or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem - Page 2

post #41 of 95
One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)
post #42 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)

I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a major overhaul to Finder in Panther. It has to be some of the most criticized parts of osX. Apple has probably been working on Finder's replacement for some time, and the fruit of their work will hopefully be unveiled at the WWDC.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by dfiler
When a file is changed, the previous data is untouched until the new data has been created. When the write is finished, the filesystem just points to the new data instead of the old. This reuslts in a MUCH smaller window of opportunity for data corruption. (This is the way that Apple has impletended HFS+'s journaling right?)

This is not how journaling works. When a file is modified, the old blocks are overwritten with the new contents.
post #44 of 95
For me it will be one of the best things that can append now for OS X.
And with a sort of FS like that, perhaps we will get rid of these stupids .DS_Store (I know that we need them for the moment for the icon positions etc... but that a dirty way I think...) whose are annoying while sharing files with linux or wintel machines... They're don't care about that files...
post #45 of 95
From that osnews link:
Quote:
The address space in BFS is 64-bit, meaning that the theoretical maximum file size on a BFS volume is 18,000 petabytes (the practical maximum is much smaller for various reasons, but is still in the tens of thousands of gigabytes range). The 32-bit HFS+, like all 32-bit file systems, has a maximum file size of around four gigabytes. Larger files are possible via behind-the-scenes magic which transparently stitches files together, but it seems like this is an issue Apple would have addressed as long as they were creating a new operating system and had the chance to get it right.

...18,000,000 terabytes... Shedooby!!!

Doing away with the 4 GB limit would help with DV files which tend to get... ginormous.

Screed
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #46 of 95
post #47 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by sCreeD
Doing away with the 4 GB limit would help with DV files which tend to get... ginormous.

in a later article by Scot Hacker, he confirms that HFS+ is also a 64bit filesystem. the 4GB limit isn't there, which is why capture files from FCP can be well in excess of 4GB. in fact, i have a 12GB clip used in a project currently.

you might have been thinking of how iMovie keeps files under 2GB each.
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply
This space intentionally left blank.
Reply
post #48 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by beigean
in a later article by Scot Hacker, he confirms that HFS+ is also a 64bit filesystem. the 4GB limit isn't there, which is why capture files from FCP can be well in excess of 4GB. in fact, i have a 12GB clip used in a project currently.

you might have been thinking of how iMovie keeps files under 2GB each.

From Apple:
Max file size:
HFS = 2^31 bytes
HFS+ = 2^61 bytes

File systems and bits:
HFS uses 16-bit fields to identify areas on the disk and these are called allocation blocks. HFS can have up to 2^16 (65,536). HFS+ uses 32-bit fields, and can master up to 4,294,967,296 different allocation blocks.
More allocation blocks means more effective use of your disk space.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #49 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
One thing is for sure if Apple is working on a new Be-like database filesystem: we're getting a new Finder to take advantage of the new filesystem's capabilities...hopefully rewritten from scratch with speed in mind (and if rewritten from scratch, then Apple would definitely choose Cocoa for their rewrite.)

IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.

Hope what I said makes sense...

ZoSo
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
I'm almost certain it works that way, and therefore it doesn't matter what file system you're on as long as the computers use the same network protocols.

The essence of TCP/IP networking is that it works independently of your hardware, OS or File System. Thats why it works so well networking Mac, Unix, Linux, Windoze, BeOS, whatever.

I'm more than happy to lose Classic for a new FS but I beleive that MacOS X Kernel arbitrates all of Classics Access to hardware, including disk read/writes so we could probably still use it with a new FS.
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
post #51 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
I'd be surprised if there weren't at least a major overhaul to Finder in Panther. It has to be some of the most criticized parts of osX. Apple has probably been working on Finder's replacement for some time, and the fruit of their work will hopefully be unveiled at the WWDC.

eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?
Seriously though I do hope we get a re-write...and spring loaded folder bahaviour in the dock....
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by robster
eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?

LOL!
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #53 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoSo
IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.

Hope what I said makes sense...

ZoSo

You're dead on. Heck, how do you think they added journaling to HFS+ without requiring everyone to reformat? Journaling is a plugin that inserts into the VFS stream. Enable it, everything gets journaled. Disable it, back to the original behaviour. Voila. Most Linux/Wintel geeks' jaws drop when you point this out to them... on the Dark Side (and the Penguin Side), major new filesystem features generally mean a reformat and restore, period.

Methinks we're going to see some verra verra nice thangs coming in the next year. The pieces are finally in place.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #54 of 95
post #55 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoSo
IIRC the FS architecture in OS X is sort of plug-in based. That is, the "core" or whatever of the OS deals with something called VFS (suppose it stands for Virtual File System?), then a kind of "translation" takes place to HFS, HFS+ or UFS. I don't know if this is still true in Jagwyre, maybe it's an old 10.0 trick no longer in use, but if it's still true then two things at least are clear: Apple is in no way "forced" to update the Finder (but of course, it'd be great if they did! ) and maybe except for apps like Norton Utils or Drive10 nobody else would need to change a single line of code in their apps, as the app itself wouldn't really deal directly with the new FS.

Hope what I said makes sense...

ZoSo

I never said they were forced or needed to update the Finder. I'm just saying that if they're implementing a new filesystem, the Finder has to be overhauled to take advantage of new features it will bring. Why a new database filesystem without the supporting the goodies it brings.

Right now HFS+ is decent. A new filesystem might bring more speed, but the biggest thing I think is the advantages a database filesystem will bring. Keeping the existing Finder with this new filesystem would be a very stupid move Apple would never make.
post #56 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by robster
eeek! maybe they won't call it Finder anymore!?

I think they should call it "Desktop"
post #57 of 95
No, no, *I* know!

Explorer!
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by frawgz
I think they should call it "Desktop"

D'you know I like that idea...
I know it's not quite as accurate as Finder but it's more descriptive especially to new users.
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by frawgz
I think they should call it "Desktop"

Never happen. Makes too much sense...
post #60 of 95
Y'know, the more time I spend with the Finder in X, the more it pisses me off.

It does stuff that makes no sense (stop opening a frikkin' window when I click on the Dock icon, dammit! You don't do that if I Alt-Tab...), is horribly slow, takes forever to update and is the most crash-prone app in my whole system...
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
Whatever it is, it ain't rocket science
Reply
post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Overhope
(stop opening a frikkin' window when I click on the Dock icon, dammit! You don't do that if I Alt-Tab)

FWIW, that has nothing to do with the Finder, rather it has to do with the app (and the Dock of course). It's the default behavior according to the HI Guidelines when no windows in that app are open.
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by frawgz
I think they should call it "Desktop"

Funny, after using OS X esp. in Column view the desktop metaphor really isn't relevant to me anymore. The Desktop is just another directory. I think of the Finder more as "Library" now (rows and columns of files).
post #63 of 95
John Siracusa of Ars Technica has just published an article 'bout the Finder. Haven't had time to read it yet though. Anyway, here's the link: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-1.html
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by NETROMac
John Siracusa of Ars Technica has just published an article 'bout the Finder. Haven't had time to read it yet though. Anyway, here's the link: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-1.html

I'm just keeping faith that Apple will want to show off all the new toys and implement the changes they've wanted to do all along with the Finder when they give us this new FS.

I suppose if you think about it theres no point in Cocoa-ing the current Finder when your resource is already working on a replacment version to tie in with a new Filing System....

Fingers crossed boy and girls....
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
na-na na-na na-na na-na
Batman!
Reply
post #65 of 95
Quote:
From John's article
How about raiding Apple's nonexistent past? And by that I mean good old vaporware, specifically Copland. I want Copland's "live search folders." Since not everyone is familiar with Copland, I'll explain how they worked (or were supposed to work).

Imagine using the Finder's "Find" command to search for something--say, all files created today that are larger than 2MB and are somewhere on the volume named "My Work." Now imagine "saving" that search in the form of a "magical" folder that always appeared to contain the result of that search, as if the search was run constantly in the background.

For this feature to work correctly, the user should never perceive any actual searching being done. The folder should simply appear to contain the results, and the results should be updated every time the result set changes in any way.

That would be a real time saver! A bit like smart playlists in iTunes isn't it.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #66 of 95
Yes, it's a lot like the smart playlists in iTunes. This is what Kickaha means when he says that the iApps cry out for metadata — the smart playlists couldn't exist unless iTunes kept information about the MP3 files in its database (i.e., metadata). Ideally, that information would be stored in the filesystem and anything could create a "smart playlist".

Note the word "database" in the above paragraph. Relational databases exist to accomplish exactly the sort of querying that Siracusa is talking about. In fact, in a pure relational scheme, every folder would be a query.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #67 of 95
John's introducing the Finder Browser

Quote:
And so I propose the Finder Browser: a purpose-built, visually distinct file browser that tries to do everything a browser is good at doing. First, let's address the visual distinction issue. Browser windows (unlike folders) will have toolbars. But since the toolbar's visibility may be toggled, we can't rely on that alone to differentiate browser windows. As loathe as I am to admit it, when I visualize a Finder Browser window, I see brushed metal. Yes, boo, hiss, and all that, but I'm just trying to be honest. Anyway, even something as simple as a colored background for the window contents would do the trick. Furthermore, since the toolbar would likely be visible in some form most of the time, and since browser windows are capable of view styles that regular folders are not (e.g. column view), it should be easy to distinguish them at a glance...even without any brushed metal.

More about the Finder Browser here.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #68 of 95
ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK!

Normally I agree with much of what John says, but ACK!

Does this strike anyone else as precisely what Windows does (er, did)? A semi-spatial Finder for folder views, and a Browser (Explorer) for non-spatial?

I for one would never, and I do mean never, use the Spatial Finder after using the current one. Smart queries? Heck yeah. Live updates? Booyah. Ubiquitous and rich metadata everywhere? *drool*

Spatial Finder makes a lot of sense for a lot of people... but perhaps instead of two separate apps, they were instead to be a Novice and Power-User mode suite? Yeah, I know that they aren't intended to be used like that, but instead to be complementary, but... is there anyone out there that uses both style simultaneously right now? (Well, as close as you can get in the current Finder, at least...) I'm permanently embedded in Column View and love it. I find it much faster than Icon or List view for 99.99% of what I do.

Perhaps instead of a Spatial Finder, John could realize that a Spatial Finder window is just a live query document for a specific path, with window attributes such as position and size? Sure makes things unified under the covers, and brings it under the auspices of LQDs in the non-spatial Finder... it's a particular document type that the Finder knows how to deal with.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
ACK!I for one would never, and I do mean never, use the Spatial Finder after using the current one. Smart queries? Heck yeah. Live updates? Booyah. Ubiquitous and rich metadata everywhere? *drool*

I'm not sure what you mean here...

If we assume a Spatial Finder, then Clumn View is no option inside the Finder. But in a "browser" like the one JS described it'd fit perfectly well. You might think of it, as you said, a "simple" Finder vs. a "pro" Finder, although I wouldn't agree on this classification. Anyway...

You seem to imply that live queries (hmmm, where does this term come from...???) and all those other goodies cannot fit in a Spatial Finder. If memory is not failing me, you're wrong (if I understood you correctly): wasn't the BeOS Tracker spatial? If it was--as I said, I can't quite remember well--then you have the proof that live queries and lotsa metadata can wonderfully enrich a spatial file-management experience.

IMO, the current User Experience in Mac OS X's Finder is just a tiny step above Windows' Web Folders. OS X has a great flexibility regarding File Systems: they should put that flexibility in the hands of the user, instead of reccomending to developers to adopt that incredibly anal .suffix abomination.

.Suffixing TheWorld+NSDog is not the Macintosh way.

</BeOS_Rant>

ZoSo
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha

Spatial Finder makes a lot of sense for a lot of people... but perhaps instead of two separate apps, they were instead to be a Novice and Power-User mode suite? Yeah, I know that they aren't intended to be used like that, but instead to be complementary, but... is there anyone out there that uses both style simultaneously right now? (Well, as close as you can get in the current Finder, at least...) I'm permanently embedded in Column View and love it. I find it much faster than Icon or List view for 99.99% of what I do.

I think an advanced version of the Spatial Finder along with a very specialized Folder Browser could be very useful. For experienced users the folder = finder window analogy isn't important I know, but for lot's of newbies and casual users it simplifies things a great deal.

I agree with you that Column View is cool, I use it almost all the time, and there's no reason why it wouldn't continue too be that way with some sort of Finder Browser. In addition this Browser could, as John suggested, have lots of browser specific features like bookmarks, history and so on.

And of course the Shelf would be very useful for storing files temporarily, moving files etc. Over time Apple and third parties could expand the Browsers features with plug-ins.
In addition saved Browsers that's customized for specific folders would be very clever. Save a browser for a folder with image files and a special menu bar for working with images - could be a real timesaver (open with, resize, preview drawer - you get the idea). Wouldn't this be hard to implement with the current Finder. And if you don't like the way a Browser is working, you could just trash it and build a new one, and you could keep several of them in every folder if you like.

The smart folder thingy could be implemented either way, and I'll bet we'll see some type of it in a future release from Apple.
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by ZoSo
You seem to imply that live queries (hmmm, where does this term come from...???) and all those other goodies cannot fit in a Spatial Finder.

Not at all... they can fit just fine.

*I* wouldn't use a Spatial Finder after using column view. Others may prefer to.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #72 of 95
The big problem with the original spatial Finder, which John doesn't acknowledge, is that it (consistently ) broke the icon-as-file illusion when you opened a folder. The result was a window that was essentially indistinguishable from a document window, and which could be placed anywhere without affecting the placement of the folder it represented. As long as the user opened a folder, did whatever, and then closed it, the association was close enough, and the zoomrects were reinforcement enough. But I got lost many times in the Great Sea of Finder Windows when I'd open a folder in the lower right-hand corner, and Finder would foreground its window, which I'd stashed in the upper left-hand corner for whatever reason. Since I'm not looking there, I don't see it immediately. Further double-clicking has no visual effect, since the window is already foregrounded at this point, so it takes me a minute to find the damn window.

Now, maybe this could just be me, but I found it one of the most maddening things about the old Finder.

However, I'm in Column View 24/7 now not just because I like it (I do) but because the other two views make no sense outside of a spatial Finder. They're just like Windows' haphazard approach to file management, except that the toolbar can't seem to figure out whether it should appear or not.

I haven't fully digested the contents of that article, but I think there are some sound ideas therein. I'm still not sure about the idea of their being, in effect, two Finders, but it's just about the only way to restore a spatial Finder while keeping the browser-like column view.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by robster
D'you know I like that idea...
I know it's not quite as accurate as Finder but it's more descriptive especially to new users.

Yeah, I think the joke was the Finder WAS actually called "Desktop" in one of the beta versions of OS X. Har, har.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
But I got lost many times in the Great Sea of Finder Windows when I'd open a folder in the lower right-hand corner, and Finder would foreground its window, which I'd stashed in the upper left-hand corner for whatever reason. Since I'm not looking there, I don't see it immediately. Further double-clicking has no visual effect, since the window is already foregrounded at this point, so it takes me a minute to find the damn window.

Perhaps if there was some cool Quartz Extreme/OpenGL effect...double-clicking a folder icons (actually a detailed 3D model of a folder) would create this neat-o animation of it opening up into a window (kinda like zoom rects but cooler) but this very folder icon would be gone since it's actually the window. Only by closing the window would it return to an icon (almost like minimize-in-place I guess).

That would truly make the folders spatial in the sense that you'd never be able to see two different items representing the folder (icon or window)...it'd be one or the other.

Of course, that would kill Steve Jobs' beloved non-spatial Finder view...ie multiple view of the same folder (which is confusing as hell for newbies anyways).
post #75 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Perhaps if there was some cool Quartz Extreme/OpenGL effect...double-clicking a folder icons (actually a detailed 3D model of a folder) would create this neat-o animation of it opening up into a window (kinda like zoom rects but cooler) but this very folder icon would be gone since it's actually the window. Only by closing the window would it return to an icon (almost like minimize-in-place I guess).

That would truly make the folders spatial in the sense that you'd never be able to see two different items representing the folder (icon or window)...it'd be one or the other.

Of course, that would kill Steve Jobs' beloved non-spatial Finder view...ie multiple view of the same folder (which is confusing as hell for newbies anyways).

That might work, although would one move the folder to another location if the folder is in window mode? You can't drag a window to the desktop.

My personal opinion, is they should ditch the spatial finder idea and go with some sort of cool, database browser.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #76 of 95
If the new FS will break Classic they will probably just update classic to 'think' that it is accessing HFS.
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by pyr3
If the new FS will break Classic they will probably just update classic to 'think' that it is accessing HFS.

It makes one wonder. As OS X matures and evolves, is Apple going to keep maintaining Classic compatability. Remember, they disolved the OS 9 team. It's highly unlikely they'll be willing to make any major changes to keep it running in OS X. I don't think classic will disapear in Panther, but after that, it could go.
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #78 of 95
If Classic held back OS X's potential, that'd be sad. I hope Apple isn't dropping cool ideas because "it wouldn't work with Classic".

I'm already sick of developers trying really hard to support both OS 9 and OS X at the same time...and the app looks and feels like ass because it has to follow OS 9's limitations.
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If Classic held back OS X's potential, that'd be sad. I hope Apple isn't dropping cool ideas because "it wouldn't work with Classic".

I'm already sick of developers trying really hard to support both OS 9 and OS X at the same time...and the app looks and feels like ass because it has to follow OS 9's limitations.

WarCraft III is a perfect example. It took a couple of patches before performance and stability were even acceptable in OS X, and of course it still runs better in 9
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #80 of 95
Quote:
Originally posted by Kecksy
That might work, although would one move the folder to another location if the folder is in window mode? You can't drag a window to the desktop.

My personal opinion, is they should ditch the spatial finder idea and go with some sort of cool, database browser.

In what way would this "database browser" work that dosen't fit into the Spatial Finder + Browser Finder idea?
I just don't see why we cant have both. You dont have to use the spatial finder if you don't want too. You can live in the browser if you want too, but they will be separate from each other.
There's the "real" Finder that is spatial, like in say os 9, and in addition you have the Finder Browser / File Browser.

In the real finder, a window IS the folder. Removing the folder icon when the window is open is taking it a bit to far i think. Read Johns article for more indepth information 'bout the idea of the spatial finder.

The Finder Browser is a tool you use to browse the file system much in the same way you browse the internet.
The browser looks different from folder windows so there can be no mistake about a Finder Browser BEING a folder. This browser is specialized towards working with files and filesystems and include many tools for this. Of course these tools are configurable to your exact need.
You could start a browser session at any level in any folder as easy as right-clicking in a folder. Often used browsers could be saved anywhere. Ok, you get the idea.

Hope this makes sense?

Now, I have to go and get some coffee
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
Former WWDC Watchdog.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem