Cut is a more complicated concept than it might first appear.
In the context of data within a document, it is fairly straightforward. That data tends to be under the sole control of the editing application, the application from which the cut command is executed. This means that the cut data tends to be static between when it is cut and when it is pasted. And when it isn't static, if it gets modified, the application at least has the opportunity to address that scenario. What happens when you paste the data which has been edited between cutting and pasting... ?
That same scenario is more problematic when dealing with files. The user "cuts" an iconic representation of the file, not a visible and explicit set of data/information. So which is it? Did the user cut the reference to the data or the data itself?
Also, there are so many file types that the finder would stand no chance of knowing how to deal with data that has changed between being cut and pasted.
On top of that, even if the finder could deal with those changes, it becomes a real performance problem. For instance, what happens when a 7.3GB file is modified or deleted between being cut and pasted? Should that file be duplicated in memory such that both versions exist? Consider the disk thrashing that would occur, etc.
Finally, that the file being modified might not even exist on the local system.
Make no mistake about it, Apple purposefully left the concept of "cut" out of the file system. It isn't because they were lazy or couldn't implement it the way it is done on other systems. But rather, Apple saw the problems that are caused by "cut" files and chose not to provide such dangerous functionality.
Other than that, you'll be glad to know that bitching about the finder is a long standing pastime of Mac users. FTFF! (For an explanation of that, google: FTFF)
And yet in spite of all that, Windows has had a sane, simple-to-use implementation for over a decade. They must be '1337' programming wizards or something.
Ctrl-C + paste = copy a file from one location to another
Ctrl-X + paste = remove a file from one location and optionally paste it elsewhere.
I'm not confused. Those that are, have Time Machine, the perpetual Command-Z.
Also, WRT pasting/moving, Windows handles this much better, ADDING files to the like-named target directory, rather than replacing one directory with another.
And yet in spite of all that, Windows has had a sane, simple-to-use implementation for over a decade. They must be '1337' programming wizards or something.
Ctrl-C + paste = copy a file from one location to another
Ctrl-X + paste = remove a file from one location and optionally paste it elsewhere.
I'm not confused. Those that are, have Time Machine, the perpetual Command-Z.
Also, WRT pasting/moving, Windows handles this much better, ADDING files to the like-named target directory, rather than replacing one directory with another.
you might say 'it just works.'
It is fine that you prefer what windows offers. But you should at least acknowledge the dangers inherent to CCP at the file system level. I would guess that you've never been bitten by CCP with regard to files. Otherwise, you likely wouldn't be ignoring the dangers it presents.
It isn't that programming the functionality found in windows is hard. Apple could enable that functionality in just a few minutes of programming. However they have specifically chosen not to. It would seem that you aren't even asking the question "why?", why did Apple choose to not provide cut at the file system level?
What happens when you cut a file from a drive mounted from a remote server, then you change that file before pasting, then another user deletes that file prior to pasting, then you attempt to paste it to a new location. What happens? Now consider that the file is 7 gigabytes. (Hint: undo isn't available)
Copy is also problematic but at a somewhat lesser degree.
The real problem is that the CCP metaphor isn't workable in many scenarios. It lies to the user about potential data loss. It fails horribly with large, remotely stored files in multi-user environments.
Off-topic-ish... I dunno... Sometimes when I use Windows 7 for web browsing, mail, etc. (non-gaming stuff), the "rhythm" of the UI and doing stuff seems... out of sorts, somehow. Like I'm not in "sync" with it like on the Mac... even though sometimes some things are faster and more "responsive" on Windows 7. Weird, I know.
I do want an SSD for my MacBook Alu 2ghz. After seeing the MacBook Air *fly* through hard-disk-intense stuff.
Comments
hi
agreed..............
Cut is a more complicated concept than it might first appear.
In the context of data within a document, it is fairly straightforward. That data tends to be under the sole control of the editing application, the application from which the cut command is executed. This means that the cut data tends to be static between when it is cut and when it is pasted. And when it isn't static, if it gets modified, the application at least has the opportunity to address that scenario. What happens when you paste the data which has been edited between cutting and pasting... ?
That same scenario is more problematic when dealing with files. The user "cuts" an iconic representation of the file, not a visible and explicit set of data/information. So which is it? Did the user cut the reference to the data or the data itself?
Also, there are so many file types that the finder would stand no chance of knowing how to deal with data that has changed between being cut and pasted.
On top of that, even if the finder could deal with those changes, it becomes a real performance problem. For instance, what happens when a 7.3GB file is modified or deleted between being cut and pasted? Should that file be duplicated in memory such that both versions exist? Consider the disk thrashing that would occur, etc.
Finally, that the file being modified might not even exist on the local system.
Make no mistake about it, Apple purposefully left the concept of "cut" out of the file system. It isn't because they were lazy or couldn't implement it the way it is done on other systems. But rather, Apple saw the problems that are caused by "cut" files and chose not to provide such dangerous functionality.
Other than that, you'll be glad to know that bitching about the finder is a long standing pastime of Mac users. FTFF! (For an explanation of that, google: FTFF)
And yet in spite of all that, Windows has had a sane, simple-to-use implementation for over a decade. They must be '1337' programming wizards or something.
Ctrl-C + paste = copy a file from one location to another
Ctrl-X + paste = remove a file from one location and optionally paste it elsewhere.
I'm not confused. Those that are, have Time Machine, the perpetual Command-Z.
Also, WRT pasting/moving, Windows handles this much better, ADDING files to the like-named target directory, rather than replacing one directory with another.
you might say 'it just works.'
And yet in spite of all that, Windows has had a sane, simple-to-use implementation for over a decade. They must be '1337' programming wizards or something.
Ctrl-C + paste = copy a file from one location to another
Ctrl-X + paste = remove a file from one location and optionally paste it elsewhere.
I'm not confused. Those that are, have Time Machine, the perpetual Command-Z.
Also, WRT pasting/moving, Windows handles this much better, ADDING files to the like-named target directory, rather than replacing one directory with another.
you might say 'it just works.'
It is fine that you prefer what windows offers. But you should at least acknowledge the dangers inherent to CCP at the file system level. I would guess that you've never been bitten by CCP with regard to files. Otherwise, you likely wouldn't be ignoring the dangers it presents.
It isn't that programming the functionality found in windows is hard. Apple could enable that functionality in just a few minutes of programming. However they have specifically chosen not to. It would seem that you aren't even asking the question "why?", why did Apple choose to not provide cut at the file system level?
What happens when you cut a file from a drive mounted from a remote server, then you change that file before pasting, then another user deletes that file prior to pasting, then you attempt to paste it to a new location. What happens? Now consider that the file is 7 gigabytes. (Hint: undo isn't available)
Copy is also problematic but at a somewhat lesser degree.
The real problem is that the CCP metaphor isn't workable in many scenarios. It lies to the user about potential data loss. It fails horribly with large, remotely stored files in multi-user environments.
What's up everyone, I'm new to the forum and just wanted to say hey. Hopefully I posted this in the right section!
I do want an SSD for my MacBook Alu 2ghz. After seeing the MacBook Air *fly* through hard-disk-intense stuff.