Mountain Lion brings new iOS-like file handling, iCloud App Library features - Page 2

It's not that they've removed it, but that they seem to be headed in that direction, focusing their design and development efforts entirely at newbies. There is no hierarchical files system on iOS. This works fine when you're dealing with a few files, but I find it completely unmanageable when dealing with larger numbers. This is a roadblock keeping me from using my iPad more for business.

Apple should provide a way to scale this simplistic file viewer system into something that's usable for real work. I'd love to see if Apple's CEO and CFO manage all their legal and financial documents in simple thumbnail fashion, with no subfolders, and grouped solely by application.

Yes, and now those people only lose files that were not recently opened. This is treating your personal files the way Google treats internet content, with people only accessing whatever content comes up on the first search results page. This is not a viable system for anything but the most casual use.

I save files to my desktop all the time because I want them handy while I'm working on them and I can't be bothered to search through 5 levels of nested folders several times a day.

But once I'm done with them they get filed in a folder heirarchy where I can browse for them later by category or project. The fact that a lot of people are incapable of organizing their files is no reason to remove the option to do so. I realize that's not (yet) the case on OS X, but it's distressing to deal with this limitation on iOS and worrisome to see OS X going in the same direction.

They did not remove the hierarchical file system from Mountain Lion!!!

I was referring to iOS, and the limitations of this "simplified" file system if it were applied more broadly. This is relevant on the iOS devices as their use expands beyond media consumption, and it is also relevant on the desktop, as Apple seems to be drifting their design efforts towards simplification at the expense of utility.

Not an Apple basher here - far from it. But I do have concerns about this hyperfocus on dumbing down file management to the point where it's useless for anything beyond finding recently opened files.

No you weren't. Your comments specifically refer to apps in Mac OS.

That wasn't my intention. My bad if I wasn't clear.

First you won't store thousands of files on your iOS device (in the near future).

On the Mac you will have the standard file system with preview.

For iCloud, I can easily modify an existing iPhone app I wrote in 2008 to do the equivalent of browse and preview... If you really want to do that sort of thing on a mobile device.

Rather, I suspect we need to rethink how we navigate and locate files... A db might help... Metadata might help... Smart Collections might help... Content skimming might help...

As it turns out, file names are usually a very poor way of locating files...

What, exactly, does "img_0102" convey about the file you seek?

It is interesting that a metadata capability already exists that db-driven, keywordable, smart collections, content skimmable, and file system hierarchy...

The real challenge is for us to open our minds to a potentially better solution --- rather than insist that the legacy baggage is the only solution.

Look at what you wrote. None of it is relevant to a smartphone. What Apple has successfully done is made the transition between sharing files on iOS and Mac devices easy without affecting the way Macs are used by itself or with other PCs on a network. They even went out of their way to make sure that files accessed through the Finder and iCloud could not be easily confused by purposely making them very distinct in the way they work while also reinforcing that these iCloud files will be easily accessed by iOS.

The Mountain Lion ate my file system!

Yeah sure, but then what started out as an effort to simplify file management actually turns into a massive rethinking of how we name and tag files. I don't think that's a realistic goal for an audience that can't be bothered to understand folders.

For me it's easier and more efficient to dump a bunch of generically named files into a usefully named folder and folder structure than to go back and rename and tag a large collection of files individually - many of which may have been received from someone else.

Remember that most of us have to work with others, and not all of our co-workers share our file naming and organization habits. Half of my emails arrive with a subject titled something like: "Re: FW: FW: Following up on a...".

Like.

How is adding functionality without removing previous functionality a bad thing?

*mumblemumble* … IOS WILL KILL THE MAC! … BECAUSE! *mumblemumble*

There's nothing terrible about it now. But the fact that even on a desktop OS they chose to provide only an iOS-style view of iOS files isn't reasuring. It underscores their desire to push the simplified file view over the more flexible Finder view options.

I mean they're effectively imposing a 15 character limit on filenames. In that screenshot, imagine if there were 50 similar looking files all with names starting with "Screen Shot 201..." Bet it would be fun to find the desired file...

They should at least provide the view toolbar to give users the option to switch to a detailed view, expand the filename column so the names are fully visible, and then sort as desired.
See my crappy mockup below:



Then again, I'm making some assumptions based on a single screenshot so it may be that there are ways around this limitation. But from what we've seen so far it doesn't look like it...

See the standard four-bar of view options? Notice how it is indeed still there? Apple could have easily removed it from view entirely when the "iCloud" option is selected and only shown it when "On My Mac" is selected. They didn't. It's just greyed out.

I'd bet that, given proper feedback, they'll un-grey it.

Overcoming the temptation to provide a sarcastic reply, I edited those buttons in to make my point of what I think they should have done. The original image is on adamthecarny's post above - sans toolbar

An acid stash [something of a fable] wouldn't make you an a$$ hat.

Yesterday, I went down to the local gas station... Signed a monthly commitment for $199 worth of gas... They threw in a BMW...

I agree. I'm a big fan of Apple's Aperture app, but I don't like having my photos saved in Apple's somewhat hidden library. They should be filed the same way iTunes files my music: put them in a folder, sorted by photographer and then by date. Or, perhaps by photographer, then by project. If I want to open a photo in photoshop, it's annoying to have to go into Aperture first and open the image from there. If I want to find a song, it's easy to go into my iTunes library folder and find it. Folder > Artist > Album > Song. I find it interesting how iTunes and Aperture, both made by Apple, have such different methods for handling files. iTunes does it the right way. Aperture does it the wrong way. This new option Apple is adding seems to follow the Aperture way rather than the iTunes way.

I'm already seeing some apps in the Mac App Store saving files to wacky and inaccessible places. I was using the SimpleMind mind map app until i realized it was saving the files somewhere completely inaccessible, meaning the files would only be accessible to THAT particular app. No thanks. App deleted.

I'm all for Apple merging iOS and OS X in ways that make sense, but there's a huge difference between the two form factors. In fact, iOS is already beginning to outgrow its sandboxing. There are so many excellent photography apps, but it's a giant hassle to share images between them, And it shouldn't have to be that way.

There is no removal of a UNIX File System. The system is based upon a Super Inode structure of pointers so there is no way to REMOVE IT.

The same with iOS. They can abstract it to hide/obfuscate it from the user to access it and that makes sense in the Embedded Space. It's brain dead in the Desktop/Developer OS Space.

And you're insulting some of the most brilliant File System Engineers of the past 4 decades implying it.

You've completely missed the point. If Apple made the iCloud file system (that is primarily for iOS-based devices to access) as complex and robust as the Finder access in On My Mac then people like you would simply put excessive number of files in the iCloud area without regard with how you will get access to them on iPhone and iPads. The fact that you don't understand why they made it look this way means you are the person they designed this for.

Nicely said... With very controlled meter!

One doesn't need a full file system on iOS (actually, under the hood, the usual hierarchical file system DOES exist --we just don't have the Finder, nor the File open dialog boxes, nor file searches/browsing in mixed project directories--, but it is special in the way it presents documents to the user), especially if those files are stored remotely.

All it takes is to funnel the proper search, open file, etc. request to iCloud or to a remote Mac, for the user to "see" a remote file system.
[I know, because many years ago, I wrote a "minicomputer" (Think HP2100) OS that had a file system just based on remote pipes through a parallel interface to an RSX-11M and VMS system): it offered all the functionality to be expected without any file system at all, just file open/close on the 4 standard devices (paper tape in-out/keyboard-xyzScope!) drivers and a tiny dirListing utility)]

I sincerely hope Apple also includes the "On my Mac" location in future File Open dialogs, such that mixed project subdirectories become accessible again.

After all, iOS should COMPLEMENT the real work we perform on the computer. For some, it is NOT enough for iOS to be an iLife device.

I'm pretty sure most of us here do, but just as well most of us can't see it let alone use/navigate it..
All we [concerned people] are saying is that everything is going in a scarily dumb direction, one of those people usually regret taking and anyway the exact opposite of what turned many of us to the bitten apple.

Please stop calling concerned people "trolls", as it is not a good way to discuss.

Oh.

Well, that sucks. Still, my point stands. Enough people want it, they'll add it for that side.

Not a bad shop, then. It's a little off-center now that I look at it NOT at midnight

I am not aware that I called anyone a troll recently -- especially anyone who presents a reasoned point of view.

I'm sorry, I wasn't referring to you personally, just using your post as a starting point for a healthier discussion.

I think the Finder and the desktop metaphor is tired and has to go. But even on my iPad or iPhone I'm not so happy with the user interface. If I start to edit a photo in one app and then change to another it's not so easy; it seems to involve way too many steps. I'd hate to see OS X move in that direction, but I'm not gonna be alarmist and will assume there will still be a choice to open a doc in another application. I can't imagine moving from one sandbox to another is any big deal; why not allow a tool choice as the mouse hovers over the document? I wanna access my stuff my way. I don't go into my tool chest and pull out a saw and then look for a board; it's the other way 'round.

One innovation that has helped me out massively in recent years is tagging. I cannot understand why Apple hasn't implemented this into the Finder and system; Windows does. Will ML allow it? Or feature it?

Yeah, I don't get why Apple just don't get this concept of tagging very well. I only use HoudahSpot and Punakea when search for files via tagging and it has been so much easier. I basically just dump all my files into the documents folder and forget about using the hierarchy system entirely.

Here is a post that I wrote a couple of years ago where I asked if the Macs moving to make Lion be more like iOS was going to be the end of the Finder. The people in the post bring up some interesting ideas:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=114450

Think about the difference between Aperture and iTunes. iTunes is merely cataloging your music and retrieving and playing it for you when you need it. Aperture is also cataloging and retrieving your photos but it also needs to track what edits and corrections you've made non-destructively. So in essence it's storing your original photo and the "recipe" of edits. If Apple exposes the filesystem to you and you mistakenly severe the connection between the original and the "recipe" you could be in a world of hurt as EXIF and other photo Metadata aren't designed to store these edits along with the file.

I was into tagging a bit ago and then I realized a tag is essentially an invisible folder. So in the end it will not alleviate the burden of managing documents as it's still incumbent upon to the operator to devise a logical or at the least understandable tagging system which would likely work well for folders as well.

The nextgen filesystem would have to have Artificial Intelligence as a way of reducing our reliance on folders or tags IMO

No, there is no way for the artificial intelligence to do this. A computer can't possibly know what the most important words are for a particular file. Fortunately giving a file some tags only takes a few seconds.

I've placed a couple of documents in Preview, edited them in Pages or Numbers and they synced up automatically. It's easier to share these docs to a wider audience, as well. It looks like the iCloud syncing will allow we developers to sync documents similarly between custom Mac and iOS apps.

I own an Android Phone and use Google Docs, etc. a bit and that system works well, too; but (to my knowledge) I do not know of any moves by Google to open general apps and the Android SDK to allow the same functionality provided in SDK's for general iOS and Mac apps.

I think they still have a ways to go on really making iCloud really useful, but I am seeing some benefits to the approach, here early on. Apple seems to be finding ways to compete with Google and Box.com, etc. and I like how they are not copying the file folder concept.....

I think that the first step is to move the Finder away from being a standalone application into the CoreService that it is.

Look at the way notifications are done:



The Finder could appear the same way - no more column view, no more windows. It could be like the sliding drawers idea so hierarchies load vertically but the parent elements collapse while showing the vertical breadcrumb (it only really has to show the source drive, a centre part with how many dots and the direct parent.

Multiple Finder views can be opened on request side by side, each with a spotlight bar at the top and pulled out to the left for more room.

What this means is that files are always accessed in exactly the same place and if you are in full screen mode, you don't have to exit the app to get to the filesystem. If you are in a browser and want to save images, you drag a file to the right and it pops up at your last location.

The obvious parallel in iOS is the popover or the notification panel. There can be a gesture to drag in from the right to open the file view.

This changes filesystem management from active to passive without removing control. The iOS sandbox removes control. I might want to open a .doc in both Word and Pages without dealing with permissions. What if I want to insert a PSD into an FCPX edit? People need to be able to group files from multiple apps together.

I don't mind the Mountain Lion option for keeping files closed off as I'm sure it will be very easy for a number of users as long as it doesn't hide or replace the Finder.

What I would like to see is a leaner OS kernel. The OS X Lion kernel uses 500MB-1GB RAM on a clean boot and yet iOS runs no problem with only 256MB RAM total. It consistently uses more RAM than any other process.

Ooh.



Ooh. You've given me an idea. A wonderful, delicious idea. ONWARD, TO PHOTOSHOP CS6!


YES. Strip down the OS to be less of a resource hog. Strip it down to compete with custom Linux builds in its NON-use of RAM. And do the same for key applications at launch, slowly expanding to others as the 10.x.x builds roll out.

So a slimmer OS at launch, plus a rewritten iTunes that sips RAM instead of guzzling it, and QuickTime and the App Store, and Mail, and all the Utilities etc.

I disagree to some extent...

AI can be used to do some things that would be too time consuming to be effectively done manually.

FCP X has some great metadata analysis and generation capabilities -- in addition to making smart collections and tagging your folder structure and camera/file metadata, FCP X can scan and analyze AV files for:

1) People
-- 1 person
-- 2 people
-- a group of more than 2 people
2) shot type
-- closeup
-- medium
-- wide
3) color balance
4) stabilization and rolling shutter
5) audio problems
-- background hum

The results of these analyses are placed in smart collections and can optionally be corrected automatically,

Now the clip exists only once -- but it can appear in many smart collections based on file structure keywords, camera metadata, user assigned keywords (tags)...

So, for example, you could set up a smart collection that contained any 720p clips, from your Sony camera, which contain a medium shot of 2 people, needs stabilization and has camera hum...

Then any clip you ingest will be automatically tested and placed in this (or any other) smart collection that matches the criteria,

This is easy to use and superior to OSX smart folders.


I suspect we will soon see this in OSX ML,,, then later a compatible, lighter version for iOS.

Yeah, the computer could get you a great start on finding things. But you could never fully trust it. Think of the situation where you're looking for the best version of eight Word drafts of the same document. The words have been rearranged so the computer thinks they are almost alike. You, on the other hand, like one edition so you'd have to tag it "best" or "final" or give it five stars or whatever. You always need intervention. But I like having three layers of "finding": brute machine search, tags, and directory structure.

And to respond to an earlier comment, tags are more than just folders. I can apply numerous tags to one file; it's a waste to put multiple copies of a file in multiple folders.

And some people have taken an Aperture-like approach to all files; look at Leap.

Rob

Why would you have EIGHT FILES for different versions of a document when

1. The OS handles versioning by itself?
2. You can just copy/paste the text further down in the same document?

FIlm editors have a similar requirement -- there are often multiple takes and edits of a similar shot.

FCP X has a easy and intuitive way of handling this...

The user can define sets of keyword (tags) and assign them to kb keys. If needed (you forgot) Cmd-k opens the keyword HUD showing the keywords and their kb equivalent.

The user can select and/or play a clip and assign one or more keywords -- for example: best, Martha, close up.

Then a smart collection is created for each individual keyword and the combination of keywords -- the clip is placed in each smart collection.

Later, you can select one or more additional clips and just drag them to whichever smart collections apply -- and FCPX will tag each clip with the appropriate keywords.

It really is nice and easy!

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...WgYwOrOzxdpzUw

http://fcp.co/final-cut-pro/tutorial...nal-cut-pro-x-