Gene... I'm not sure I even understand the workflow you're trying to describe there... want to give it another shot?
I can't describe it using words. You'd have to *see* it to *get* it. Suffice it to say that a tabbed Finder would help me a lot. I might check out the other third party file manager Path Finder.
Look there should be no argument. People do things differently. it should be an option. That's what Apple's about.
Simply making a feature optional doesn't preclude it from having absolutely disastrous effects on a platforms GUI traditions.
Example: Windows allows developers to easily make multiple rows of tabs in dialog boxes. With this available as a an option, designers and developers frequently take the easy way out. They resort to a jumbled mess of constantly shifting tabs.
Apple has always taken the other route. They purposefully limit functionality but at the same time, end up with an end product that is more useful to more people. You don't need a million settings and check boxes if the program already does what you need. Quicktime is an example of this. Other video players have settings out the ying yang. Of course, those settings wouldn't be necessary if the programs simply did their job in the first place.
In my opinion, the Mac GUI would suffer drastically from the introduction of tabs into every screen-area / info management interface. Some people, as explained here, could make use of it in their workflow. However, I think the end result would be a worse experience for the majority of users... even if it were optional.
Speaking of tradition: Safari has broken it with the introduction of tabs. The confusion lies in its way to close them via keyboard shortcuts. For example, the traditional cmd-w no longer closes the window. Instead, it closes a tab. Another source of frustration is when people hit the red close button and then scream when they realize they've accidently closed 7 other pages that were tabbed.
Now, I understand people will say something like "well that's just because Apple refuses to put a warning dialog before closing windows with tabs" but it's not as simple as this. Again, this would break a long-standing tradition of not pestering the user when you close a window *unless* the content of a document was modified and is awaiting to be saved. Webpages are rarely edited (unless you're filling a form or writing a message on a forum or an e-mail...a warning dialog in this case would be ok). So in most cases, you shouldn't be pestered about the possible consequences of closing a window that isn't of the editable-document type.
Another example is if there are 2 or 3 pages within a set of, say 10 tabs, that were modified. How would the OS go about telling the user 3 pages haven't been saved (or submitted). The normal dialog sheet is attached to a single window...in most cases, this makes sense since the dialog sheet is saying *this* window needs your attention. But when you've got 3 tabs that need your attention, the dialog sheet can't properly convey which tab needs attention.
Again, someone will say "well Apple should change the way sheets work" or "the tabs that need attention should light up or change color or have some kind of visual cue" but I think this would create complexities in the GUI that aren't welcome on Mac OS.
Tabs should remain a 3rd-party option. They're, IMO, awkward to novice users and frustrate even the expert users.
Tabs is a solution to a problem that is already being fixed. Screens are getting larger and app interfaces are becoming more simple (re:metadata searches will reduce the need of juggling files around several windows).
Speaking of tradition: Safari has broken it with the introduction of tabs. The confusion lies in its way to close them via keyboard shortcuts. For example, the traditional cmd-w no longer closes the window. Instead, it closes a tab. Another source of frustration is when people hit the red close button and then scream when they realize they've accidently closed 7 other pages that were tabbed.
Now, I understand people will say something like "well that's just because Apple refuses to put a warning dialog before closing windows with tabs" but it's not as simple as this. Again, this would break a long-standing tradition of not pestering the user when you close a window *unless* the content of a document was modified and is awaiting to be saved. Webpages are rarely edited (unless you're filling a form or writing a message on a forum or an e-mail...a warning dialog in this case would be ok). So in most cases, you shouldn't be pestered about the possible consequences of closing a window that isn't of the editable-document type.
Another example is if there are 2 or 3 pages within a set of, say 10 tabs, that were modified. How would the OS go about telling the user 3 pages haven't been saved (or submitted). The normal dialog sheet is attached to a single window...in most cases, this makes sense since the dialog sheet is saying *this* window needs your attention. But when you've got 3 tabs that need your attention, the dialog sheet can't properly convey which tab needs attention.
Again, someone will say "well Apple should change the way sheets work" or "the tabs that need attention should light up or change color or have some kind of visual cue" but I think this would create complexities in the GUI that aren't welcome on Mac OS.
Tabs should remain a 3rd-party option. They're, IMO, awkward to novice users and frustrate even the expert users.
Tabs is a solution to a problem that is already being fixed. Screens are getting larger and app interfaces are becoming more simple (re:metadata searches will reduce the need of juggling files around several windows).
If Apple were always following "tradition" we'd still be using the same crappy underlying system as in pre-osx.
As for tabs, some people (myself included) find them incredibly useful in web browsers, such as when I visit here, I can have as many threads open as I want, all in one browser window, and switch between each. I guess it's one of those love it/hate it features, but I, for one, couldn't imagine going back to no tabs.
As for the "screens are getting larger" comment, think laptops, where screens aren't going to get much larger than 17".
As for the new ways of cataloguing data, well, when we get there we can come back to this discussion, but until then...
Tabs are very useful for web browsers, where I'm looking at one page and option-clicking links I wish to look at later.
A tabbed Finder would be disastrous for me. I don't go through a window noting down which folders I want to look at later.
Improvements in smart folders (they're too laggy and abstract to use properly at the moment,) and further work on Spotlight would improve item navigation more.
On a related note, I remember reading about "Item Piles" in OS X. They were like folders, but instead they were literally piles of items, which sprang open when you clicked on them. The icon for a 'pile' being a pile of all the item icons. Whatever happened to that idea?
On a related note, I remember reading about "Item Piles" in OS X. They were like folders, but instead they were literally piles of items, which sprang open when you clicked on them. The icon for a 'pile' being a pile of all the item icons. Whatever happened to that idea?
Scrapped because it was a dumb idea? Why not make the folders spew out the files? The idea of piles and folders are just too similar. They both contain files. One of them is a mess of icons piled together (with no specific name?). The other is a neat folder with a name.
Scrapped because they were replaced with Smart Folders. It's the same thing.
Like I said above, tabs in browsers work because the browser is a very specific type of app:
1) Read-only. You *CONSUME* data through a web browser. The UI is very very limited. The number of things you can do is very very limited. It's about as dumbed-down an interface as you can get. (ObRant: DAMN YOU MARC ANDREESEN!)
2) Roughly constant size. That data has become more or less standardized to assume a few basic window sizes. ie, Page A from one site and Page B from a completely different site are *likely* going to look good if they're both in a window of the same size. This doesn't hold for much of any other type of data, with the exception of a word processor... but I'll get back to that.
3) Many, and transitory, page changes. You don't work with two or three pages all day, you're *constantly* flipping back and forth between many pages. Tabs make sense in such a situation because it's a bit like reading a huge book and putting in placemarkers to flip back to. But then you read, and you eliminate it. The lifetime of a browser secondary window spawned off from a main one is generally under 60 seconds.
Tabs are a decent solution in *this one specific situation*. Trying to generalize them out to a more global case is just a recipe for disaster. They add very little, and only serve to clutter up the place and confuse the UI issues.
For global UI elements, you need global guidelines, and global management systems: Cmd-tab/Cmd-~ for app and linear and hierarchical window selection, Expose for global random access selection or per-application random access selection. Both of these are orthogonal pieces that do not interfere with or otherwise mung up other important UI behaviours such as drag and drop. This is *CRITICAL* to keeping a system coherent and consistent.
"Make it an option!" ignores that if it were globally accessible, then it would have to be globally considered, and *every* part of the UI would have to be modified to take it into account.
It's just not worth it, on a global scale. For *very specific* applications, such as a browser, it works. (Heck, even for a chat system it works - I almost never change my windows past the default size... although I like to keep an eye on several chats at once, so it isn't something I think I'd use.)
Drag the proxy icon of the currently open folder, or an icon of a visible but unopened folder, to the sidebar and/or the toolbar.
Voila. Tabbed Finder.
Still not as useful as the Shelf. \
What's the Shelf?
I've only used Panther and Tiger and never encountered anything called the Shelf. Is it an OS IX feature, or a feature that was considered and never implemented?
The Shelf was a feature of the NeXT interface. That toolbar at the top of the Finder windows? You could grab items from a window, plop them there, navigate to the destination, and drag them off. While they were there, they were also drop targets, if they were folders. Sort of a temporary staging area.
You can do the same thing with the Desktop, thought it's a bit more cumbersome if it's mostly covered.
The Shelf was a feature of the NeXT interface. That toolbar at the top of the Finder windows? You could grab items from a window, plop them there, navigate to the destination, and drag them off. While they were there, they were also drop targets, if they were folders. Sort of a temporary staging area.
You can do the same thing with the Desktop, thought it's a bit more cumbersome if it's mostly covered.
Sounds like a handy feature. Thanks for the explaination.
Make new one: drag icon to tab bar or 'Open as Tab'
Remove: click on close button
Sidebar:
Make new one: Drag icon to sidebar or 'Add to Sidebar (Cmd-T)'
Remove: Drag off sidebar
I'm really not seeing much difference here in these.
The difference is that tabs would be on a per-window basis, while the sidebar items appear in every window. That's really the only substantial difference between them, other than one runs horizontal, and the other vertical.
For the tab-obsessed, with *one* Finder window full of tabs, they're essentially identical.
Adding tabs to the Finder would be like encouraging its inefficiency. While I agree that the tabs in the Finder we know today could benefit people that want to reduce clutter, adding them would be helping cope with a long-standing problem instead of fixing it at the source.
There's no reason why there should be more than one or two Finder windows open. None. I don't care what kind of crazy workflow people have, the big problem is that hierarchical navigation is a PITA.
Like I said earlier, Apple will slowly introduce everyone to metadata and this way of searching/organizing will replace the archaic system we have now. With a solid and metadata-rich OS, a single window should be able to handle all the file browsing...moving/copying files will be a thing of the past (except maybe for backup purpose)...
Some people are still in denial or scared that we're all moving towards this...but there's nothing to be afraid of...all that's needed is an excellent interface to handle all the metadata files can throw at you. If anyone can build such an interface, Apple can.
Slightly off-topic:
Right now, we've got a Google-y fuzzy search aka the Spotlight menu...and we've got a super-accurate search (well, as accurate as you want to make it) aka Spotlight in the Finder.
One of the main complaints is that the Spotlight menu returns too many unwanted results. This isn't Spotlight's fault. Spotlight isn't guessing what file the user wants. Spotlight only returns results that have the keyword that was entered in the Spotlight menu.
A lot of users don't know how to use the Finder's Spotlight search which is, quite frankly, much more powerful at finding what you really want...the interface is just not user-friendly enough for some people.
Apple needs to put some easily accessible default queries such as one that returns all the 'applications' on the computer, and one that returns all the 'documents' on the computer. Clicking on these should do just that, show the user all the apps and all the documents. Further refinement should then be available, such as application type (utility, internet, productivity, etc.), or document type (presentation, pdf, text, etc.) or viewing documents by 'project'.
Apple should also allow some metadata to be user-controllable via the Finder. The user should be able to tag his files by project so that even if your project consists of spreadsheet files, presentation files and images, you can view them together by filtering by the project name.
A good interface should make almost every file on the HD available in a single-window and within 2-3 clicks. And the remaining lesser used files within 3-5 clicks.
Originally posted by kim kap sol None. I don't care what kind of crazy workflow people have, the big problem is that hierarchical navigation is a PITA. [/B]
You make it sound like your kind of working is some kind of standard everyone should adapt.
As for the Finder, I've replaced it largely with Quicksilver, however, I still like to move things around the old fashioned way, that's why I like to see tabs, and if Apple won't give it to me, I'm glad Pathfinder 4 will.
You make it sound like your kind of working is some kind of standard everyone should adapt.
It's not 'my' kind of working. I'm not imposing 'my' view on how people should work...I'm saying how it's going to be, whether we like it or not. In a hundred years time, nobody's going to be navigating their millions of files hierarchically, it would be a nightmare.
I know some people have a harder time adapting or even flat out refuse to adapt but it's a big part of life.
I still like to move things around the old fashioned way, that's why I like to see tabs
Just had to point out the irony of 'old-fashioned' and 'tabs' being used in the same sentence...
Really, other than horizontal-vs-vertical alignment, the text-vs-icons representation, and the global-vs-per-window scoping, can anyone point out what the *functional* difference is between the Sidebar and the proposed tabs?
1) Drag-and-drop on a tab brings it forward so you can drop -> So does Sidebar
2) Making new tabs is as easy as a keystroke -> So are Sidebar elements (what, you thought them selecting Cmd-T for both this and Safari's 'New Tab' was *accidental*??)
3) You can get rid of tabs quickly -> Same with Sidebar
3a) You can use Cmd-W to get rid of a tab -> Please, dear Jobs, no! Safari already screwed this up! Don't co-opt a 20yr old convention just to cater to a questionable UI element.
4) Tabs are transitory -> So are Sidebar items. See #2 and #3. Combine.
Just because it's turned 90deg doesn't mean it's not essentially the tabs some people want... what's more important, the details of the look or the functionality?
Seriously, can anyone come up with a good solid difference in how they'd be used? As I see it, I have 'tabs' for Network, Computer, Applications, Home, Desktop, Documents, Movies, Music, Pictures, Dissertation, and Current Work sitting there already. I can drag and drop on them, I can 'close' them, whatever.
Comments
Originally posted by Kickaha
Gene... I'm not sure I even understand the workflow you're trying to describe there... want to give it another shot?
I can't describe it using words. You'd have to *see* it to *get* it. Suffice it to say that a tabbed Finder would help me a lot. I might check out the other third party file manager Path Finder.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Look there should be no argument. People do things differently. it should be an option. That's what Apple's about.
Simply making a feature optional doesn't preclude it from having absolutely disastrous effects on a platforms GUI traditions.
Example: Windows allows developers to easily make multiple rows of tabs in dialog boxes. With this available as a an option, designers and developers frequently take the easy way out. They resort to a jumbled mess of constantly shifting tabs.
Apple has always taken the other route. They purposefully limit functionality but at the same time, end up with an end product that is more useful to more people. You don't need a million settings and check boxes if the program already does what you need. Quicktime is an example of this. Other video players have settings out the ying yang. Of course, those settings wouldn't be necessary if the programs simply did their job in the first place.
In my opinion, the Mac GUI would suffer drastically from the introduction of tabs into every screen-area / info management interface. Some people, as explained here, could make use of it in their workflow. However, I think the end result would be a worse experience for the majority of users... even if it were optional.
Speaking of tradition: Safari has broken it with the introduction of tabs. The confusion lies in its way to close them via keyboard shortcuts. For example, the traditional cmd-w no longer closes the window. Instead, it closes a tab. Another source of frustration is when people hit the red close button and then scream when they realize they've accidently closed 7 other pages that were tabbed.
Now, I understand people will say something like "well that's just because Apple refuses to put a warning dialog before closing windows with tabs" but it's not as simple as this. Again, this would break a long-standing tradition of not pestering the user when you close a window *unless* the content of a document was modified and is awaiting to be saved. Webpages are rarely edited (unless you're filling a form or writing a message on a forum or an e-mail...a warning dialog in this case would be ok). So in most cases, you shouldn't be pestered about the possible consequences of closing a window that isn't of the editable-document type.
Another example is if there are 2 or 3 pages within a set of, say 10 tabs, that were modified. How would the OS go about telling the user 3 pages haven't been saved (or submitted). The normal dialog sheet is attached to a single window...in most cases, this makes sense since the dialog sheet is saying *this* window needs your attention. But when you've got 3 tabs that need your attention, the dialog sheet can't properly convey which tab needs attention.
Again, someone will say "well Apple should change the way sheets work" or "the tabs that need attention should light up or change color or have some kind of visual cue" but I think this would create complexities in the GUI that aren't welcome on Mac OS.
Tabs should remain a 3rd-party option. They're, IMO, awkward to novice users and frustrate even the expert users.
Tabs is a solution to a problem that is already being fixed. Screens are getting larger and app interfaces are becoming more simple (re:metadata searches will reduce the need of juggling files around several windows).
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Good post dfiler.
Speaking of tradition: Safari has broken it with the introduction of tabs. The confusion lies in its way to close them via keyboard shortcuts. For example, the traditional cmd-w no longer closes the window. Instead, it closes a tab. Another source of frustration is when people hit the red close button and then scream when they realize they've accidently closed 7 other pages that were tabbed.
Now, I understand people will say something like "well that's just because Apple refuses to put a warning dialog before closing windows with tabs" but it's not as simple as this. Again, this would break a long-standing tradition of not pestering the user when you close a window *unless* the content of a document was modified and is awaiting to be saved. Webpages are rarely edited (unless you're filling a form or writing a message on a forum or an e-mail...a warning dialog in this case would be ok). So in most cases, you shouldn't be pestered about the possible consequences of closing a window that isn't of the editable-document type.
Another example is if there are 2 or 3 pages within a set of, say 10 tabs, that were modified. How would the OS go about telling the user 3 pages haven't been saved (or submitted). The normal dialog sheet is attached to a single window...in most cases, this makes sense since the dialog sheet is saying *this* window needs your attention. But when you've got 3 tabs that need your attention, the dialog sheet can't properly convey which tab needs attention.
Again, someone will say "well Apple should change the way sheets work" or "the tabs that need attention should light up or change color or have some kind of visual cue" but I think this would create complexities in the GUI that aren't welcome on Mac OS.
Tabs should remain a 3rd-party option. They're, IMO, awkward to novice users and frustrate even the expert users.
Tabs is a solution to a problem that is already being fixed. Screens are getting larger and app interfaces are becoming more simple (re:metadata searches will reduce the need of juggling files around several windows).
If Apple were always following "tradition" we'd still be using the same crappy underlying system as in pre-osx.
As for tabs, some people (myself included) find them incredibly useful in web browsers, such as when I visit here, I can have as many threads open as I want, all in one browser window, and switch between each. I guess it's one of those love it/hate it features, but I, for one, couldn't imagine going back to no tabs.
As for the "screens are getting larger" comment, think laptops, where screens aren't going to get much larger than 17".
As for the new ways of cataloguing data, well, when we get there we can come back to this discussion, but until then...
A tabbed Finder would be disastrous for me. I don't go through a window noting down which folders I want to look at later.
Improvements in smart folders (they're too laggy and abstract to use properly at the moment,) and further work on Spotlight would improve item navigation more.
On a related note, I remember reading about "Item Piles" in OS X. They were like folders, but instead they were literally piles of items, which sprang open when you clicked on them. The icon for a 'pile' being a pile of all the item icons. Whatever happened to that idea?
Originally posted by keot
On a related note, I remember reading about "Item Piles" in OS X. They were like folders, but instead they were literally piles of items, which sprang open when you clicked on them. The icon for a 'pile' being a pile of all the item icons. Whatever happened to that idea?
Scrapped because it was a dumb idea? Why not make the folders spew out the files? The idea of piles and folders are just too similar. They both contain files. One of them is a mess of icons piled together (with no specific name?). The other is a neat folder with a name.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Scrapped because it was a dumb idea?
Scrapped because they were replaced with Smart Folders. It's the same thing.
Like I said above, tabs in browsers work because the browser is a very specific type of app:
1) Read-only. You *CONSUME* data through a web browser. The UI is very very limited. The number of things you can do is very very limited. It's about as dumbed-down an interface as you can get. (ObRant: DAMN YOU MARC ANDREESEN!)
2) Roughly constant size. That data has become more or less standardized to assume a few basic window sizes. ie, Page A from one site and Page B from a completely different site are *likely* going to look good if they're both in a window of the same size. This doesn't hold for much of any other type of data, with the exception of a word processor... but I'll get back to that.
3) Many, and transitory, page changes. You don't work with two or three pages all day, you're *constantly* flipping back and forth between many pages. Tabs make sense in such a situation because it's a bit like reading a huge book and putting in placemarkers to flip back to. But then you read, and you eliminate it. The lifetime of a browser secondary window spawned off from a main one is generally under 60 seconds.
Tabs are a decent solution in *this one specific situation*. Trying to generalize them out to a more global case is just a recipe for disaster. They add very little, and only serve to clutter up the place and confuse the UI issues.
For global UI elements, you need global guidelines, and global management systems: Cmd-tab/Cmd-~ for app and linear and hierarchical window selection, Expose for global random access selection or per-application random access selection. Both of these are orthogonal pieces that do not interfere with or otherwise mung up other important UI behaviours such as drag and drop. This is *CRITICAL* to keeping a system coherent and consistent.
"Make it an option!" ignores that if it were globally accessible, then it would have to be globally considered, and *every* part of the UI would have to be modified to take it into account.
It's just not worth it, on a global scale. For *very specific* applications, such as a browser, it works. (Heck, even for a chat system it works - I almost never change my windows past the default size... although I like to keep an eye on several chats at once, so it isn't something I think I'd use.)
But globally? Nuh-uh.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Drag the proxy icon of the currently open folder, or an icon of a visible but unopened folder, to the sidebar and/or the toolbar.
Voila. Tabbed Finder.
Still not as useful as the Shelf.
What's the Shelf?
I've only used Panther and Tiger and never encountered anything called the Shelf. Is it an OS IX feature, or a feature that was considered and never implemented?
You can do the same thing with the Desktop, thought it's a bit more cumbersome if it's mostly covered.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The Shelf was a feature of the NeXT interface. That toolbar at the top of the Finder windows? You could grab items from a window, plop them there, navigate to the destination, and drag them off. While they were there, they were also drop targets, if they were folders. Sort of a temporary staging area.
You can do the same thing with the Desktop, thought it's a bit more cumbersome if it's mostly covered.
Sounds like a handy feature. Thanks for the explaination.
Originally posted by macanoid?
for those too lazy to visit the cocoatech site:
how does one make it "plastic", not "metal."
It seems to me they work the same.
Tab:
Make new one: drag icon to tab bar or 'Open as Tab'
Remove: click on close button
Sidebar:
Make new one: Drag icon to sidebar or 'Add to Sidebar (Cmd-T)'
Remove: Drag off sidebar
I'm really not seeing much difference here in these.
The difference is that tabs would be on a per-window basis, while the sidebar items appear in every window. That's really the only substantial difference between them, other than one runs horizontal, and the other vertical.
For the tab-obsessed, with *one* Finder window full of tabs, they're essentially identical.
There's no reason why there should be more than one or two Finder windows open. None. I don't care what kind of crazy workflow people have, the big problem is that hierarchical navigation is a PITA.
Like I said earlier, Apple will slowly introduce everyone to metadata and this way of searching/organizing will replace the archaic system we have now. With a solid and metadata-rich OS, a single window should be able to handle all the file browsing...moving/copying files will be a thing of the past (except maybe for backup purpose)...
Some people are still in denial or scared that we're all moving towards this...but there's nothing to be afraid of...all that's needed is an excellent interface to handle all the metadata files can throw at you. If anyone can build such an interface, Apple can.
Slightly off-topic:
Right now, we've got a Google-y fuzzy search aka the Spotlight menu...and we've got a super-accurate search (well, as accurate as you want to make it) aka Spotlight in the Finder.
One of the main complaints is that the Spotlight menu returns too many unwanted results. This isn't Spotlight's fault. Spotlight isn't guessing what file the user wants. Spotlight only returns results that have the keyword that was entered in the Spotlight menu.
A lot of users don't know how to use the Finder's Spotlight search which is, quite frankly, much more powerful at finding what you really want...the interface is just not user-friendly enough for some people.
Apple needs to put some easily accessible default queries such as one that returns all the 'applications' on the computer, and one that returns all the 'documents' on the computer. Clicking on these should do just that, show the user all the apps and all the documents. Further refinement should then be available, such as application type (utility, internet, productivity, etc.), or document type (presentation, pdf, text, etc.) or viewing documents by 'project'.
Apple should also allow some metadata to be user-controllable via the Finder. The user should be able to tag his files by project so that even if your project consists of spreadsheet files, presentation files and images, you can view them together by filtering by the project name.
A good interface should make almost every file on the HD available in a single-window and within 2-3 clicks. And the remaining lesser used files within 3-5 clicks.
Originally posted by kim kap sol None. I don't care what kind of crazy workflow people have, the big problem is that hierarchical navigation is a PITA. [/B]
You make it sound like your kind of working is some kind of standard everyone should adapt.
As for the Finder, I've replaced it largely with Quicksilver, however, I still like to move things around the old fashioned way, that's why I like to see tabs, and if Apple won't give it to me, I'm glad Pathfinder 4 will.
Originally posted by macanoid?
You make it sound like your kind of working is some kind of standard everyone should adapt.
It's not 'my' kind of working. I'm not imposing 'my' view on how people should work...I'm saying how it's going to be, whether we like it or not. In a hundred years time, nobody's going to be navigating their millions of files hierarchically, it would be a nightmare.
I know some people have a harder time adapting or even flat out refuse to adapt but it's a big part of life.
Originally posted by macanoid?
I still like to move things around the old fashioned way, that's why I like to see tabs
Just had to point out the irony of 'old-fashioned' and 'tabs' being used in the same sentence...
Really, other than horizontal-vs-vertical alignment, the text-vs-icons representation, and the global-vs-per-window scoping, can anyone point out what the *functional* difference is between the Sidebar and the proposed tabs?
1) Drag-and-drop on a tab brings it forward so you can drop -> So does Sidebar
2) Making new tabs is as easy as a keystroke -> So are Sidebar elements (what, you thought them selecting Cmd-T for both this and Safari's 'New Tab' was *accidental*??)
3) You can get rid of tabs quickly -> Same with Sidebar
3a) You can use Cmd-W to get rid of a tab -> Please, dear Jobs, no! Safari already screwed this up! Don't co-opt a 20yr old convention just to cater to a questionable UI element.
4) Tabs are transitory -> So are Sidebar items. See #2 and #3. Combine.
Just because it's turned 90deg doesn't mean it's not essentially the tabs some people want... what's more important, the details of the look or the functionality?
Seriously, can anyone come up with a good solid difference in how they'd be used? As I see it, I have 'tabs' for Network, Computer, Applications, Home, Desktop, Documents, Movies, Music, Pictures, Dissertation, and Current Work sitting there already. I can drag and drop on them, I can 'close' them, whatever.
How are they different?