Why is everyone getting all bent out of shape about features in Beta software? Lot's of features have been HEAVILY revised since being introduced, and there is another 6 months to go.
I'll tell 'ya one thing, I'm LMAO watching people argue about features who's functionality or future implications no one really understands.
You guys are F*CKED UP man.
Quote:
Making smart folders burnable doesn't solve the problem that 'burnable folders' address, as you would need to define a smart folder's criteria to find all the files you want to burn (exactly how do you group your Quicken Data file, mail files, Safari Bookmarks, Address Book, iTunes playlists, Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, iChat logs, etc, into a single smart folder?). It would work if you were trying to burn all files "within my home directory that are dated within the last week" and stuff, but not just for a random group of files that you want to make sure you have copies of.
EXAAAAACTLY!
How can you compare the files on your computer you want to burn, to an iTunes Playlist? That comparisson makes no sense at all. When I want to find files I want to burn to a CD, I don't do a search for all of them - I COULDN'T, they usually have nothing to do with each other. I go find the files myself, drag them onto a CD and burn them, now I can just dedicate folders for the files I frequently back up.
Why is everyone getting all bent out of shape about features in Beta software? Lot's of features have been HEAVILY revised since being introduced, and there is another 6 months to go.
I'll tell 'ya one thing, I'm LMAO watching people argue about features who's functionality or future implications no one really understands.
You guys are F*CKED UP man.
EXAAAAACTLY!
How can you compare the files on your computer you want to burn, to an iTunes Playlist? That comparisson makes no sense at all. When I want to find files I want to burn to a CD, I don't do a search for all of them - I COULDN'T, they usually have nothing to do with each other. I go find the files myself, drag them onto a CD and burn them, now I can just dedicate folders for the files I frequently back up.
Thanks Apple!
Or you can just drag them (or shove aliases into) to a normal fucking folder and click burn. Why would something special called 'Burnable Folder' need to exist to gain this capability?
And how does this have anything to do with Smart Folders? Making all folder burnable doesn't take away any capabilities 'Burnable Folders' bring...in fact, it *ADDS* capabilities to existing folders and even smart folders.
How people can't understand this makes me think I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. It's unfortunate but there are a bunch of people on this board that don't think very much.
Think before you type. But you're right cool gut...it's useless to talk about it since we're talking about alpha features that might or might not make the cut. But hopefully Apple will take it's head out of it's ass...I'm sure they put the burnable folder into this build to incite some reactions...and they've got mine.
All folders could have a 'prepare for burning' icon that would ready it for burning and warn the user if it's exceeded the media's capacity. It could be left on or not depending on the user's wishes. Then, when they want to burn the content, they can simply click the burn icon.
Not a bad idea, but I think it would better in the Tools popup in the Toolbar.
Quote:
Having a new option to create a 'Burnable Folder' and not being able to switch between Burnable and Normal Folder is a stupid solution. Why segregate the two?
They did the same thing with Smart Folder, you know. Perhaps you'd like to discuss why it's okay there, but not in Burnable Folders?
Quote:
If someone created a folder that he suddenly wants to burn but realizes it wasn't created as a burnable folder, what does he do? Create a new 'Burnable Folder' and move the contents into it? That's a ridiculous solution. You may like it but it proves you're not thinking about better solutions and taking whatever Apple serves you as if it were on a silver platter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh you're funny. Yes, because I've never criticized Apple's UI designs *ever*.
I just try and refrain from doing the armchair UI designer thing without thinking it through thoroughly, pros and cons of various approaches, and trying to see what the rationale may have been. *Before* shooting my mouth off on what a mistake it was. Tends to reduce looking like a fool later.
Quote:
That wasn't hard now was it? Didn't take much time either. Apple could spend a hundred times as much time as I did (one minute) and even come up with something better.
As of right now, is there a way to have Burnable Smart Folders? No? Didn't think so. My solution wouldn't discrimate between normal and smart folders.
This is true, but you're still stuck in the idea, I think, of having a random folder suddenly want to be burned. For me, at least, burning a CD is a rare enough occurrence that taking that folder and selecting all with Cmd-A and dragging to a CD-R icon is just not that difficult. There ya go, can be done with any folder.
I would hazard that for most people, the Burnable Folder is the right way to go. It provides an obvious and direct way of changing the mental model to a 'burning optical media' workflow. The current approach is straight-forward, but rather hidden for most folks. This makes it more obvious, and gets around the temporary disk image file that is made now. (Yeah, that could be handled as aliases too, which would be good.)
This approach, having a "Burn This Folder" has merit, and would make a nice comparison study versus their Burnable Folder idea. Your initial remarks were not heading in this direction.
Quote:
Anyways...they're still dev builds and 10.4 is subject to change before it's final, so I still have hope that Apple will clean up the mess it's making.
Entirely possible, several other items have mutated between first observance in a dev build and final.
Quote:
It's also inconceivable that 'New Smart Folders' is absent from the File menu when Smart Whatever is available in every other app that can create Smart objects and that 'New Burnable Folder' is...but...that's right, dev build. I'm sure it'll turn up eventually. [/B]
Ok...stfu everyone and listen carefully before spouting out nonsense.
...
Everything Louzer et al are trying to tell me about Burnable Folder *can* exist with normal folders if Apple took the time to implement it correctly.
...
Aliases in any folder would find the original file and burn them...so that takes care of the problem some people seem to think would crop up in my scenario. Smart folders would burn the returned files.
But you still missed the easy question! You make the assumption all aliases need and will be resolved, and the original burned. Well, user A goes to his home folder, says "Burn", and then it ends up taking 10 CDs because it turns out he's got a couple of aliases and symlinks to his 'movies' folder, his 'music' collection, and his 'garageband' loops folder, not to mention a couple of his network directories he uses for backups. Or it fails miserably because its too big to fit. But then he has to go on a hunt to find out what isn't going to fit, or why its so big, because the Finder says his directory is only 300MB large. So, we now have a huge conundrum. So the only way around this is to either (a) make a new folder and place aliases into it of everything you want to burn (gee, sounds like a burn folder), (b) set some preference that says "Don't resolve aliases" (which is great if you don't want to resolve any aliases), or (c) go through and find ALL your aliases in your directory, and mark which ones you want to resolve and which ones you don't.
[Again, I'll use my Stuffit example: in OS 9 I used to keep a folder full of aliases to various applications and utilities I used regularly. When just trying to stuff my personal files for backup, taking everything from the desktop increased the file size - and time to stuff - dramatically, because the 'resolve aliases' flag was turned on, which, BTW, sounded like a great idea when I did turn it on. So rather than a 10 MB file, I got a 130MB file].
The problem is you're just talking about this working on folders that contain all the files (or aliases of files) you want to burn, and apparently set up that way. Unfortunately, you need to look at ALL possible situations, and try to determine how all these work out. All you need is one folder of "recently used applications" somewhere deep in the folder you want to burn to increase the size of your output from small to huge. And then once you realize this, then you have to figure out how to handle it on the user side to make it easy to use AND easy to understand. And this is the part your examples just keep failing miserably at. [BTW, Apple could do a preference like "resolve aliases", but then the user would (a) have to know to turn it on or off, (b) do the burn, and (c) revert it back if they usually want it the other way. And this isn't something the users are going to remember to do. So then burning folders ends up not always burning what the user thinks its burning.]
A smart folder is simply a collection of files from different locations. There's no more hierarchy to that folder. (No sub-folders etc.) This is also the reason why Apple removed the column view on smart folders.. it doesn't really make sense.
However, a burnable folder is like a normal folder which can have sub-folders where you can place information and burn them as one item! You still see the hierarchy.
I have to agree with kks on some points here. The total segregation seems a little heavy handed to me. I think it will lead people to believe that these burnable folders are the only way to burn files.
I am all for making anything that is close to a folder, a folder. Smart folders should be able to be viewed, have files added to them, be burnable, etc like any other folders. I think smart folders should be able to have files added to them, even if it means adding behind the scenes a query searching for the file with file ID of theFile on theVolume. Also, smart folders (and their contents) should be accessible via the commandline, otherwise they are virtually useless for any remote access.
The concept of backup really should be encouraged and made easy. Having specialty programs like Backup is something that is easily forgotten unless it is scheduled, and then you don't want to have to deal with two organization methods.
There is something that irks my mind about having separate 'burnable folders' and admittedly, I don't have a solution, but I think it's involve a flag that can be set on folders. I figure it would resemble something like labels where you could do a get Info on a bunch of files or folders, and associate them with a certain backup. Then when that backup came time for burning, the Finder would generate a smart folder with the specific backup criteria and ask for the media.
For example: I'm writing an important homework assignment. When I save, I see the little option to 'add file to backup schedule: xxxxxxx". Yeah I know, complexity in the save dialogue is bad, but work with me here. So I see the option there next to the "hide file extension" and I think to myself: yes, this is important and should be backed up. So I select 'add file to backup schedule: school work' from the menu.
Of course, I've already made a backup schedule in my System Prefs called school work (hence it showing up in the menu) and it is set to backup after a week since the previous backup, and it's set to only backup files who have been changed in that time (of course the option to exists to backup all files as a compilation instead of incrementally).
I save my file and it occurs to me that my previous project was handed back and I no longer care about it that much. So I go to that folder, and do a get info on it. I remove it from both my school work and deep freeze backups. But I still want one of the files that the folder contains, so I get info on it, and put it on the deep freeze backup (which is a monthly tape backup as defined in my System Prefs).
Now I don't think about it again until one day (a week after the last backup), I get a notification presenting me with a smart folder with everything that I've flagged for school backup asking me to insert some media for it. I can hit cancel, or ask tomorrow or insert the media, and if I hit cancel, the folder stays there where I can modify the contents and either choose 'burn' or just close it. I could add files to it (which may ask if I want to associate them the specified backup or not.. I don't know what would be better) which would be added as aliases of course and resolve properly in burning.
I'm not certain how your idea of burnable folders will resolve the alias issue. Don't you just face the same problem when you add a folder with an alias in the hierarchy to the burnable folder? Sure, the alias to the folder resolves properly, but what about everything contained within it? And having a flat hierarchy is simply unacceptable. (That goes for smart folders too in my opinion)
I have to agree with kks on some points here. The total segregation seems a little heavy handed to me. I think it will lead people to believe that these burnable folders are the only way to burn files.
This is no different than toast. You drag all the files you want to burn into toast hit burn, and then it asks you if you want to save your setup. This is the SAME thing, except there is no saving. This is a TOOL for making scheduled backups. It's not replacing anything. I can place a Burn folder in a Clients directory that's loaded with what needs to be backed up. Burning is a pretty important thing, and I don't want it mixed up with anything else. You can't place anything you want in a smart folder, that's not what they are for.
The more I think about it, the more I realize it's just because the Finder is different than iTunes and Address Book and all the other apps with databases.
Because the Finder is a way to view the physical layout of files on the HD and other storage devices, it acts very differently than apps Apple has been putting out recently. To fix this, Apple would have to move to a database file system where file location doesn't matter one bit.
That way the Finder could list 'All files' just like iTunes can list 'All songs'...these would be the physical files...and Folders in the sidebar would be the equivalent of Burnable Folders in 10.4 and would only contain pointers to the physical files. Normal folders would simply be equivalent to sub-categories of 'All files' which simply wouldn't matter except to those that want to categorize files physically.
At this point, I don't really care what Apple does with it's Finder...if it wants to slap on stupid ideas like Burnable Folders, they can go ahead. With Spotlight and document organizers like iTunes, Address Book, etc. the need for the Finder is becoming less important. The Finder will always be useful...but only in very specific instances. I don't see the Finder improving much though...it's as broken as it ever was and Apple isn't willing to change the way it works.
Burnable Folders isn't the worse idea ever...it's an ok patchwork...but there are more elegant solutions out there.
The more I think about it, the more I realize it's just because the Finder is different than iTunes and Address Book and all the other apps with databases.
Because the Finder is a way to view the physical layout of files on the HD and other storage devices, it acts very differently than apps Apple has been putting out recently. To fix this, Apple would have to move to a database file system where file location doesn't matter one bit.
Bingo. This is precisely where they are moving, one bit at a time. MS tried to shoehorn WinFS down the developers' throats in Longhorn, and it didn't fly at *ALL*. (It was their equivalent of Rhapsody shoving Cocoa down devs throats.) Nor did it work in user studies - they couldn't figure out how to make a DB-based file system act like a standard one enough for most users to figure out. Apple is training us all on Spotlight just like they did with databases in general in iTunes et al. Expect in two-three years a move over to a DB-based system, by which time most users will be comfy enough with the Spotlight idea that they'll adopt it much more easily.
Good catch tying it in here... I hadn't made the connection until you pointed it out, but it's a good fit.
Quote:
That way the Finder could list 'All files' just like iTunes can list 'All songs'...these would be the physical files...and Folders in the sidebar would be the equivalent of Burnable Folders in 10.4 and would only contain pointers to the physical files. Normal folders would simply be equivalent to sub-categories of 'All files' which simply wouldn't matter except to those that want to categorize files physically.
NOW you've got it. Burnable Folders are, I believe, another piece of the puzzle meant to train users not to think quite so physically, but more conceptually and workflow based. It's not one I would have thought to do, and my first inclination is towards a Tool item, but it makes sense to do it this way if you're trying to ensure that new file organization elements don't tie physically to the file layout too tightly. Look at it this way, Burnable Folders are already ready for that segue to a DB-aware file organizational system. Folders-that-are-burnable wouldn't be, and would have to be modified.
Quote:
At this point, I don't really care what Apple does with it's Finder...if it wants to slap on stupid ideas like Burnable Folders, they can go ahead. With Spotlight and document organizers like iTunes, Address Book, etc. the need for the Finder is becoming less important. The Finder will always be useful...but only in very specific instances. I don't see the Finder improving much though...it's as broken as it ever was and Apple isn't willing to change the way it works.
Not when they can just replace it lock stock and barrel in a couple of years, no.
Quote:
Burnable Folders isn't the worse idea ever...it's an ok patchwork...but there are more elegant solutions out there.
If you mean DB-aware dynamic file searching, then yes. And Apple agrees with you.
Sometimes the small steps look silly until the larger picture is pointed out.
I have a feeling the thing that has gotten everyone into a tizzy is that Burnable Folders are a combination of two things - a playlist-like list of files, and a way of burning a conceptual folder directly from that folder. Some people are saying "why the need for making this separate folder?", but this new alias folder actually has it's uses anyway. In exactly the same way you might want to manually make a list of tunes from different albums in iTunes, you might want to make a list of files from different folders in the Finder. These are just lists, not copies. It's also different from Smart Playlists and Smart Folders in that these lists are created manually, not automatically by matching search terms.
I think what Apple could do is remove the "Burnable" element from this kind of list by default, and call it something else. So now in the Finder you can have your files organised by location, by manually created lists and by automatically created lists.
Then, they can add an option to the action menu in all folders - "Make Burnable". This adds the yellow bar to any kind of Folder which, whilst appearing the same to the user, when activated does the correct action regarding aliases depending on what kind of folder you're burning. Oh yeah, and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I'd like to see something in that yellow bar which will tell me how many CDs or DVDs I'll need to burn the current folder.
Whilst this does mean there are now three kinds of folders on your system, it is pretty much directly relatable to the Library / Playlists / Smart Playlists organisation in iTunes.
It also means you don't have to worry about turning real folders into burnable folders as some people have mentioned - that's like storing a Playlist as a track in iTunes (confusing!!!). Again, I think this confusion arose from the way a Burnable Folder is kind of two features in one.
Saying that, it's not as if I'd be that miffed if it ended up as it currently works. It's a nice feature, still.
I shall shut up now.
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
edit: Of course, iTunes doesn't let you burn stuff that's not in a Playlist or Smart Playlist, but maybe they can go one better in this bit.
I'm not certain how your idea of burnable folders will resolve the alias issue. Don't you just face the same problem when you add a folder with an alias in the hierarchy to the burnable folder? Sure, the alias to the folder resolves properly, but what about everything contained within it? And having a flat hierarchy is simply unacceptable. (That goes for smart folders too in my opinion)
Actually, burnable folders doesn't have a problem with this. The stuff you 'copy' into the folder is copied automatically as an alias (another advantage over making your own, you don't have to remember to drag with the appropriate modifiers down to make an alias, rather than moving the file). Everything in the folder/file/etc is copied as is. Which means if I drag my Documents folder, then it will burn my documents folder, which includes burning all aliases as aliases.
But you see my point, everything sounds easy until you start hashing out every freakin' detail, and every little case.
I hope you're right. If all of this is simply small steps to make the transition as painless as possible for everyone, then I'm all for it.
That's my take on it. Look at the progression of dynamic searching: showed up first in iTunes, as playlists. Okay, cool, that's something everyone can understand. Then it showed up in iPhoto as smart albums. Sweet. Then in the Address Book. Next up, Mail in Tiger. People are now *asking* for the 'smart collection' ability, and have taken to the search capabilities like a duck to water.
Apple has, I think, finally learned that there's only so much you can force on your users in change between releases. MS is trying to reinvent the entire Windows world with Longhorn, and have you noticed how much has been pulled back from the original project? Every few months, they strike something else off the feature list. It's almost getting sad.
At this rate Apple will have a DB filesystem before MS, and one that requires darned little user training - we'll have been brainwas... er, indoctrina.... TRAINED dammit!
Rather than try to create another method of burning to optical media on Mac OS X, why not improve the current system and make ONE superior method.
Here's my idea:
How about when you pop in a blank CD or DVD, the icon appears on the desktop as normal. You can then drag files or folders to this icon. Instead of copying the contents, aliases are used like in the current "burnable folders".
To make the process or adding many different types of files and folders from different locaitons, Apple should add a option under the Action menu that says something like "move this file/folder to Untitled CD/DVD" or whatever you have highlighted. This will then just add an alias to you session you are getting ready to burn.
You then drag your CD or DVD to the trash and then it burns like normal.
Now when everything is said and done and the burning process is over, the Finder asks if you want to save your burn session as a "special folder" that can be burned again. If you say yes, a burnable folder is created with the contents you burned last time. You can then modify the contents or add more.
While I love the concept of the "burnable folder", I think trying to cram too many features in the Finder will just lead to unnecessary bloat. Too many different options for creating folders will cause confusion. But if done right, they can be very effective.
Just think about my method before trying to poke too many holes through it.
Not bad, but you're still creating/using the concept of Burnable Folders, all you've done is create a new way of making them in the first place. Not a bad idea though.
Theoretically the smart folders wouldn't 'need' keywords as they'd be able to search the content of the files (searchlight search). But keywords would be quite helpful.
However, one problem with iTunes is that a single file can only belong to one album. If you have the same song in several albums, you have to have several copies, because the song info is stored in the file as a single entry. You should be able to enter more than one set of album data on a file so you can have a true break from the underlying files and your MP3 player's organization.
but that's my rant...
And a good rant too.
And it highlights that storing metadata in fixed, non-flexible, data structures (a la ID3 tags)* is a VERY BAD IDEA because it doesn't allow for multiple entries of attributes like say Album! Doh!
Cheers Daniel
* (and I guess EXIF too may suffer from the same non-flexible problem but I'm not very familiar with EXIF so don't know how flexible it is).
At this rate Apple will have a DB filesystem before MS, and one that requires darned little user training - we'll have been brainwas... er, indoctrina.... TRAINED dammit!
...and John Siracusa will have a nervous breakdown.
I still think a spatial viewing system is nice to have in your back pocket to some extent, though I'm not as militantly anti-DB/pro-folder as Sircausa is. I suppose that you could talk about spatial GUI with DB views within that system. I guess it's a querstion of how much housekeeping you want to do or should do.
...and John Siracusa will have a nervous breakdown.
I still think a spatial viewing system is nice to have in your back pocket to some extent, though I'm not as militantly anti-DB/pro-folder as Sircausa is. I suppose that you could talk about spatial GUI with DB views within that system. I guess it's a querstion of how much housekeeping you want to do or should do.
You're right, spatiality and hierarchy can still exist with a DB file system...they're not mutually exclusive. Apple could still keep the traditional Finder around for those that want a spatial and hierarchical organization. The hierarchy would simply not represent how files are laid out physically on the disk.
You'd essentially be adding levels to what is essentially a one level hierarchy.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day we see a revised Finder that takes the iTunes approach (although I can imagine that it would be a bit more complex) and the traditional Finder that allows people to spatially store user created documents. All other files (system files, etc.) should probably be controlled by some 3rd app so that people that never want to mess around or look at the system files ever need to.
The new revised Finder could, for simplicity's sake, be Spotlight (a progression of the Spotlight we know today that would simply use the database file system.)
The traditional Finder could become a seperate app launched on occasion or left in the Dock for those that really only care about spatial organization. It would act just like any other app and you'd be able to quit it at any time.
Then a utility could be used to fiddle around with the system. Apple is making it easier and easier to install fonts, screensavers, etc. So there are less and less reasons why a normal user should ever have to see the user-level 'Library' folder or even less the root level 'Library' and 'System' folders.
Comments
I'll tell 'ya one thing, I'm LMAO watching people argue about features who's functionality or future implications no one really understands.
You guys are F*CKED UP man.
Making smart folders burnable doesn't solve the problem that 'burnable folders' address, as you would need to define a smart folder's criteria to find all the files you want to burn (exactly how do you group your Quicken Data file, mail files, Safari Bookmarks, Address Book, iTunes playlists, Excel spreadsheets, Word documents, iChat logs, etc, into a single smart folder?). It would work if you were trying to burn all files "within my home directory that are dated within the last week" and stuff, but not just for a random group of files that you want to make sure you have copies of.
EXAAAAACTLY!
How can you compare the files on your computer you want to burn, to an iTunes Playlist? That comparisson makes no sense at all. When I want to find files I want to burn to a CD, I don't do a search for all of them - I COULDN'T, they usually have nothing to do with each other. I go find the files myself, drag them onto a CD and burn them, now I can just dedicate folders for the files I frequently back up.
Thanks Apple!
Originally posted by the cool gut
Why is everyone getting all bent out of shape about features in Beta software? Lot's of features have been HEAVILY revised since being introduced, and there is another 6 months to go.
I'll tell 'ya one thing, I'm LMAO watching people argue about features who's functionality or future implications no one really understands.
You guys are F*CKED UP man.
EXAAAAACTLY!
How can you compare the files on your computer you want to burn, to an iTunes Playlist? That comparisson makes no sense at all. When I want to find files I want to burn to a CD, I don't do a search for all of them - I COULDN'T, they usually have nothing to do with each other. I go find the files myself, drag them onto a CD and burn them, now I can just dedicate folders for the files I frequently back up.
Thanks Apple!
Or you can just drag them (or shove aliases into) to a normal fucking folder and click burn. Why would something special called 'Burnable Folder' need to exist to gain this capability?
And how does this have anything to do with Smart Folders? Making all folder burnable doesn't take away any capabilities 'Burnable Folders' bring...in fact, it *ADDS* capabilities to existing folders and even smart folders.
How people can't understand this makes me think I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. It's unfortunate but there are a bunch of people on this board that don't think very much.
Think before you type. But you're right cool gut...it's useless to talk about it since we're talking about alpha features that might or might not make the cut. But hopefully Apple will take it's head out of it's ass...I'm sure they put the burnable folder into this build to incite some reactions...and they've got mine.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
All folders could have a 'prepare for burning' icon that would ready it for burning and warn the user if it's exceeded the media's capacity. It could be left on or not depending on the user's wishes. Then, when they want to burn the content, they can simply click the burn icon.
Not a bad idea, but I think it would better in the Tools popup in the Toolbar.
Having a new option to create a 'Burnable Folder' and not being able to switch between Burnable and Normal Folder is a stupid solution. Why segregate the two?
They did the same thing with Smart Folder, you know. Perhaps you'd like to discuss why it's okay there, but not in Burnable Folders?
If someone created a folder that he suddenly wants to burn but realizes it wasn't created as a burnable folder, what does he do? Create a new 'Burnable Folder' and move the contents into it? That's a ridiculous solution. You may like it but it proves you're not thinking about better solutions and taking whatever Apple serves you as if it were on a silver platter.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... oh you're funny. Yes, because I've never criticized Apple's UI designs *ever*.
I just try and refrain from doing the armchair UI designer thing without thinking it through thoroughly, pros and cons of various approaches, and trying to see what the rationale may have been. *Before* shooting my mouth off on what a mistake it was. Tends to reduce looking like a fool later.
That wasn't hard now was it? Didn't take much time either. Apple could spend a hundred times as much time as I did (one minute) and even come up with something better.
As of right now, is there a way to have Burnable Smart Folders? No? Didn't think so. My solution wouldn't discrimate between normal and smart folders.
This is true, but you're still stuck in the idea, I think, of having a random folder suddenly want to be burned. For me, at least, burning a CD is a rare enough occurrence that taking that folder and selecting all with Cmd-A and dragging to a CD-R icon is just not that difficult. There ya go, can be done with any folder.
I would hazard that for most people, the Burnable Folder is the right way to go. It provides an obvious and direct way of changing the mental model to a 'burning optical media' workflow. The current approach is straight-forward, but rather hidden for most folks. This makes it more obvious, and gets around the temporary disk image file that is made now. (Yeah, that could be handled as aliases too, which would be good.)
This approach, having a "Burn This Folder" has merit, and would make a nice comparison study versus their Burnable Folder idea. Your initial remarks were not heading in this direction.
Anyways...they're still dev builds and 10.4 is subject to change before it's final, so I still have hope that Apple will clean up the mess it's making.
Entirely possible, several other items have mutated between first observance in a dev build and final.
It's also inconceivable that 'New Smart Folders' is absent from the File menu when Smart Whatever is available in every other app that can create Smart objects and that 'New Burnable Folder' is...but...that's right, dev build. I'm sure it'll turn up eventually. [/B]
It already has. Kwitcherbitchin.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok...stfu everyone and listen carefully before spouting out nonsense.
kks, consider this a formal warning. Chill. Now. Another outburst like this, and you're on suspension in here, k? You're trolling.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Ok...stfu everyone and listen carefully before spouting out nonsense.
...
Everything Louzer et al are trying to tell me about Burnable Folder *can* exist with normal folders if Apple took the time to implement it correctly.
...
Aliases in any folder would find the original file and burn them...so that takes care of the problem some people seem to think would crop up in my scenario. Smart folders would burn the returned files.
But you still missed the easy question! You make the assumption all aliases need and will be resolved, and the original burned. Well, user A goes to his home folder, says "Burn", and then it ends up taking 10 CDs because it turns out he's got a couple of aliases and symlinks to his 'movies' folder, his 'music' collection, and his 'garageband' loops folder, not to mention a couple of his network directories he uses for backups. Or it fails miserably because its too big to fit. But then he has to go on a hunt to find out what isn't going to fit, or why its so big, because the Finder says his directory is only 300MB large. So, we now have a huge conundrum. So the only way around this is to either (a) make a new folder and place aliases into it of everything you want to burn (gee, sounds like a burn folder), (b) set some preference that says "Don't resolve aliases" (which is great if you don't want to resolve any aliases), or (c) go through and find ALL your aliases in your directory, and mark which ones you want to resolve and which ones you don't.
[Again, I'll use my Stuffit example: in OS 9 I used to keep a folder full of aliases to various applications and utilities I used regularly. When just trying to stuff my personal files for backup, taking everything from the desktop increased the file size - and time to stuff - dramatically, because the 'resolve aliases' flag was turned on, which, BTW, sounded like a great idea when I did turn it on. So rather than a 10 MB file, I got a 130MB file].
The problem is you're just talking about this working on folders that contain all the files (or aliases of files) you want to burn, and apparently set up that way. Unfortunately, you need to look at ALL possible situations, and try to determine how all these work out. All you need is one folder of "recently used applications" somewhere deep in the folder you want to burn to increase the size of your output from small to huge. And then once you realize this, then you have to figure out how to handle it on the user side to make it easy to use AND easy to understand. And this is the part your examples just keep failing miserably at. [BTW, Apple could do a preference like "resolve aliases", but then the user would (a) have to know to turn it on or off, (b) do the burn, and (c) revert it back if they usually want it the other way. And this isn't something the users are going to remember to do. So then burning folders ends up not always burning what the user thinks its burning.]
A smart folder is simply a collection of files from different locations. There's no more hierarchy to that folder. (No sub-folders etc.) This is also the reason why Apple removed the column view on smart folders.. it doesn't really make sense.
However, a burnable folder is like a normal folder which can have sub-folders where you can place information and burn them as one item! You still see the hierarchy.
That's the major distinction between the two.
I am all for making anything that is close to a folder, a folder. Smart folders should be able to be viewed, have files added to them, be burnable, etc like any other folders. I think smart folders should be able to have files added to them, even if it means adding behind the scenes a query searching for the file with file ID of theFile on theVolume. Also, smart folders (and their contents) should be accessible via the commandline, otherwise they are virtually useless for any remote access.
The concept of backup really should be encouraged and made easy. Having specialty programs like Backup is something that is easily forgotten unless it is scheduled, and then you don't want to have to deal with two organization methods.
There is something that irks my mind about having separate 'burnable folders' and admittedly, I don't have a solution, but I think it's involve a flag that can be set on folders. I figure it would resemble something like labels where you could do a get Info on a bunch of files or folders, and associate them with a certain backup. Then when that backup came time for burning, the Finder would generate a smart folder with the specific backup criteria and ask for the media.
For example: I'm writing an important homework assignment. When I save, I see the little option to 'add file to backup schedule: xxxxxxx". Yeah I know, complexity in the save dialogue is bad, but work with me here. So I see the option there next to the "hide file extension" and I think to myself: yes, this is important and should be backed up. So I select 'add file to backup schedule: school work' from the menu.
Of course, I've already made a backup schedule in my System Prefs called school work (hence it showing up in the menu) and it is set to backup after a week since the previous backup, and it's set to only backup files who have been changed in that time (of course the option to exists to backup all files as a compilation instead of incrementally).
I save my file and it occurs to me that my previous project was handed back and I no longer care about it that much. So I go to that folder, and do a get info on it. I remove it from both my school work and deep freeze backups. But I still want one of the files that the folder contains, so I get info on it, and put it on the deep freeze backup (which is a monthly tape backup as defined in my System Prefs).
Now I don't think about it again until one day (a week after the last backup), I get a notification presenting me with a smart folder with everything that I've flagged for school backup asking me to insert some media for it. I can hit cancel, or ask tomorrow or insert the media, and if I hit cancel, the folder stays there where I can modify the contents and either choose 'burn' or just close it. I could add files to it (which may ask if I want to associate them the specified backup or not.. I don't know what would be better) which would be added as aliases of course and resolve properly in burning.
That is how I envision it working!
Code Master
http://homepage.mac.com/codemaster/
I'm not certain how your idea of burnable folders will resolve the alias issue. Don't you just face the same problem when you add a folder with an alias in the hierarchy to the burnable folder? Sure, the alias to the folder resolves properly, but what about everything contained within it? And having a flat hierarchy is simply unacceptable. (That goes for smart folders too in my opinion)
Originally posted by Code Master
I have to agree with kks on some points here. The total segregation seems a little heavy handed to me. I think it will lead people to believe that these burnable folders are the only way to burn files.
This is no different than toast. You drag all the files you want to burn into toast hit burn, and then it asks you if you want to save your setup. This is the SAME thing, except there is no saving. This is a TOOL for making scheduled backups. It's not replacing anything. I can place a Burn folder in a Clients directory that's loaded with what needs to be backed up. Burning is a pretty important thing, and I don't want it mixed up with anything else. You can't place anything you want in a smart folder, that's not what they are for.
Because the Finder is a way to view the physical layout of files on the HD and other storage devices, it acts very differently than apps Apple has been putting out recently. To fix this, Apple would have to move to a database file system where file location doesn't matter one bit.
That way the Finder could list 'All files' just like iTunes can list 'All songs'...these would be the physical files...and Folders in the sidebar would be the equivalent of Burnable Folders in 10.4 and would only contain pointers to the physical files. Normal folders would simply be equivalent to sub-categories of 'All files' which simply wouldn't matter except to those that want to categorize files physically.
At this point, I don't really care what Apple does with it's Finder...if it wants to slap on stupid ideas like Burnable Folders, they can go ahead. With Spotlight and document organizers like iTunes, Address Book, etc. the need for the Finder is becoming less important. The Finder will always be useful...but only in very specific instances. I don't see the Finder improving much though...it's as broken as it ever was and Apple isn't willing to change the way it works.
Burnable Folders isn't the worse idea ever...it's an ok patchwork...but there are more elegant solutions out there.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The more I think about it, the more I realize it's just because the Finder is different than iTunes and Address Book and all the other apps with databases.
Because the Finder is a way to view the physical layout of files on the HD and other storage devices, it acts very differently than apps Apple has been putting out recently. To fix this, Apple would have to move to a database file system where file location doesn't matter one bit.
Bingo. This is precisely where they are moving, one bit at a time. MS tried to shoehorn WinFS down the developers' throats in Longhorn, and it didn't fly at *ALL*. (It was their equivalent of Rhapsody shoving Cocoa down devs throats.) Nor did it work in user studies - they couldn't figure out how to make a DB-based file system act like a standard one enough for most users to figure out. Apple is training us all on Spotlight just like they did with databases in general in iTunes et al. Expect in two-three years a move over to a DB-based system, by which time most users will be comfy enough with the Spotlight idea that they'll adopt it much more easily.
Good catch tying it in here... I hadn't made the connection until you pointed it out, but it's a good fit.
That way the Finder could list 'All files' just like iTunes can list 'All songs'...these would be the physical files...and Folders in the sidebar would be the equivalent of Burnable Folders in 10.4 and would only contain pointers to the physical files. Normal folders would simply be equivalent to sub-categories of 'All files' which simply wouldn't matter except to those that want to categorize files physically.
NOW you've got it. Burnable Folders are, I believe, another piece of the puzzle meant to train users not to think quite so physically, but more conceptually and workflow based. It's not one I would have thought to do, and my first inclination is towards a Tool item, but it makes sense to do it this way if you're trying to ensure that new file organization elements don't tie physically to the file layout too tightly. Look at it this way, Burnable Folders are already ready for that segue to a DB-aware file organizational system. Folders-that-are-burnable wouldn't be, and would have to be modified.
At this point, I don't really care what Apple does with it's Finder...if it wants to slap on stupid ideas like Burnable Folders, they can go ahead. With Spotlight and document organizers like iTunes, Address Book, etc. the need for the Finder is becoming less important. The Finder will always be useful...but only in very specific instances. I don't see the Finder improving much though...it's as broken as it ever was and Apple isn't willing to change the way it works.
Not when they can just replace it lock stock and barrel in a couple of years, no.
Burnable Folders isn't the worse idea ever...it's an ok patchwork...but there are more elegant solutions out there.
If you mean DB-aware dynamic file searching, then yes. And Apple agrees with you.
Sometimes the small steps look silly until the larger picture is pointed out.
I think what Apple could do is remove the "Burnable" element from this kind of list by default, and call it something else. So now in the Finder you can have your files organised by location, by manually created lists and by automatically created lists.
Then, they can add an option to the action menu in all folders - "Make Burnable". This adds the yellow bar to any kind of Folder which, whilst appearing the same to the user, when activated does the correct action regarding aliases depending on what kind of folder you're burning. Oh yeah, and as I mentioned in my earlier post, I'd like to see something in that yellow bar which will tell me how many CDs or DVDs I'll need to burn the current folder.
Whilst this does mean there are now three kinds of folders on your system, it is pretty much directly relatable to the Library / Playlists / Smart Playlists organisation in iTunes.
It also means you don't have to worry about turning real folders into burnable folders as some people have mentioned - that's like storing a Playlist as a track in iTunes (confusing!!!). Again, I think this confusion arose from the way a Burnable Folder is kind of two features in one.
Saying that, it's not as if I'd be that miffed if it ended up as it currently works. It's a nice feature, still.
I shall shut up now.
Neil.
a.k.a. Arnel
edit: Of course, iTunes doesn't let you burn stuff that's not in a Playlist or Smart Playlist, but maybe they can go one better in this bit.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Not when they can just replace it lock stock and barrel in a couple of years, no.
If you mean DB-aware dynamic file searching, then yes. And Apple agrees with you.
Sometimes the small steps look silly until the larger picture is pointed out.
I hope you're right. If all of this is simply small steps to make the transition as painless as possible for everyone, then I'm all for it.
Originally posted by Code Master
Louzer:
I'm not certain how your idea of burnable folders will resolve the alias issue. Don't you just face the same problem when you add a folder with an alias in the hierarchy to the burnable folder? Sure, the alias to the folder resolves properly, but what about everything contained within it? And having a flat hierarchy is simply unacceptable. (That goes for smart folders too in my opinion)
Actually, burnable folders doesn't have a problem with this. The stuff you 'copy' into the folder is copied automatically as an alias (another advantage over making your own, you don't have to remember to drag with the appropriate modifiers down to make an alias, rather than moving the file). Everything in the folder/file/etc is copied as is. Which means if I drag my Documents folder, then it will burn my documents folder, which includes burning all aliases as aliases.
But you see my point, everything sounds easy until you start hashing out every freakin' detail, and every little case.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I hope you're right. If all of this is simply small steps to make the transition as painless as possible for everyone, then I'm all for it.
That's my take on it. Look at the progression of dynamic searching: showed up first in iTunes, as playlists. Okay, cool, that's something everyone can understand. Then it showed up in iPhoto as smart albums. Sweet. Then in the Address Book. Next up, Mail in Tiger. People are now *asking* for the 'smart collection' ability, and have taken to the search capabilities like a duck to water.
Apple has, I think, finally learned that there's only so much you can force on your users in change between releases. MS is trying to reinvent the entire Windows world with Longhorn, and have you noticed how much has been pulled back from the original project? Every few months, they strike something else off the feature list. It's almost getting sad.
At this rate Apple will have a DB filesystem before MS, and one that requires darned little user training - we'll have been brainwas... er, indoctrina.... TRAINED dammit!
Rather than try to create another method of burning to optical media on Mac OS X, why not improve the current system and make ONE superior method.
Here's my idea:
How about when you pop in a blank CD or DVD, the icon appears on the desktop as normal. You can then drag files or folders to this icon. Instead of copying the contents, aliases are used like in the current "burnable folders".
To make the process or adding many different types of files and folders from different locaitons, Apple should add a option under the Action menu that says something like "move this file/folder to Untitled CD/DVD" or whatever you have highlighted. This will then just add an alias to you session you are getting ready to burn.
You then drag your CD or DVD to the trash and then it burns like normal.
Now when everything is said and done and the burning process is over, the Finder asks if you want to save your burn session as a "special folder" that can be burned again. If you say yes, a burnable folder is created with the contents you burned last time. You can then modify the contents or add more.
While I love the concept of the "burnable folder", I think trying to cram too many features in the Finder will just lead to unnecessary bloat. Too many different options for creating folders will cause confusion. But if done right, they can be very effective.
Just think about my method before trying to poke too many holes through it.
Mike
Originally posted by Louzer
Theoretically the smart folders wouldn't 'need' keywords as they'd be able to search the content of the files (searchlight search). But keywords would be quite helpful.
However, one problem with iTunes is that a single file can only belong to one album. If you have the same song in several albums, you have to have several copies, because the song info is stored in the file as a single entry. You should be able to enter more than one set of album data on a file so you can have a true break from the underlying files and your MP3 player's organization.
but that's my rant...
And a good rant too.
And it highlights that storing metadata in fixed, non-flexible, data structures (a la ID3 tags)* is a VERY BAD IDEA because it doesn't allow for multiple entries of attributes like say Album! Doh!
Cheers Daniel
* (and I guess EXIF too may suffer from the same non-flexible problem but I'm not very familiar with EXIF so don't know how flexible it is).
Originally posted by Kickaha
At this rate Apple will have a DB filesystem before MS, and one that requires darned little user training - we'll have been brainwas... er, indoctrina.... TRAINED dammit!
...and John Siracusa will have a nervous breakdown.
I still think a spatial viewing system is nice to have in your back pocket to some extent, though I'm not as militantly anti-DB/pro-folder as Sircausa is. I suppose that you could talk about spatial GUI with DB views within that system. I guess it's a querstion of how much housekeeping you want to do or should do.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
...and John Siracusa will have a nervous breakdown.
I still think a spatial viewing system is nice to have in your back pocket to some extent, though I'm not as militantly anti-DB/pro-folder as Sircausa is. I suppose that you could talk about spatial GUI with DB views within that system. I guess it's a querstion of how much housekeeping you want to do or should do.
You're right, spatiality and hierarchy can still exist with a DB file system...they're not mutually exclusive. Apple could still keep the traditional Finder around for those that want a spatial and hierarchical organization. The hierarchy would simply not represent how files are laid out physically on the disk.
You'd essentially be adding levels to what is essentially a one level hierarchy.
I wouldn't be surprised if one day we see a revised Finder that takes the iTunes approach (although I can imagine that it would be a bit more complex) and the traditional Finder that allows people to spatially store user created documents. All other files (system files, etc.) should probably be controlled by some 3rd app so that people that never want to mess around or look at the system files ever need to.
The new revised Finder could, for simplicity's sake, be Spotlight (a progression of the Spotlight we know today that would simply use the database file system.)
The traditional Finder could become a seperate app launched on occasion or left in the Dock for those that really only care about spatial organization. It would act just like any other app and you'd be able to quit it at any time.
Then a utility could be used to fiddle around with the system. Apple is making it easier and easier to install fonts, screensavers, etc. So there are less and less reasons why a normal user should ever have to see the user-level 'Library' folder or even less the root level 'Library' and 'System' folders.
Essentially, the utility would be for admins.