp. You’d do well to pull the fingers out of your ears, and learn to listen.
Eugenia:
OSNews posted last year a similar article by a well known BeOS/OSX user
Yeah, I remember that article. It’s what convinced me _not_ to go out and get a Mac after Be died
>>“Wow! If that doesn’t smack of elitism (as well as arrogance)”
How does stating that Mac users have higher standards suggest any notion of elitism or arrogance? Is it perhaps because you haven’t recognised Apple’s acomplishments or superior design until now and feel that the statement was somehoe pointed directly at you? It seems to me you’re just feeling defensive.
>>>There’s a world outside of Apple.
Apple users are well aware of it. We’re reminded of it everywhere we go.
>>>“There’s a lot of smart people out there, and some of them do have legitimate observations about the Mac and it’s OS.
Nobody said otherwise. What i was eluding to was that the author should have made it obvious that he isn’t singling out Apple because it is so far behind, but rather, because it is so far ahead and yet has some areas which could take it far further. Without that, you get people (like many on this site) who think only in terms of, “My compooter can beet up your compooter” and think the article has a disparaging tone.
>>>“You’d do well to pull the fingers out of your ears, and learn to listen.”
Mathew 7: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”
I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI.
Your wrong. Not about OSX being held to a higher standard (it is), but about windows and linux not recieving as much scrutiny. You could google search and find a million gripes about either linux or windows. If there is something wrong (or something someone feels is wrong) they will point it out, regardless of good the rest of the system is.
I think OSX _looks_ like the best UI. I haven’t used it much so I couldn’t judge it on anything other than looks, really. But people will never be completely satisfied, and they will always pick on those little points that leave them dissatisfied.
OSX has many issues. The candy coating is the least of them. They tried too hard to be inovative on a GUI that exists on every system now. I actually want LESS features. At least let me turn off all the “Special Effects”. Don’t add more!!!
BTW, I am still angry about the 10.2.4 update that broke my time clock!
I have one final thing to say about that article :Windbag!
Dan
“How does stating that Mac users have higher standards suggest any notion of elitism or arrogance? ”
Are you admitting to being “anonymous” then, because that’s were my ire was directed to?
“Is it perhaps because you haven’t recognised Apple’s acomplishments or superior design until now and feel that the statement was somehoe pointed directly at you? It seems to me you’re just feeling defensive. ”
Proverbs 11:2 “When pride comes, then comes shame: but with the lowly is wisdom. ”
Anyway the arrogance (and pride) is in presuming that only one group (Mac user) can understand UI issues while those of non-apple platforms can not.
“Nobody said otherwise. What i was eluding to was that the author should have made it obvious that he isn’t singling out Apple because it is so far behind, but rather, because it is so far ahead and yet has some areas which could take it far further. Without that, you get people (like many on this site) who think only in terms of, “My compooter can beet up your compooter” and think the article has a disparaging tone. ”
We must have read different articles then, because I didn’t come away with the feeling that anyone is singled out (in a negative sense). The only one’s thinking disparaging were the one’s insecure about their choice to begin with.
“I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think Linux (any flavor) or Windows (any flavor) has recieved nearly the same amount of scrutiny and criticism with regard to UI. Why is that? Is it a recognition that Apple does it best (usually) and therefore it is fair that they should be evaluated based on that claim? I suspect that this is the reason.”
Is it unfair to hold Apple to the standards that they hold themselves to?
Not everyone is the same. In school, we used to learn about how everyone had different strenghts: some were spatial, some were abstract, etc. For me, spatiality has never been much of a strong suit. On the other hand, verbal things have always come naturally. Thus, to me, the “command, response” oriented nature of the command line is not just more efficient, but more logical and *easier*. I’d suspect that a great many people are in the same boat as me. I find current GUIs to be extremely irritating, because they focus too much on icons and visual widgets rather than just using text to give explanatory information. Human beings may be innately spatial, from their evolutionary history as mammals, but it is our highly developed verbal capacity that makes us unique, and the traditional Apple UI dogma largely ignores that.
I agree with much of Jaggon’s responses, but let’s try to make my point clear…
I wasn’t commenting on the intelligence of non-Mac users or non-Mac UIs… What I was saying was that many of the most vocal, visible members of the Mac community are highly informed about usability, design, and related issues. Apple has consistently hired or nurtured some of the greatest pros in these fields as well. Many of these pros than enter the general community as commentators.
So the byproduct is communities/media that “appear” to be highly critical. At this level of discussion, those who are in the know don’t have much of a problem–they are probably already choosing the Mac for a number of reasons and they recognize that the problems that they are pointing out are probably worse or more numerous for other systems. So what they are doing is showing their respect and understanding for the Mac way simply by providing constructive input so that it continues to improve.
This same feedback loop doesn’t really exist for the PC or Linux (though maybe it is beginning to develop for Linux but in small compartmentalized islands). That isn’t to say that there aren’t critics of PC UI or that these same people don’t have valid critiques of Mac. But I am saying that there is little to no expectation that these criticisms come to some sort of fruition. Is the PC becoming more consistent? Do people get pissed that window behavior is completely different between basic MS apps like Outlook, IE, Word, Frontpage, and Access? etc, etc… Yes, you can possibly answer yes to these questions from a very narrow perspective, but most people are more likely to say NO.
Most PC/Linux users are far happier to fall back on the defense that: it’s flexible, there is no over-arching control of the way things should be done, etc…
Why are you so offended in the first place? Do you have valid criticism of the Finder UI? Or of something on the PC or Linux? Than do it. You seem so caught up in being PC (politically correct) and defensive that you fail to see that you are demonstrating my point.
And getting back to Jaggon’s question. The way I posed the situation was my answer–people like Siracusa and Gruber (daringfireball) love the Mac UI–for them, they are only trying to improve it further. However, when the uninformed and reactionary get involved you do get blowback, negative propaganda–morons throwing around retarded and ignorant claims. This is a problem, but I prefer having the healthy, focused criticism and its ultimate effect on the design plus the bad press to not having bad press but having a stagnant design in a community that doesn’t actively debate the issue. So it’s not the worst problem in the world.
Get it?
Case in point: Rayiner. Did you read the part where Siracusa suggests two Fidners–one spatially-oriented, one not. Do you realize that he doesn’t need to talk about the comman line when he is writing about the spatial Finder because the CLI is there and behaves consistently with other CLIs? Did you read the part where he discusses different plugins to provide different browser “views”?
Where does Siracusa say this is the best and only way people should interact with data and because of that Apple should offer no other way to navigate but by a spatial means?
OH, he didn’t. So what did he miss?
“The candy coating is the least of them.” You’re the first to bring it up. It’s your first point. Siracusa doesn’t care to mention it at all.
Seems like you’re the one focusing on it. UI Design people understand this is largely a “look-and-feel” issue only and has only small overlap with UI.
“They tried too hard to be inovative on a GUI that exists on every system now.”
Really? OS X does the least in terms of being innovative of UIs that have come out the last two years (excepting the Dock). It has largely preserved the traditional UI features that have been present in MacOS for years. Very little contextuality, no task panes, no specialized views for particular filetypes, no new immersive experiences really. OS X is rather old school… Oh, do you mean its look? Yes, it is flashy but that’s hardly trying “to be inovative on a GUI that exists on every system now.”
“I actually want LESS features.”
Again, Windows and Linux have MORE features. Apple has the tightest, strictest, narrowest UI of any major system.
“At least let me turn off all the “Special Effects”.”
You can. If you need help (you clearly do), simply ask.
Happy, BR? He’s a Mac user, and by no means am I suggesting he’s smarter than you are. But I am not suggesting he’s in that pool of UI experts and Mac devotees that I was referring to earlier either. I think Jaggon and I would agree–his voice is the type that doesn’t add and aid the critiques of Mac UI but rather creates a bunch of noise.
This article is fantastic. It is well written and includes a huge amount of information. It also has a lot of jewels:
“The interface IS the computer. The computer IS the interface.”
This article should be required reading for all people who create software/computers. It should be part of the developers’ bible for Linux and OpenBeOS developers. It should be required reading for tech support people (to better understand the assumptions of their users/clients).
I can’t recommend this article more.
One of my biggest problems with the Finder is the seeming lack of synchronization between the command line and graphical environments. Changes made from the command line are not quickly recognized by the Finder.
Similarly, one of my biggest problems with the Mac OS X Finder is that there is little in the way of real-time responsiveness to file system changes. If I download a file to my desktop and Stuff-It automatically expands the content to the desktop, why do I have to CLICK ON the desktop to set focus to it before the icons will appear? This isn’t 100% consistent, either. Sometimes the downloaded file icon shows just fine, but the expanded contents (folder and contents therein) do not show up on the desktop. So I double click again on the zip. Then I suddenly have TWO duplicate folders (albeit one called “2”).
A HUGE NO-NO of GUI behaviorism. I’ve never had this problem with Classic Mac OS. In fact, most of the problems of performance and behaviorism on the OS X Desktop and with I/O are problems I never had with Classic Mac OS.
Dear Anonymous (IP: —.geomatrix.com)
“Really? OS X does the least in terms of being innovative of UIs that have come out the last two years … OS X is rather old school… ”
Which other OS uses pdf to render the gui? A true WYSIWG GUI!! Which other OS uses the video card to render the UI(the old amiga)? Which other BSD/LINUX/UNIX doesn’t use a varient of X11 of some kind? The only place where they are BEHIND Micro$oft is the database file system they are making. I couldn’t even read the article because it was too focused on the “Martha Stewart” aspects of an interface.
No, you can’t turn off ALL the special effects. It still looks likes it was designed by Orange people from inside the Willy Wonka chocolate factory!!!!!! XP is just as bad!! Now, the linux people are going it. STOP.
S.Jobs and Co. doesn’t want a GUI you can modify to suit your personality. Reaching back into the cob webs I recall SJ is keen on users being able to easily adjust to any -same version- Mac workstation. Plug-in modification, sanctioned by Apple, would swim against that stream. That also explains why it has become too MSoft like; that is where 92% of the users live. You what them to feel at home.
Added, there are alternate finders. I’ve tried some so spatial my eyes rotated in their sockets (the swimming pool metaphor). T.H.E., RH Browser, there is one from Japan (can’t remember the name). Pick your poison. JS’s points were just personal observations and good suggestions. Why quibble? Honestly, for me “The Finder” does just fine now. Keep it simple, keep it stable without holding down keys once a month during boot (unlike Classic Mac).
I appreciate Apple’s attempt to do a few things at a time, get them (mostly) right, and look for the next improvement.
I have one final thing to say about that article :Windbag!
Okay, why? Because he takes time to explain things clearly and to define the words he’s using so that people understand what the hell he’s talking about? Comments like this really get up my nostrils. It smacks of the bully on the playground who beats up some kid simply because his vocabulary is larger.
I’m not an everyday Mac user, but my colleague who ‘switched’ recently was fairly happy with the Mac, except for one major annoyance: the ability to select a file, cut it (ctrl-x), go somewhere else and paste it (ctrl-v).
The only ways to do that are to copy the file first, then go and delete the original, or open two finder windows, position them nicely on the desktop, then drag-and-drop the file…
Especially considering that the ‘Edit’ menu is always there, and the Cut function too (grayed out), it’s only a matter of implementing it!
If they do that, I may switch myself.
No, I’m joking, I like my PC 🙂
Oh, yes, another missing thing on the Mac: a taskbar or equivalent.
I like to have all my windows fullscreen. So how do I drag-and-drop things between apps? Easy on Windows: Drag the object to the taskbar, to the destination app, wait 2 seconds, the app window will come to the front, drop the object. Try to do that on Mac, you must first arrange your windows…
Hopeless.
To answer a previous comment saying that there seems to be more complaints about Mac than about Windows or Linux, maybe it’s because the Mac is *really* worse! 😛
XP is just as bad!!
Actually, no. XP have less than half of OS X annoying animation, for example. The icons are far more easier to attract attention unlike OS X photo-like icons – and best of all – you can turn off most of the animation, unlike OS X again.
Now, the linux people are going it.
Of course, all the animation I have on KDE can be turn off at will easily, on GNOME just requires editing a text file
But hey, who said Linux is for n00bs?
The author said that the concepts are workable and this is proven because they exist in other places. Indeed he is correct: the find results folder exists in BeOS (a semi-dead product). It works as he suggested. The “shelf” for delayed copy/paste/move operations is a cut/copy/paste feature in the Newton and in NeXT Step (both dead products).
His spatial browser idea is something I would like to see adopted into the Favorite/Bookmark feature of all web browsers. You double-click a Bookmark and the browser opens up to that location with the window configured exactly like it was when you saved the Bookmark (be that square, fullscreen, along the vertical edge, etc).
Why do these concepts appear and then seemingly vanish when the products that introduce them fail? Why is the idea seemingly lost to the world of the surviving products?
I think there is an interesting research paper here… why does the computer industry refuse to make computer interfaces better in any way but “baby-steps?” Could it be that developers are so good at thinking in the abstract concepts and fight the knowing designers tooth and nail? Look at Linux. Look at this forum every time a new and good idea is posted (“What do we need that for??” “Why should we make it like that? If I can do it the old way, so can everyone else!” or my favorite: “If you want it to be like that, then make it that way yourself!!”)
To make a really useful and humane computer requires a willing cooperation between the programmers and the designers. The designers have to accept when certain ideas are outside the grasp of current technology or when it will extend the deadline and programmers have to accept what the designers have discovered to be the best design, regardless of what the programmer’s particular coding preference is.
Sadly, programmers are bad designers and designers are bad programmers.
Cutting and pasting files is a very non-spatial concept. To make something vanish and then reappear. Mac has, for years, had something that accomplished the same thing; “Drag and Drop.”
Two different ways, each has their pain. The cut and paste is one of my favorites NOW, but when I first watched Windows users doing it I thought is was a very strange and unnatural way to “move” something.
rajan, who says you can’t turn off OS X animation??
My Dock doesn’t magnify, and if i want the icons won’t bounce either when i open an app. what more animation is there????
Methinks you are just a tad misinformed.
As for XP, blech! People call OS X candy-like, well LunaXP is far too Fisher-Price-like. It’s been proven that bright, stong, dominating colours (Blue used in XP) appeal in particular to the somehwhat less educated. Well i guess it’s only fitting really……
L.
It’s been proven that bright, stong, dominating colours (Blue used in XP) appeal in particular to the somehwhat less educated. Well i guess it’s only fitting really……
Is blue really a “bright” color? Especially the dark blue used in XP? Oh well, I am finding myself relieved that I always turn that off for some reason.
> the only ways to do that are to copy the file first, then go and delete the original, or open two finder windows, position them nicely on the desktop, then drag-and-drop the file…
Your colleagues best optoin is to drag the file to the hard drive and let the window popup the same as you do to the application in the taskbar but this keeps going