Why doesn't the Mac OS X bootable disc have Finder?

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 46
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I can only assume he meant permissions problems, which I've seen confuse some people until they get the concept of 'multi-user' firmly in their heads.
  • Reply 42 of 46
    Basically I meant any problems where I have to enter the terminal. That was a bit unclear.
  • Reply 43 of 46
    Couldn't booting from cd just mount all harddrives as read only? Of course then you would be limited to system memory, but at least some with sufficent memory, would be able to run finder if they so wanted. Then again I can already see someone screaming why is his/hers disk mounted in read only.
  • Reply 44 of 46
    placeboplacebo Posts: 5,767member
    As has been previously stated, any GUI that allows one to view a write-protected drive and its files, and move them onto external media, would be just as good as having the full Finder, and a hundred times more feasible.
  • Reply 45 of 46
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Placebo

    As has been previously stated, any GUI that allows one to view a write-protected drive and its files, and move them onto external media, would be just as good as having the full Finder, and a hundred times more feasible.



    Yes, but both Finder and shell tools are there already, why create something new? Just mount disk in read only mode and let people use the tolls they want to, well if your memory allows it.
  • Reply 46 of 46
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    The biggest reason is expectations. "I'm using the Finder, why the &*(%@#$%# won't it let me move that *%$)@$# file?!?"



    If you make it look the same, people expect it to act the same. Saying "Oh, but now you're in Mode X" isn't sufficient... you have to give them a different visual context in some way.



    Maybe something Finder-esque, but with the source disk windows slightly greyed out to be obviously not a drop target... naw, too similar still.



    A two-pane UI, one with source and the other with destination, like most backup UIs, would probably be best. Not only that, but the memory footprint would be small enough to ensure that it could run on any machine - which is kind of critical.
Sign In or Register to comment.