or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard to sport Cocoa Finder and ImageBoot
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Snow Leopard to sport Cocoa Finder and ImageBoot - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

So you mean dragging the file to a new location in the window's sidebar structure or using spring-loaded folder actions to go deeper into the file system, all with one simple drag, isn't enough for them that they feel the need to CUT the file and therefore force the system to take a performance hit due to the overhead involved with adding the file to the clipboard? That's one of the reasons Windozes is so bloated and doesn't perform as good as the Mac OS. I'm glad Apple thinks these things out.

In the Mac world we use drag & drop. These people should NOT expect the Mac platform to conform to the way the Windoze interface works. We like the way our Mac interface works. It's better just because of not doing unnecessary finder actions like CUT of files. There is already too much Windoze appeasement going on in our platform. If they like the way Windoze functions, then let them stay there and enjoy Vista, and not try to bring us down to their illogical level.

I really love OS X, but I dislike people who cannot appreciate that Windows has some points to it. How often have I been told not to complain about window and app closing with the mouse in OS X but damn use CMD-W and CMD-Q for it, just as an example. Now that someone for very good reason prefers to use Cut&Paste instead of tediously moving through complicated folder structures with spring-loaded mouse-hovering etc, he gets told o fucking forget about keyboard shortcuts and damn use the mouse, the mouse and nothing but the mouse. "In the Mac world, we use drag&drop" is just ideology and shutting the eyes when confronted with reality.

Btw there is no performance hit by using the clipboard at all, and you should know that; you are so totally talking bullshit. Cutting would merely copy the directory information to the clipboard, and not some 50 gig file. And in any case, with your totally illogical argument Copy&Paste should be banned, too. The system only takes performance hits when in OS X you cut/copy huge parts of Photoshop pictures to paste them somewhere.
And no, it is perfectly fine that the cut file is not actually being deleted until it is pasted somewhere else.
post #82 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I know cmd + c cmd + v works but why is there no copy in the right-click menu? I really don't see why not...

If I was ljocampo, I'd reply "We in the OS X world don't use that Windows-style right click menu at all because everything is in the top menu, and people can't cope with more than one mouse button anyway, that's why Apple has put lots of thoughts into hiding it and making it accessible only via some hidden CMD-clicking, so if you want any such action in a context menu, just go and play with Windows."
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slewis View Post

Making Cut and Paste finally work would be a major new feature.

Cut and paste isn't enabled for files because it's a poor metaphor for manipulating files. Nor can it behave the way users expect it to (like it does in a word processor, etc.)

Cut and paste doesn't behave the same in all situations, nor is it obvious what will occur when invoked. If you cut and paste on a local volume, it's a rename. But invoking cut and paste across different volumes results in a move operation, not a copy, which can fail and cause data loss if your wireless connection goes down, a firewire cable accidently gets unplugged, etc. If you cancel it, users can be confused since half of your files might be spread across two different volumes, etc.

Users don't have these sort of problems cutting and pasting text, so they wouldn't expect problems to occur if cut and paste was enabled in the finder.
post #84 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

In the Mac world we use drag & drop. These people should NOT expect the Mac platform to conform to the way the Windoze interface works. We like the way our Mac interface works. It's better just because of not doing unnecessary finder actions like CUT of files. There is already too much Windoze appeasement going on in our platform. If they like the way Windoze functions, then let them stay there and enjoy Vista, and not try to bring us down to their illogical level.

Speak for yourself, mate. I have been using Mac for many years and I don't think d&d is superior always. Often times cut and past, or whatever is much quicker and simpler. I thought the era of Mac people touting the mouse as superior to the keyboard was well and truly over. I thought by now we all know the whatever suits you is the best way. And what are you talking about Windows appeasement? If you spend some time working on Windows you will find that not EVERYTHING sucks. And if you find a feature that works better than on the Mac, why not implement a version (hopefully better) in to OSX?
The OSX finder is not perfect, IMHO. I have always thought the Windows way of working on a file level was better. To be able to right click in any file level dialog box to create a new folder, for instance, is great. I prefer the Mac 'look', but the functionality is not always better. What I do like is the ability to drag apps to the tool bar for quick access short cuts (secondary to the dock), and my BIG favorite is Quick look. For the organizationally challenged that is a life saver.
My big gripe with the OSX finder is the speed, or lack of such. I have three Mac, one of which is an old G5 and they all tend to hang when I click on the Apps in the sidebar.
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

An era long gone, yes. It's amazing how the Mac OS UI hasn't evolved much beyond the NEXTSTEP UI, or any UI for that matter. If they start over, I would hope that a rethinking is done.

Mac OS X does kind of shoehorn NeXT concepts into its UI, but it's been mediocre at best. The broken Miller column browser (it doesn't incremently snap to column size widths). Sidebar instead of Shelf. Dock instead of Dock. On top of that, it still has Mac OS issues. The application menus are still in the MenuBar, which I think is a rather horrible location for today's gigantic screens and multiple monitor setups.

Expose is great though. Coverflow gets an "eh" from me. Quicklook gets a thumbs-up. Stacks are ok.

You're not alone. Who'd have thought they could f*** that up? NeXT designed their UI around the evolution of Screens both large and small. The 2 bit view is even more attractive than any other UI in history. You can actually still use it to get stuff done--like fix the video driver.

Btw, we were ready to advance the next phase of NeXT UI with OS X but the amount of whining from internal and large 3rd party developers projecting fear of abandonment forced Steve to compromise.

Eventually, I hope they finally gut the hag of the past and move onward.
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightandshadow View Post

Cut and paste isn't enabled for files because it's a poor metaphor for manipulating files. Nor can it behave the way users expect it to (like it does in a word processor, etc.)

Cut and paste doesn't behave the same in all situations, nor is it obvious what will occur when invoked. If you cut and paste on a local volume, it's a rename. But invoking cut and paste across different volumes results in a move operation, not a copy, which can fail and cause data loss if your wireless connection goes down, a firewire cable accidently gets unplugged, etc. If you cancel it, users can be confused since half of your files might be spread across two different volumes, etc.

Users don't have these sort of problems cutting and pasting text, so they wouldn't expect problems to occur if cut and paste was enabled in the finder.

Why people always come up with this 'metaphor issue'?
The end user doesn't give a **** about bad metaphors.
It works. It increases productivity. People get accustom to it quickly.

I never heared about people losing files with cut/paste in Windows.
And, in fact dragging and dropping files is some sort of cut/paste too, but completely mouse controlled.
(which can be a bit hard if you have to move files through a complex hierarchy, or you need to open two windows everytime)
So basically, you got cut/paste already implemented technically.

If 'cut/paste' doesn't suit you, why not call it 'pick up / drop' or something like that?
post #87 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?

The 10 is, in a sense, part of the name. It is a repeat of the X.

10.0 -> 10.1 -> 10.2 -> 10.3 -> 10.4 -> 10.5 are all major updates, despite, apparently, being point releases. Apple could have called them 10 -> 11 -> 12 -> 13 -> 14 ->15, but they decided to keep the 10 moniker. All these updates involve heavy changes to the kernel and significant changes both to the user space software as well as changes to the user interface.

Roberto
post #88 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveH View Post

No, which is good, because you haven't had to pay for . releases.

Apple chose to keep the "X" naming convention for marketing/branding reasons.

The changes between 10.4 and 10.5 are about the same scale as another company's NT 4.0 to NT 5.0.


Indeed. The KERNEL major version number, in fact, went up by one.

Roberto
post #89 of 115
@dacloo I stand by my opinion. As far as taking a hit, it does even if it's just copying the bindings because that takes time to do but that's not the point. The point is that the Mac way of moving files in the finder is more logical to Mac users than it is to PC users. If you don't like the mouse fine, than use the copy short cut and then hit the delete key before you go to paste or as I said stick with Windows. The choices were always yours. I made my choice.
post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

If I was ljocampo, I'd reply "We in the OS X world don't use that Windows-style right click menu at all because everything is in the top menu, and people can't cope with more than one mouse button anyway, that's why Apple has put lots of thoughts into hiding it and making it accessible only via some hidden CMD-clicking, so if you want any such action in a context menu, just go and play with Windows."

lol there are many ways to skin a cat or use an interface. I just get tired of Windoze people telling us how to play.
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

Speak for yourself, mate. I have been using Mac for many years and I don't think d&d is superior always. Often times cut and past, or whatever is much quicker and simpler. I thought the era of Mac people touting the mouse as superior to the keyboard was well and truly over. I thought by now we all know the whatever suits you is the best way. And what are you talking about Windows appeasement? If you spend some time working on Windows you will find that not EVERYTHING sucks. And if you find a feature that works better than on the Mac, why not implement a version (hopefully better) in to OSX?
The OSX finder is not perfect, IMHO. I have always thought the Windows way of working on a file level was better. To be able to right click in any file level dialog box to create a new folder, for instance, is great. I prefer the Mac 'look', but the functionality is not always better. What I do like is the ability to drag apps to the tool bar for quick access short cuts (secondary to the dock), and my BIG favorite is Quick look. For the organizationally challenged that is a life saver.
My big gripe with the OSX finder is the speed, or lack of such. I have three Mac, one of which is an old G5 and they all tend to hang when I click on the Apps in the sidebar.

I wasn't touting the mouse as superior at all. I use the shortcuts most of the time. But you're absolutely right I should have made that more clear by saying IMHO or use an I. In any event I was speaking for myself and any others who think the same.

IMHO, Appeasement in interface design has been happening a lot on the Mac since Apple is cratering to the PC users. I never said that Windows suck, although I do find that to be true most of the time I've used it, but all Windoze is not bad. It's just not my cup of tea. However each to their own, I say.

btw A right click (contextual menus) for making new folders etc etc has been on the Mac for quite a few years now. Single button Apple mice are ancient history.
post #92 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I know cmd + c cmd + v works but why is there no copy in the right-click menu? I really don't see why not...

The right-click menu is a Microsoft approach, and a flawed one, IMO - hiding options away in a menu which has no on-screen representation is confusing for people who don't know about it. I rarely use the right-click menu in my Windows apps. It's not much more work to go up to the Edit menu, and if a couple of keyboard shortcuts are too much work then no amount of UI tweaking will suit you.
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I know cmd + c cmd + v works but why is there no copy in the right-click menu? I really don't see why not...

post #94 of 115
No disrespect to all you recent converts out there, but the so call 'new feature' that you are calling Image Boot is not new at all.

The Fact is that you could do that in Mac OS 6.x - 9.x ... they just never got it into X yet.
post #95 of 115
The freedom of choice you have permits you to go back to the MicroCr@p World where you pay over $300 per version, instead of $129.

Of course with Winblows, you have to wait for the next $300 version before you get your bug fixes, which inevitably will introduce more bug than it fixes!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

Anybody else sick of having to shell out $150 for a .1 update to OSX?

It felt like the jump from and Panther to Tiger and Tiger to Leopard were about as big performance-wise as the jump from SP1 to SP2 and SP2 to SP3 on XP, with the main difference being the addition of Time Machine and Exposé. Does that really warrant spending all the money upgrading?

What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...

I'd be more than willing to pay $300-400 once every 6 years like the Windows model (instead of $150 every year and a half-2 years) and get the updates/new features for free, especially since the change in philosophy would force Apple to make the compatibility transitions smoother and not penalize folks who upgrade/don't upgrade...

Just a thought. Maybe the grass is always greener, and I do admit that Apple's model allows the company to generate extra hype on a more regular basis (although CocoaFinder and ImageBoot aren't really much to get excited about for the average user...)

I realize this mail exposes me to the potential to a ridiculous number of flames, which really aren't necessary, so please, put away your negative crayons.
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

A right click (contextual menus) for making new folders etc etc has been on the Mac for quite a few years now. Single button Apple mice are ancient history.

True - but less evolved than on Windows. I am not really bothered as there is always another way but the right click within a Save As dialog box is something I have always found useful.

The other one - and this one does bug me - is that if you right click on an image in Safari you don't get the option to see the object's properties (or Info). From a Web developer perspective the lack of this in Safari is tedious. Marginal, I know, but I'm just saying ...
post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

The other one - and this one does bug me - is that if you right click on an image in Safari you don't get the option to see the object's properties (or Info). From a Web developer perspective the lack of this in Safari is tedious. Marginal, I know, but I'm just saying ...

Safari does have that, it just has to be turned on. In the Advanced tab of Safari preferences select "show develop menu in menu bar" and quit and relaunch Safari. Now when you right click on an image there is "Inspect Element" option.
post #98 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbrasington View Post

This was good for a laff and a haff.

The way I remember it, didn't new releases of OS X pack enough punch to cause MicroSoft to completely go back to the drawing board and delay Vista for like..... years?

No, OS X didn't have anything to do with Vista being delayed.
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

What bugs me the most is that every year and a half that Apple .1 updates OSX, the new OSX isn't compatable with a lot of existing software (see ProTools, etc), but new software frequently requires the new OS version...

Every update their have been major changes in the underlying architecture of OS X. Windows service packs are more geared towards bug fixes and stabilization.

Software that requires the new update is because new API's have been written and the underlying architecture as been redone. That is a lot of effort on Apple's part.
post #100 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

Why people always come up with this 'metaphor issue'?
The end user doesn't give a **** about bad metaphors.
It works. It increases productivity. People get accustom to it quickly.

Please listen carefully.

My objection is that putting a move operation under the guise of cut and paste is a poor solution. In addition, moving files can cause data loss in specific situations. Since it's not clear if a cut and paste would result in a rename or a move operation, the user might be unintentionally or unknowing exposing themselves to a risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

I never heared about people losing files with cut/paste in Windows.

I've seen it happen several times. Aborting a copy of a 2000 picture iPhoto library to your external drive can leave half of the files spread across two different volumes. If a firwire or USB cable is accidentally removed, there is a chance for data loss. But if it's rename, you can undo it in an instant. This is highly inconsistent.

Even if you're highly experienced user, you still have to stop and think to determine if a cut and paste will result in a move or a rename based on the source and destination. This has bad UI design written all over it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

And, in fact dragging and dropping files is some sort of cut/paste too, but completely mouse controlled.
(which can be a bit hard if you have to move files through a complex hierarchy, or you need to open two windows everytime)
So basically, you got cut/paste already implemented technically.

Drag and drop is always a copy unless you hold down a special key. And even then the cursor changes to show you if it will be a move or a copy. This is a constant behavior. However, you can't indicate what will happen when you invoke a keyboard shortcut. It's just not obvious what will occur.

Again moving is not copying. The implications are significantly different. And, since it's not obvious as to what will occur when invoked, using cut and paste for files is a poor metaphor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo View Post

If 'cut/paste' doesn't suit you, why not call it 'pick up / drop' or something like that?

Because "pick up and drop" doesn't make it any more obvious if a rename or move will occur than "cut and paste."

You don't have to worry about loosing text when you copy and paste in a word processor. Why should you expect complications when using cut and paste with files?

Until Apple can figure out a technical solution that makes cut and paste behave in a consistent way that is undoable, I wouldn't hold my breath.
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

You're not alone. Who'd have thought they could f*** that up? NeXT designed their UI around the evolution of Screens both large and small. The 2 bit view is even more attractive than any other UI in history. You can actually still use it to get stuff done--like fix the video driver.

Yeah. The non-snappiness of the browser essentially broke the usability of it. Oh, and the lack of the bread crumb and Shelf, but what can you do. There are so many things broken in the Mac OS X UI it isn't funny. There simply is no art in the sidebar. The dock should have fixed locations. And there is an unholy mess of UIs spread across multiple apps (Microsoft Office, Apple apps).

Actually, I would like to see the NeXT style Shelf and file browser on the iPhone, if Apple ever choose to implement it.

Quote:
Btw, we were ready to advance the next phase of NeXT UI with OS X but the amount of whining from internal and large 3rd party developers projecting fear of abandonment forced Steve to compromise.

The fabled tabbed dock? What was it like in action?

Quote:
Eventually, I hope they finally gut the hag of the past and move onward.

I'd like to see:

1. Remove the app menus from the MenuBar and use contextual menus for everything
2. More fine control of window sizing
3. Clean up all apps to follow uniform GUI standards
4. Floating palettes and toolbars should go the way of the dinosaurs. Well at least minimized to all heck.
5. More Finder views
6. I'll think of more as my frustrations well up. I use Microsoft Office too much...
post #102 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Safari does have that, it just has to be turned on. In the Advanced tab of Safari preferences select "show develop menu in menu bar" and quit and relaunch Safari. Now when you right click on an image there is "Inspect Element" option.

Thanks, another one to tick off! Now all I need are MeasureIt and WeatherForcast for Safari! I use Safari 95% of the time but Firefox has some nice features, too!
post #103 of 115
No, I'm sure it will perform like a dog and you'll have to resign yourself to using your shiny new aluminium as a glorified paperweight.... hehe....seriously though.... Sorry I'm not normally this nass-tee

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron View Post

Will Snow Leopard run super fast on the new macbook pros with nvidia gpus?
post #104 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by brownpw View Post

No disrespect to all you recent converts out there, but the so call 'new feature' that you are calling Image Boot is not new at all.

The Fact is that you could do that in Mac OS 6.x - 9.x ... they just never got it into X yet.

What!?! Either you were so bored you thought you'd be funny or you're just plain ill-informed.

The feature uses capabilities within Apple's implementation of EFI, found only in the hardware of Intel-based Macs. It involves the bless command and the options are available to EFI-based systems only and are not present in Open Firmware on PPC-based systems.

Also as previously posted, this article has got the "Image Boot" capability wrong. It's no Mac hypervisor. It's operable only for read-only boot sources like an install DVD image. It's not new to Snow Leopard. The capability is also there for Leopard's bless command too. I haven't attempted it with Tiger for Intel as I no longer use that release.
post #105 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.metcalf View Post

No, I'm sure it will perform like a dog and you'll have to resign yourself to using your shiny new aluminium as a glorified paperweight.... hehe....seriously though.... Sorry I'm not normally this nass-tee


The MacBook Pro hardware design has been motivated by the direction of Snow Leopard, which includes the capability to utilise GPU cores for processing. I haven't got confirmation of this yet, but it's possible the Snow Leopard will be able to utilise both GPUs for processing... making it essentially a 'Quad-core' notebook. Snow Leopard will run amazingly well on these systems despite being one year old by the time Snow Leopard ships.

By that time though we'll have MacBook Pros featuring Nehelem processors which feature hyperthreading. So your average MacBook Pro (Late 2009) will feature a minimum of 6 processing cores (four physical and two virtual). Quad-core mobile Nehelems may also be added by Apple making that 10 processing cores. SSDs will be more affordable and hence more common. 2009 is going to be an exciting year for performance.
post #106 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

Yeah. The non-snappiness of the browser essentially broke the usability of it. Oh, and the lack of the bread crumb and Shelf, but what can you do.

Lack of bread crumb? View > Show Path Bar
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL View Post

Lack of bread crumb? View > Show Path Bar

If it is not specifically called a breadcrumb...then it cannot be one.
post #108 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by esXXI View Post


Wow... I can't believe I never saw that... I feel like such an idiot now... don't see why it needs its own separator line though

Still, Finder is subpar compared to iPhoto, KeyNote or iCal just to name a few...
post #109 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLL View Post

Lack of bread crumb? View > Show Path Bar



It's the view in the middle of the workspace manager window. One can drag-n-drop files/folders up the directory tree, or place it on the Shelf near the top to move/copy to another destination not in view. NEXTSTEP wasn't perfect by any means, but the what you see in Mac OS X today is a completely broken version of this. They should have at least copied it properly.

A rewritten Finder using Cocoa will be very interesting to see. If they are indeed doing it in 100% Cocoa, a lot of things could be cleaned up, but I'm guessing they are just going to take the existing Carbon C++ backend and wrap the UI layers with Cocoa. There won't be that many changes if they did that.
post #110 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post

... but I'm guessing they are just going to take the existing Carbon C++ backend and wrap the UI layers with Cocoa. There won't be that many changes if they did that.

Yup...you can be 99% sure this is what Apple is doing.
post #111 of 115
For you CUT and Paste people I have an idea. If you right click on a file you will get a choice (in the context menu) of "Move To Trash". I say make it more like "Move To", much like "Open With". You would be given a default set of choices, and also be able to select "Other" and browse to the location you like that particular file.

See I knew I could make it more.... "Macish"
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
[center] "Hey look, it's in the center. I am SO cool!"[/center]
Reply
post #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightandshadow View Post

Please listen carefully.

My objection is that putting a move operation under the guise of cut and paste is a poor solution. In addition, moving files can cause data loss in specific situations. Since it's not clear if a cut and paste would result in a rename or a move operation, the user might be unintentionally or unknowing exposing themselves to a risk.

I've seen it happen several times. Aborting a copy of a 2000 picture iPhoto library to your external drive can leave half of the files spread across two different volumes. If a firwire or USB cable is accidentally removed, there is a chance for data loss. But if it's rename, you can undo it in an instant. This is highly inconsistent.

Even if you're highly experienced user, you still have to stop and think to determine if a cut and paste will result in a move or a rename based on the source and destination. This has bad UI design written all over it.

Drag and drop is always a copy unless you hold down a special key. And even then the cursor changes to show you if it will be a move or a copy. This is a constant behavior. However, you can't indicate what will happen when you invoke a keyboard shortcut. It's just not obvious what will occur.

Again moving is not copying. The implications are significantly different. And, since it's not obvious as to what will occur when invoked, using cut and paste for files is a poor metaphor.

Because "pick up and drop" doesn't make it any more obvious if a rename or move will occur than "cut and paste."

You don't have to worry about loosing text when you copy and paste in a word processor. Why should you expect complications when using cut and paste with files?

Until Apple can figure out a technical solution that makes cut and paste behave in a consistent way that is undoable, I wouldn't hold my breath.

OK I know I'm late to the party with my comment two days after my previous one, but anyway:
First of all, your differenciation of Cut&Paste as a Rename vs. a Move is, from a user's point of view, totally artificial and does not make any sense. The user does not care at all if it's either or the other, the effect is the same, ie the file being taken away from one location and stored in the other. Both can be undone, and if undoing takes a blink of an eye or a fraction of a second doesn't matter. As Cut&Paste=Move only deletes the directory entry on the source drive, it can be undone as easily as a rename. So the basis of all your following arguments is severely flawed.

Then, honestly, I can't see how using Cut&Paste is any different from moving a file with the mouse. Try moving with the mouse and the firewire connection breaks. You end up with half the files on one drive and half the files on the other. At least under Windows, I can undo the action within a fraction of a second. As a user, I don't care at all if the copy&paste is technically done with a move or a copy, delete, paste. Any potential loss of files would be only owed to bad implementation as the file should be copied first and deleted only after the copying was successful.
Of course there is the question of implementation: Either Cut deletes the original file immediately (similar to Cut in a word processor) and pastes it only later and only if requested to do so. In this implementation, there is a risk of data loss if you Cut/Copy some more files AND only have a single 'clipboard'. This is the way word processors work, and quite apparently and contrary to what you say you DO face the risk of losing data. Quite on the contrary, to avoid that risk, Cut&Paste is usually implemented differently, ie cut does not delete before a Paste is used. This admittedly is inconsistent with Cut&Paste in word processors because Cutting does not delete anything if you forget about it and revert to some other task before pasting, but for good reason. If you prefer consistency, then go the other way and face the risk (don't know of any actual implementation, though). But I trust that the vast majority would vote that breaking with the metaphor here is a good idea, and the inconsistency is negligible compared to all the other breaks of the desktop metaphor there are. And for the avoidance of doubt: almost all such breaks of the metaphor are there for very good reason, because most of the advantages of the computer over old-fashioned handwriting and moving papers around lie in such breaks of the metaphor.

By the way, is dragging with the mouse always a Copy? In Windows, it's Move if it's on the same drive, and Copy if it's on different drives.
post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philotech View Post

OK I know I'm late to the party with my comment two days after my previous one, but anyway:
First of all, your differenciation of Cut&Paste as a Rename vs. a Move is, from a user's point of view, totally artificial and does not make any sense. The user does not care at all if it's either or the other, the effect is the same, ie the file being taken away from one location and stored in the other. Both can be undone, and if undoing takes a blink of an eye or a fraction of a second doesn't matter. As Cut&Paste=Move only deletes the directory entry on the source drive, it can be undone as easily as a rename. So the basis of all your following arguments is severely flawed.

Then, honestly, I can't see how using Cut&Paste is any different from moving a file with the mouse. Try moving with the mouse and the firewire connection breaks. You end up with half the files on one drive and half the files on the other. At least under Windows, I can undo the action within a fraction of a second. As a user, I don't care at all if the copy&paste is technically done with a move or a copy, delete, paste. Any potential loss of files would be only owed to bad implementation as the file should be copied first and deleted only after the copying was successful.
Of course there is the question of implementation: Either Cut deletes the original file immediately (similar to Cut in a word processor) and pastes it only later and only if requested to do so. In this implementation, there is a risk of data loss if you Cut/Copy some more files AND only have a single 'clipboard'. This is the way word processors work, and quite apparently and contrary to what you say you DO face the risk of losing data. Quite on the contrary, to avoid that risk, Cut&Paste is usually implemented differently, ie cut does not delete before a Paste is used. This admittedly is inconsistent with Cut&Paste in word processors because Cutting does not delete anything if you forget about it and revert to some other task before pasting, but for good reason. If you prefer consistency, then go the other way and face the risk (don't know of any actual implementation, though). But I trust that the vast majority would vote that breaking with the metaphor here is a good idea, and the inconsistency is negligible compared to all the other breaks of the desktop metaphor there are. And for the avoidance of doubt: almost all such breaks of the metaphor are there for very good reason, because most of the advantages of the computer over old-fashioned handwriting and moving papers around lie in such breaks of the metaphor.

By the way, is dragging with the mouse always a Copy? In Windows, it's Move if it's on the same drive, and Copy if it's on different drives.

You've just hown world that some people do care how it's implemented and that some people don't care. And that some people do care about the metaphors and that others don't. You've effectively discovered that people have...*gasp*...DIFFERENT OPINIONS!!! WOW! This is a brand new revelation that will surely revolutionize how we see the world.

Copy/pasting files is a moot subject though...it's based on a file system structure of the 70s where location of files matters. Location of files doesn't matter anymore even though some people truly believe it does.

If we were still in a world where searching for a file took minutes or hours, then a hierarchical file system would make a lot of sense. But we don't.

But like I said...opinions.

Like kids fighting to establish whether one presidential candidate is better than another, is better, or whether one religion is better than another, or whether one file system cut/paste implementation is better than another, I sit in looking at them shaking my head because I know it simply is irrelevant. They are all based on broken systems.
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorre View Post

I think it's rather inconsistent. You can't copy-passte in Finder, how stupid is that?

Also, I don't see why BlueTooth has it's own little app and can't be directly included into Finder. I'd like to see my BlueTooth cellphone show up in Finder's left column.

You can copy and paste items in leopard finder.

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply

 

 

Quote:
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.

 

Reply
post #115 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by THT View Post



It's the view in the middle of the workspace manager window. One can drag-n-drop files/folders up the directory tree, or place it on the Shelf near the top to move/copy to another destination not in view. NEXTSTEP wasn't perfect by any means, but the what you see in Mac OS X today is a completely broken version of this. They should have at least copied it properly.

A rewritten Finder using Cocoa will be very interesting to see. If they are indeed doing it in 100% Cocoa, a lot of things could be cleaned up, but I'm guessing they are just going to take the existing Carbon C++ backend and wrap the UI layers with Cocoa. There won't be that many changes if they did that.

They've had a Cocoa Finder ready to go since 1998. The problem was first Classic, then Carbon and now that both are getting their property burials a modernized version of that code base most certainly will have matured over the years since I left Apple.

And NeXTSTEP was a decade ahead of it's time. They screwed it up with OS X.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's Snow Leopard to sport Cocoa Finder and ImageBoot