why they will not update the Finder

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a283/



As you can see new things are tucked into the current Finder (colored lines, grid spacing).

Why would they do this, if they have this "new Finder" under wraps?

Now lets hope for tabs! :-)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    The reason they won't FTFF is that they don't care. Simple as that, really.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a283/



    As you can see new things are tucked into the current Finder (colored lines, grid spacing).

    Why would they do this, if they have this "new Finder" under wraps?

    Now lets hope for tabs! :-)



    Those screenshots are fairly old. And change is incremental. I don't think it entirely rules out a new finder. Also, the first builds of Leopard had iCal with brushed metal. The new builds have it without. Things are changing.
  • Reply 3 of 16
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    you could say that indeed, but why would they improve on the old finder as well as creating an entire new one? Changing the skin is just a matter of minutes, I'm talking about new technology :-)
  • Reply 4 of 16
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    For me this would be nice to have:



    - More speed! I mean MUCH more speed. Comparable to Windows or BeOS.

    - Another view option: thumbnails. Icon view IMHO should be just

    icons, not "previews" of the file. The thumbail view should have those.

    (and I could customize the thumbnail view to show large icons, and the

    icon view should be small icons).

    - "Move" option (cut/paste on windows)

    - Tabs (which are springloaded)

    - Resize window bug fixed

    - Wrong scrollbar size bug fixed (when ur at the bottom of a list).

    - Icon on top of another icon bug fixed

    - Media preview (e.g when clicking a Quicktime once, being able to preview it)

    - The Finder should be smaller, now it feels and looks clumsy.

    - Moving an alias out of the leftpane should not result in a "POOF!" but simply move the alias.

    - The "SHOW INFO" window is very large (height). Why not a small window containing

    tabs grouping information in a user friendly way? The window now often is larger

    than my screen (12" Powerbook) and I have to minimize stuff in the info window.

    - Meta data edit. I want to be able to edit metadata like in iTunes. Right-clicking a file

    (or multiple files) should have this option included. With this I can edit all key<->value

    stuff.

    - Group files like in Aperture. Results in stacking the stuff. See also next point:

    - Another view option: browse by relation. Let's say BLAH.JPG is part of two projects I am

    working on. I select the image and quickly can go to project A or B, or view all photos

    with the same subject or rating, etc.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    you could say that indeed, but why would they improve on the old finder as well as creating an entire new one? Changing the skin is just a matter of minutes, I'm talking about new technology :-)



    Because they are trying to get as much done without giving anything away...



    But to be honest, I don't think they will "fix the finder".
  • Reply 6 of 16
    feynmanfeynman Posts: 1,087member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by webmail


    There is a NEW FINDER coming to leopard. It will be the last thing put in. I've personally seen builds on Apple campus with the new finder in progress. Yes everything will have a unified look. And the new finder is much more meta browsing than the old one.



    Even the current leopard builds have a "new finder" it's just not a new look, but the finder has been completely re-written. Apple won't release builds with the new finder until well after Vista is released



    As much as I would love to believe this guy, I will beleieve it when I see it. Either come January or by screenshots. Though even screenshots could be easily Photoshoped.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    For me this would be nice to have:



    - More speed! I mean MUCH more speed. Comparable to Windows or BeOS.



    Do you mean to say that Macs need to be faster so that they can be 'comparable' to Windows! No, you couldn't have said that... OMG! I can't believe it, you actually said that, you MEANT it! LOL!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    - Another view option: thumbnails. Icon view IMHO should be just

    icons, not "previews" of the file. The thumbail view should have those.

    (and I could customize the thumbnail view to show large icons, and the

    icon view should be small icons).



    Personally, I feel that the integrated solution for thumnails and icons that Finder offers is much better than the Windows Explorer method of doing things.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    - "Move" option (cut/paste on windows)



    Dragging and dropping a file from one location to another does that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    - The "SHOW INFO" window is very large (height). Why not a small window containing

    tabs grouping information in a user friendly way? The window now often is larger

    than my screen (12" Powerbook) and I have to minimize stuff in the info window.



    Yeah, so what's the problem? You minimise panes if you want it smaller and restore them if you want it to be larger. Sounds better than a small static window to me.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    Quote:

    Do you mean to say that Macs need to be faster so that they can be 'comparable' to Windows! No, you couldn't have said that... OMG! I can't believe it, you actually said that, you MEANT it! LOL!



    I think you are deliberately misinterpreting me. I'm saying the Finder is very, very slow and needs to be faster, just like Windows Explorer or Beos' "Finder".



    Quote:

    Personally, I feel that the integrated solution for thumnails and icons that Finder offers is much better than the Windows Explorer method of doing things.



    So why does the Finder do it 'integrated' and Windows Explorer not? And why do you think its 'much better'? Please elaborate.

    I think a seperate view for thumbnails would be ideal. Why? Cause I would be able to apply view settings (large thumbnails for example) for this specific view mode. And then for thumbnail mode, I would use small icons, without live preview so it becomes fast.



    Quote:

    Dragging and dropping a file from one location to another does that.



    I am talking about right-clicking and select cut / paste (but called "move"). Dragging and dropping is a pain in the behind when you want to work fast, through several folder structures.



    Quote:

    Yeah, so what's the problem? You minimise panes if you want it smaller and restore them if you want it to be larger. Sounds better than a small static window to me.



    The whole Finder window is taking up to much space.

    Pressing the zoom button changes the Finder to spatial mode, but that changes the way it behaves, which is not what I am talking about.



    The left pane is simply too large and when you resize the Window it suddenly changes size so the content in the pane is shown partially. Why not small items in the left pane? The relation between size and information shown is not efficient.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    Media preview (e.g when clicking a Quicktime once, being able to preview it)



    No thanks, I don't want a QT to play if I just selected the icon so I can get info, move, alias, etc. I'll take the preview pane for that.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dacloo


    I think you are deliberately misinterpreting me. I'm saying the Finder is very, very slow and needs to be faster, just like Windows Explorer or Beos' "Finder".



    No, I wasn't misinterpreting you. I just think that Finder is faster than Explorer. Can you tell me in which aspect you find it slower than Windows Explorer?



    And I find the integrated solution better because it shows icons for files that are not previewable (such as applications) and thumbnails for images. And that is what I want it to do. In Explorer, when you enable the thumbnail view, it will show the thumbnails for images and will make a thumbnail size boundary for the non-previewable items with a small icon in the center. That looks ugly to me.
  • Reply 11 of 16
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    On a side note, I hope that the next implementation of lables lets you shade just the icon as you could do in classic ( as well as what you can do now with lables in OS X). And I hope that you can choose your own colors. The colors Apple has now for the lables are a little fruity for me.



    - Mark
  • Reply 12 of 16
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aryayush


    Do you mean to say that Macs need to be faster so that they can be 'comparable' to Windows! No, you couldn't have said that... OMG! I can't believe it, you actually said that, you MEANT it! LOL!



    Personally, I feel that the integrated solution for thumnails and icons that Finder offers is much better than the Windows Explorer method of doing things.



    Dragging and dropping a file from one location to another does that.



    Try opening a folder with a thousand files in it, then you will see slow or fast spinning beach ball.



    Dragging and dropping is like an art on the Mac. Open from window, open to window, position windows and move. Unless you like the spriing loaded folders, drag object to folder, wait for it to open, hope your mouse is in the right position for next folder, wait for it, continue.



    Mac is based on Unix which supposts "mv" so it shouldn't be difficult to do. Probably very difficult for the Infinite Loop guys to implement something Windows already. They implemented slideshows in the Finder and some of the guys probably are still in shock.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    I opened the 'system32' folder on my Windows partiton with the Finder. It had in excess of two thousand files and it snapped open in a second. Folders with lesser files do not take even a second though. But even Explorer does delay when opening folders with large number of files. In fact, in my experience, it generally takes more than just a second.

    And there was no spinning beachball in that second, BTW.
  • Reply 14 of 16
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    Last two posts: exactly! It´s like the Finder is fast but not for the use of today. As soon as the amount of files increase, Finder chokes.

    If they would rewrite the code that handles this specific issue, fix some navigation/GUI glitches and add "move" (cut/paste), I would be very very happy.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    Apple must *rewrite* the entire Finder. Just patching parts of the Finder would be asking for trouble. There's enough work to do on the Finder to warrant a complete rewrite.



    When the core is rotten (displaying files rapidly, accessing network shares rapidly), it's no use trying to fix the problem through patchwork. But not only does the Finder's core capabilities not work, it doesn't make good use of Spotlight, its interface is a mess (one of the very few remaining apps that uses the toolbar toggle widget to do something other than hide the toolbar or hide features in context menus), and its not uncommon to see it crash and not be able to relaunch itself correctly.



    Apple, I implore you, kick the Finder to the curb and develop something new. It might suck as a version 1.0 rewrite in Leopard but at least I'll know that you're working with a fresh code base and none of the mistakes done 5 years ago.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Electric Monk


    The reason they won't FTFF is that they don't care. Simple as that, really.



    Yes.



    The #1 problem with Finder, IMO, is navigation. There are some things in there which are just silly - for instance, only the column view is really usable, pgdn/pgup do not work in it, etc.



    The #2 problem is low information density. The amount of pixels that actually give you information about what files are present in the location you're looking at, and what those files' characteristics are, is minuscule. It also doesn't display clearly which folder you are looking at. I often have many folders all with the same name and same set of files, so just the name of the folder is not good enough. There should be a way to constantly see the path somehow.
Sign In or Register to comment.