or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple strengthens Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with new build
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple strengthens Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with new build - Page 4

post #121 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone

Is a tabbed finder window present in Leopard? It certainly helps clear the clutter with web pages, and I think it could be a valuable tool with the Finder.

How about Apple allow global tabs for any app? Instead of having multiple windows laying around the desktop, associate them all for each app. Would clear the clutter and make my day.

As long as tabs can be turned off, they will be a good thing. Sometimes they are just not the right thing to be using.

Don't forget that you can back up in a finder window. Not quite as convenient, but it works well.
post #122 of 152
(ignore, my comments weren't making sense)
post #123 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman

(ignore, my comments weren't making sense)

Everything is normal then.
post #124 of 152
I knew you were going to comment on my "ignore this" comment ..!!! arghghgh
post #125 of 152
Aw man, you're past the 6,500 post mark ... This Magictacular Melgrossian Posting Machine roars on...
post #126 of 152
If I didn't have to look for work and excercise and watch tv shows from b!ttor3nT and stuff I'd be posting like a madman (not saying that you are) ... But yeah, trying to keep my manic posting in control... *breathe in* *breathe out* ... I try to count to 10 and then see if I still should post something
post #127 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by DogGone

Is a tabbed finder window present in Leopard? It certainly helps clear the clutter with web pages, and I think it could be a valuable tool with the Finder.

How about Apple allow global tabs for any app? Instead of having multiple windows laying around the desktop, associate them all for each app. Would clear the clutter and make my day.

Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
post #128 of 152
Damn I should of patented the idea. Jobs, you owe me some options if you use my idea - just make sure they are all above board!
post #129 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCrazy

Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!

If you like the idea of tabs, you might as well go back to System 6 without Multifinder. The idea of only being able to see one thing at a time is perfect for singletasking OSes and people that only need to see one thing up on the screen at any given time on small 9" screens.

Tabs are obsoleted by the fact that it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now and OSes can multitask efficiently...4 times moreso with computers that have 4 cores.
post #130 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol

it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now



Reality check.
post #131 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCrazy

Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!

Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.

I think a tabbed finder might not be as efficient to use as separate windows when managing files. I pretty much use the favorites panel on the left side almost like I would with tabs. I think tabs help make Exposé more useful, given that there would be fewer windows to clutter the "all window" view. Unfortunately, software like Firefox and Safari use a separate window to manage downloads, it would be nice if they offered an option to put the download manager in a tab. Safari's reputed feature for moving tabs between windows might be nice, I've often had the need to transfer multiple chunks of data between two different pages, separate windows make that easier.
post #132 of 152
Spaces. Word.
post #133 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.

Yes I definitely agree, Spaces is not a replacement for Exposé but a way of tidying it up a bit. Tabs can be useful but only in some apps and there is also a definite need sometimes for separate windows. It would be nice if Apple and Firefox could integrate the download window.
post #134 of 152
I use Tabs pretty much every day in PathFinder. They end up not being as handy as I thought they would but they are definitely a welcome edition.

Bread Crumbs would also be very nice to have, something that PathFinder has as well.

I always get annoyed when I do a search from Spotlight and drop into the Finder somewhere after clicking on my search results. It takes way to much time to find out where you are rather then just having a bread crumb path the refer to.

I heard vista was going to use bread crumbs... If so what ever, I think the Finder should as well.

I'd actually like a two window stacked Finder so that I could drop files from one to the next with out having to constantly maintain two separate Finder windows and worry about one getting covered by another open app, etc, etc. So you'd basically have a FINDER with TABS and BREADCRUMBS and the option of a second Finder window basically docked to the top or bottom of the First.

Ok back to work....

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #135 of 152
Agreed, bread crumbs would be a useful addition to spotlight. It's necessary to know where files come from.
post #136 of 152
Does command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualify as a breadcrumb?
post #137 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjk

Does command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualify as a breadcrumb?

I think a bread-crumb in this usage specifically shows the trail all the time. I think command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualifies as a "list view" of the path but serves the same purpose, but inadequately.

The current solution in my opinion and my usage requirements is
  • an extra step
  • most average users don't know about that, especially switchers.
  • not as effective as seeing the path all the time
  • I can quickly compare a couple of paths in open Finder windows if I'm in similarly named folders with a quick glance. I cant have the path of multiple Finder windows seen curently with the Command clicking.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #138 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacCrazy

Agreed, bread crumbs would be a useful addition to spotlight. It's necessary to know where files come from.

In a way, yes, but in another way, no.

The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.

The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.

So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.
post #139 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol

In a way, yes, but in another way, no.

The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.

The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.

So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.


The current reality is the current file system can be radically improved with the simple step of adding bread-crumbs. Lets call it a bridged step to the future...

The future where "...the flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit", is still effectively ... the future. When it arrives in a simple usable implementation the bread-crumbs can be fed to the birds for all I care.

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #140 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink

not as effective as seeing the path all the time

Why would you want to see an ugly, arcane concept like the path?

Quote:
I can quickly compare a couple of paths in open Finder windows if I'm in similarly named folders with a quick glance.

So don't name folders similarly
post #141 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Why would you want to see an ugly, arcane concept like the path?



So don't name folders similarly…

it's all about how people work - I think maybe bread crumbs would be a bad approach maybe if you hovered over the file it could appear as links, would be a neater approach.

Edit: But spotlight does this already, so no need to implement (just without the links)!
post #142 of 152

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #143 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by tink


A better title would have been "A great example of a cluttered, obtrusive interface".
post #144 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

A better title would have been "A great example of a cluttered, obtrusive interface".

true, but powerful

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #145 of 152
Quote:
Tabs are obsoleted by the fact that it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now...

I have a 12" screen. A lot of other PowerBook and iBook users do, too. Believe me, if you are on 1024x768 resolution, you LIKE TABS. I'd LOVE tabs in Mail and Finder. As an OPTION. Why not?
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #146 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic

I have a 12" screen. A lot of other PowerBook and iBook users do, too. Believe me, if you are on 1024x768 resolution, you LIKE TABS. I'd LOVE tabs in Mail and Finder. As an OPTION. Why not?

I hate to break it to you, but while unfortunately Apple still shipped 1024x768-resolution laptops until this May, they're unlikely to care about that kind of setup much any more. Future UI developments will be towards widescreen.
post #147 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic

I have a 12" screen. A lot of other PowerBook and iBook users do, too. Believe me, if you are on 1024x768 resolution, you LIKE TABS. I'd LOVE tabs in Mail and Finder. As an OPTION. Why not?

Why not just use a combination of Spaces and Exposé?
post #148 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

A better title would have been "A great example of a cluttered, obtrusive interface".

Also just for the record all of those options are....just options, that can be toggled on and off by the user per his or her wishes....

But yes cluttered

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply

All my life, I always wanted to be somebody. Now I see that I should have been more specific.
- Lily Tomlin
Reply
post #149 of 152
And most important, you cannot drag and drop files onto the breadcrumb navigation the way it is implemented now. That would be awesome and Path Finder already does this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tink

I think a bread-crumb in this usage specifically shows the trail all the time. I think command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualifies as a "list view" of the path but serves the same purpose, but inadequately.
post #150 of 152
By the sound of it, I'd swear you guys shuffle files around your HD every half hour.

And if you do, you should all reconsider doing such a thing. For one, it's a gross waste of time and a very ineffecient way of doing things.

Every week I'll be giving out a new tip:

Tip #1: save your files in the correct folder so that you don't need to move them later

Tune in next week.
post #151 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol

In a way, yes, but in another way, no.

The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.

The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.

So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.

I'm not convinced of the need to completely switch. Maybe it will be that way in a several years if Spotlight becomes reasonably useful. Not only will I not eliminate a useful path to find, associate and organize files, at the moment, I can't rely on Spotlight to find what I want within a reasonable amount of time. Spotlight is often only a fallback because I usually know where to find a file, and too often, I've found circumstances where Spotlight won't even find a file. I have to use it from within Finder to be able to properly add restrictions, entering terms within the magnifying glass icon in the menu bar is simply too crude. At any rate, the tools to organize and find files needs significant improvement to justify even the slightest consideration of moving away from a hierachical system. The iTunes system of managing media works fairly well, but that's because it doesn't try to do everything, it only deals with certain types of files, and often has a massive amount of metadata accessible to it without much need for the user to enter it. I think iPhoto's method is kind of tedious and needs a lot of work, in part because the metadata isn't nearly so easy to enter.

I really don't see a problem with the apparent redundancies in metadata handling. If I can liken it to a tool, tool redundancy is good, if one fails to fit the situation, I try a different one. Many times, make these considerations on what to use from minute to minute. I often have to do this in the world of software tools and in the world of mechanical tools, I can and have made custom tools of both types when the situation needed it. Taking away an entire class of tools just because it's old is naivé in my opinion, one person's useless may be the only thing that's useful to another.
post #152 of 152
I'd rather keep the hierarchal filing system currently in use. IMHO, people are hardwired mentally to use routes. We take routes to go to work, we have routes we memorize through complex buildings, we have routes we prefer to take through a grocery store. Routes are something everyone has, and that seems to extend well to the HFS. If I'm working on a file and save that file in Documents/Work/Plans/New Construction/Samples/ (please don't flame me if I used incorrect syntax there), I'm going to use that route to find that file the next time I need it because that's the route I took when I placed it there. I think Apple was kind enough to allow us to place jumps to frequently used folders in the left hand column of Finder and that helps a lot, but I'll be honest and admit, I haven't used Spotlight much at all. When I'm looking for something, I know where I put it, and I simply navigate there, just like I navigate to a store coming home from work. I'll happily keep the HFS.
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
Fortes Fortuna Adiuvat
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple strengthens Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with new build