Fascinating. I'll have to ponder a bit more before weighing in on burnable folders. Aliases and the time required to write onto an optical disk make this a suprisingly difficult interface dilemma.
How can Apple best communicate (to a wide variety of users) the differences involved with copying files to optical storage? In a perfect world, users would be able to treat the optical storage as just another disk. Yet, that model doesn't quite fit either.
*** So, basically, burn folders DO make sense. ***
The burning folder makes tremendous sense. This is exactly what the private and small business needs - an easy, fool proof method of backing up files scattered about the harddrive (and maybe even the network). My grandma can do it.
And so what if all the files don't fit on one CD. Make two burn folders - what is the big deal? In any case, this is not a problem instigated by Apple, but rather the Music Industry.
For those who don't "get it" or "like it", I can ony suggest one thing. Don't use 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.
*** So, basically, burn folders DO make sense. ***
The burning folder makes tremendous sense. This is exactly what the private and small business needs - an easy, fool proof method of backing up files scattered about the harddrive (and maybe even the network). My grandma can do it.
And so what if all the files don't fit on one CD. Make two burn folders - what is the big deal? In any case, this is not a problem instigated by Apple, but rather the Music Industry.
For those who don't "get it" or "like it", I can ony suggest one thing. Don't use it.
Nobody is arguing that they don't provide useful functionality.
Some have proposed that it isn't the best interface by which to accomplish the task.
Simply making a feature optional is not always a solution. Bumbling novices frequently stumble across confusing, advanced features.
Given that Mac users are traditionally quite fanatical about interface design, it is only appropriate that we discuss the merits of burn folders as currently implemented in the beta OS.
First I assume you are the developer of this product. It's pretty obvious by your username. Second apple didn't rip YOU off. This is a generic idea that probably 10,000 people have had, you're not original. "Watson knockoff" (in a crazy form) was around back when system 8 was in development. it just never got released. Windows created something similar too. Stop whining. There are about 20 apps that do exactly what this application does. There was a beta apple tool in os 9 that did the same damn thing... Apple just took the next logical step. I bet they have stuff like this created long before you even had the wet dream of an idea to create this product. If you thought of it odds are somebody smarter than you at apple or elsewhere not only thought of it BUT wrote something for it. Seriously.
PS the site says "Better Finder Burning..." are you saying that it's improving Apple's Finder burning? So your just improving something apple created. Wow so they took the next logical step (you think you're the only one to think of it?)
Quote:
Originally posted by swatki
Ummmmmm....this feature already exists for 10.3. TheHotFolder by Ronin No Sakura Kai Softronics already does this.
First Apple rips of Karelia for Watson, now this. Why does Apple go through all the trouble of courting developers if they are just going to rip them off?
I hope the guy was at least compensated for this....
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....Too many different options for creating folders will cause confusion. But if done right, they can be very effective.
Mike
I don't know, it seems your just making things more complex. For starters, making "burnable folders" should not require you putting in a blank CD.
I sure do hate the name though. Burnable folders is just a weird name. I think something along the lines of "syncing folder". That would be especially cool if the folder could be burned, or automatically uploaded to a server / ipod ect ect.
Crap, I don't know. Maybe it will be fantastic once Steve demonstrates it to us.
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.
The guy who petitioned Apple three years ago to create a BFS-like volume format with support for arbitrarily extensible, indexed metadat, proposed live search folders, Java-style identifiers for metadata keys names (com.apple.iTunes.myrating), and a much more powerful Finder browser is suddenly "anti-DB"?
I don't know, it seems your just making things more complex. For starters, making "burnable folders" should not require you putting in a blank CD.
I sure do hate the name though. Burnable folders is just a weird name. I think something along the lines of "syncing folder". That would be especially cool if the folder could be burned, or automatically uploaded to a server / ipod ect ect.
Crap, I don't know. Maybe it will be fantastic once Steve demonstrates it to us.
If you are burning a CD, then it isn't that unusual to do so. But like I said, after you would have burned a CD, Mac OS X will ask you if you would like to save your session as a burnable folder for you to burn later.
Now you idea of a syncing folder is pretty interesting and is a much better idea because then the feature wouldn't be just limited to CD's and DVD's but other backup means such as external hard drives, iPod, flash USB sticks, etc.
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.
That is exactly what I said previously in the thread here:
So, that's two of us that think that there are now 3 types of folders. Actually, I think, using the playlist and smart playlist metaphore, these two folder grouping types could be combined into a very smart playlist folder type.
Comments
How can Apple best communicate (to a wide variety of users) the differences involved with copying files to optical storage? In a perfect world, users would be able to treat the optical storage as just another disk. Yet, that model doesn't quite fit either.
The burning folder makes tremendous sense. This is exactly what the private and small business needs - an easy, fool proof method of backing up files scattered about the harddrive (and maybe even the network). My grandma can do it.
And so what if all the files don't fit on one CD. Make two burn folders - what is the big deal? In any case, this is not a problem instigated by Apple, but rather the Music Industry.
For those who don't "get it" or "like it", I can ony suggest one thing. Don't use it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
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.
Same concept, yes, but transparent to the user.
Originally posted by revelator
*** So, basically, burn folders DO make sense. ***
The burning folder makes tremendous sense. This is exactly what the private and small business needs - an easy, fool proof method of backing up files scattered about the harddrive (and maybe even the network). My grandma can do it.
And so what if all the files don't fit on one CD. Make two burn folders - what is the big deal? In any case, this is not a problem instigated by Apple, but rather the Music Industry.
For those who don't "get it" or "like it", I can ony suggest one thing. Don't use it.
Nobody is arguing that they don't provide useful functionality.
Some have proposed that it isn't the best interface by which to accomplish the task.
Simply making a feature optional is not always a solution. Bumbling novices frequently stumble across confusing, advanced features.
Given that Mac users are traditionally quite fanatical about interface design, it is only appropriate that we discuss the merits of burn folders as currently implemented in the beta OS.
PS the site says "Better Finder Burning..." are you saying that it's improving Apple's Finder burning? So your just improving something apple created. Wow so they took the next logical step (you think you're the only one to think of it?)
Originally posted by swatki
Ummmmmm....this feature already exists for 10.3. TheHotFolder by Ronin No Sakura Kai Softronics already does this.
http://kaisakura.com/index2.html (click on TheHotFolder Reheated)
First Apple rips of Karelia for Watson, now this. Why does Apple go through all the trouble of courting developers if they are just going to rip them off?
I hope the guy was at least compensated for this....
Originally posted by MPMoriarty
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....Too many different options for creating folders will cause confusion. But if done right, they can be very effective.
Mike
I don't know, it seems your just making things more complex. For starters, making "burnable folders" should not require you putting in a blank CD.
I sure do hate the name though. Burnable folders is just a weird name. I think something along the lines of "syncing folder". That would be especially cool if the folder could be burned, or automatically uploaded to a server / ipod ect ect.
Crap, I don't know. Maybe it will be fantastic once Steve demonstrates it to us.
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.
The guy who petitioned Apple three years ago to create a BFS-like volume format with support for arbitrarily extensible, indexed metadat, proposed live search folders, Java-style identifiers for metadata keys names (com.apple.iTunes.myrating), and a much more powerful Finder browser is suddenly "anti-DB"?
Supplement, don't replace!
Originally posted by the cool gut
I don't know, it seems your just making things more complex. For starters, making "burnable folders" should not require you putting in a blank CD.
I sure do hate the name though. Burnable folders is just a weird name. I think something along the lines of "syncing folder". That would be especially cool if the folder could be burned, or automatically uploaded to a server / ipod ect ect.
Crap, I don't know. Maybe it will be fantastic once Steve demonstrates it to us.
If you are burning a CD, then it isn't that unusual to do so. But like I said, after you would have burned a CD, Mac OS X will ask you if you would like to save your session as a burnable folder for you to burn later.
Now you idea of a syncing folder is pretty interesting and is a much better idea because then the feature wouldn't be just limited to CD's and DVD's but other backup means such as external hard drives, iPod, flash USB sticks, etc.
Mike
Originally posted by Arnel
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.
That is exactly what I said previously in the thread here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...945#post694945
So, that's two of us that think that there are now 3 types of folders. Actually, I think, using the playlist and smart playlist metaphore, these two folder grouping types could be combined into a very smart playlist folder type.
Cheers Daniel