MacBidouille Rumors about new Panther Filesystem

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 94
    chromoschromos Posts: 191member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by frawgz

    I think they should call it "Desktop"



    Funny, after using OS X esp. in Column view the desktop metaphor really isn't relevant to me anymore. The Desktop is just another directory. I think of the Finder more as "Library" now (rows and columns of files).
  • Reply 62 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    John Siracusa of Ars Technica has just published an article 'bout the Finder. Haven't had time to read it yet though. Anyway, here's the link: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-1.html
  • Reply 63 of 94
    robsterrobster Posts: 256member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NETROMac

    John Siracusa of Ars Technica has just published an article 'bout the Finder. Haven't had time to read it yet though. Anyway, here's the link: http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-1.html



    I'm just keeping faith that Apple will want to show off all the new toys and implement the changes they've wanted to do all along with the Finder when they give us this new FS.



    I suppose if you think about it theres no point in Cocoa-ing the current Finder when your resource is already working on a replacment version to tie in with a new Filing System....



    Fingers crossed boy and girls....
  • Reply 64 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    From John's article

    How about raiding Apple's nonexistent past? And by that I mean good old vaporware, specifically Copland. I want Copland's "live search folders." Since not everyone is familiar with Copland, I'll explain how they worked (or were supposed to work).



    Imagine using the Finder's "Find" command to search for something--say, all files created today that are larger than 2MB and are somewhere on the volume named "My Work." Now imagine "saving" that search in the form of a "magical" folder that always appeared to contain the result of that search, as if the search was run constantly in the background.



    For this feature to work correctly, the user should never perceive any actual searching being done. The folder should simply appear to contain the results, and the results should be updated every time the result set changes in any way.





    That would be a real time saver! A bit like smart playlists in iTunes isn't it.
  • Reply 65 of 94
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Yes, it's a lot like the smart playlists in iTunes. This is what Kickaha means when he says that the iApps cry out for metadata — the smart playlists couldn't exist unless iTunes kept information about the MP3 files in its database (i.e., metadata). Ideally, that information would be stored in the filesystem and anything could create a "smart playlist".



    Note the word "database" in the above paragraph. Relational databases exist to accomplish exactly the sort of querying that Siracusa is talking about. In fact, in a pure relational scheme, every folder would be a query.
  • Reply 66 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    John's introducing the Finder Browser



    Quote:

    And so I propose the Finder Browser: a purpose-built, visually distinct file browser that tries to do everything a browser is good at doing. First, let's address the visual distinction issue. Browser windows (unlike folders) will have toolbars. But since the toolbar's visibility may be toggled, we can't rely on that alone to differentiate browser windows. As loathe as I am to admit it, when I visualize a Finder Browser window, I see brushed metal. Yes, boo, hiss, and all that, but I'm just trying to be honest. Anyway, even something as simple as a colored background for the window contents would do the trick. Furthermore, since the toolbar would likely be visible in some form most of the time, and since browser windows are capable of view styles that regular folders are not (e.g. column view), it should be easy to distinguish them at a glance...even without any brushed metal.



    More about the Finder Browser here.
  • Reply 67 of 94
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    ACK! ACK ACK ACK ACK ACK!



    Normally I agree with much of what John says, but ACK!



    Does this strike anyone else as precisely what Windows does (er, did)? A semi-spatial Finder for folder views, and a Browser (Explorer) for non-spatial?



    I for one would never, and I do mean never, use the Spatial Finder after using the current one. Smart queries? Heck yeah. Live updates? Booyah. Ubiquitous and rich metadata everywhere? *drool*



    Spatial Finder makes a lot of sense for a lot of people... but perhaps instead of two separate apps, they were instead to be a Novice and Power-User mode suite? Yeah, I know that they aren't intended to be used like that, but instead to be complementary, but... is there anyone out there that uses both style simultaneously right now? (Well, as close as you can get in the current Finder, at least...) I'm permanently embedded in Column View and love it. I find it much faster than Icon or List view for 99.99% of what I do.



    Perhaps instead of a Spatial Finder, John could realize that a Spatial Finder window is just a live query document for a specific path, with window attributes such as position and size? Sure makes things unified under the covers, and brings it under the auspices of LQDs in the non-spatial Finder... it's a particular document type that the Finder knows how to deal with.
  • Reply 68 of 94
    zosozoso Posts: 177member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    ACK!I for one would never, and I do mean never, use the Spatial Finder after using the current one. Smart queries? Heck yeah. Live updates? Booyah. Ubiquitous and rich metadata everywhere? *drool*



    I'm not sure what you mean here...



    If we assume a Spatial Finder, then Clumn View is no option inside the Finder. But in a "browser" like the one JS described it'd fit perfectly well. You might think of it, as you said, a "simple" Finder vs. a "pro" Finder, although I wouldn't agree on this classification. Anyway...



    You seem to imply that live queries (hmmm, where does this term come from...???) and all those other goodies cannot fit in a Spatial Finder. If memory is not failing me, you're wrong (if I understood you correctly): wasn't the BeOS Tracker spatial? If it was--as I said, I can't quite remember well--then you have the proof that live queries and lotsa metadata can wonderfully enrich a spatial file-management experience.



    IMO, the current User Experience in Mac OS X's Finder is just a tiny step above Windows' Web Folders. OS X has a great flexibility regarding File Systems: they should put that flexibility in the hands of the user, instead of reccomending to developers to adopt that incredibly anal .suffix abomination.



    .Suffixing TheWorld+NSDog is not the Macintosh way.



    </BeOS_Rant>



    ZoSo
  • Reply 69 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha



    Spatial Finder makes a lot of sense for a lot of people... but perhaps instead of two separate apps, they were instead to be a Novice and Power-User mode suite? Yeah, I know that they aren't intended to be used like that, but instead to be complementary, but... is there anyone out there that uses both style simultaneously right now? (Well, as close as you can get in the current Finder, at least...) I'm permanently embedded in Column View and love it. I find it much faster than Icon or List view for 99.99% of what I do.




    I think an advanced version of the Spatial Finder along with a very specialized Folder Browser could be very useful. For experienced users the folder = finder window analogy isn't important I know, but for lot's of newbies and casual users it simplifies things a great deal.



    I agree with you that Column View is cool, I use it almost all the time, and there's no reason why it wouldn't continue too be that way with some sort of Finder Browser. In addition this Browser could, as John suggested, have lots of browser specific features like bookmarks, history and so on.



    And of course the Shelf would be very useful for storing files temporarily, moving files etc. Over time Apple and third parties could expand the Browsers features with plug-ins.

    In addition saved Browsers that's customized for specific folders would be very clever. Save a browser for a folder with image files and a special menu bar for working with images - could be a real timesaver (open with, resize, preview drawer - you get the idea). Wouldn't this be hard to implement with the current Finder. And if you don't like the way a Browser is working, you could just trash it and build a new one, and you could keep several of them in every folder if you like.



    The smart folder thingy could be implemented either way, and I'll bet we'll see some type of it in a future release from Apple.
  • Reply 70 of 94
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ZoSo

    You seem to imply that live queries (hmmm, where does this term come from...???) and all those other goodies cannot fit in a Spatial Finder.



    Not at all... they can fit just fine.



    *I* wouldn't use a Spatial Finder after using column view. Others may prefer to.
  • Reply 71 of 94
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    The big problem with the original spatial Finder, which John doesn't acknowledge, is that it (consistently ) broke the icon-as-file illusion when you opened a folder. The result was a window that was essentially indistinguishable from a document window, and which could be placed anywhere without affecting the placement of the folder it represented. As long as the user opened a folder, did whatever, and then closed it, the association was close enough, and the zoomrects were reinforcement enough. But I got lost many times in the Great Sea of Finder Windows when I'd open a folder in the lower right-hand corner, and Finder would foreground its window, which I'd stashed in the upper left-hand corner for whatever reason. Since I'm not looking there, I don't see it immediately. Further double-clicking has no visual effect, since the window is already foregrounded at this point, so it takes me a minute to find the damn window.



    Now, maybe this could just be me, but I found it one of the most maddening things about the old Finder.



    However, I'm in Column View 24/7 now not just because I like it (I do) but because the other two views make no sense outside of a spatial Finder. They're just like Windows' haphazard approach to file management, except that the toolbar can't seem to figure out whether it should appear or not.



    I haven't fully digested the contents of that article, but I think there are some sound ideas therein. I'm still not sure about the idea of their being, in effect, two Finders, but it's just about the only way to restore a spatial Finder while keeping the browser-like column view.
  • Reply 72 of 94
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by robster

    D'you know I like that idea...

    I know it's not quite as accurate as Finder but it's more descriptive especially to new users.




    Yeah, I think the joke was the Finder WAS actually called "Desktop" in one of the beta versions of OS X. Har, har.
  • Reply 73 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    But I got lost many times in the Great Sea of Finder Windows when I'd open a folder in the lower right-hand corner, and Finder would foreground its window, which I'd stashed in the upper left-hand corner for whatever reason. Since I'm not looking there, I don't see it immediately. Further double-clicking has no visual effect, since the window is already foregrounded at this point, so it takes me a minute to find the damn window.





    Perhaps if there was some cool Quartz Extreme/OpenGL effect...double-clicking a folder icons (actually a detailed 3D model of a folder) would create this neat-o animation of it opening up into a window (kinda like zoom rects but cooler) but this very folder icon would be gone since it's actually the window. Only by closing the window would it return to an icon (almost like minimize-in-place I guess).



    That would truly make the folders spatial in the sense that you'd never be able to see two different items representing the folder (icon or window)...it'd be one or the other.



    Of course, that would kill Steve Jobs' beloved non-spatial Finder view...ie multiple view of the same folder (which is confusing as hell for newbies anyways).
  • Reply 74 of 94
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    Perhaps if there was some cool Quartz Extreme/OpenGL effect...double-clicking a folder icons (actually a detailed 3D model of a folder) would create this neat-o animation of it opening up into a window (kinda like zoom rects but cooler) but this very folder icon would be gone since it's actually the window. Only by closing the window would it return to an icon (almost like minimize-in-place I guess).



    That would truly make the folders spatial in the sense that you'd never be able to see two different items representing the folder (icon or window)...it'd be one or the other.



    Of course, that would kill Steve Jobs' beloved non-spatial Finder view...ie multiple view of the same folder (which is confusing as hell for newbies anyways).




    That might work, although would one move the folder to another location if the folder is in window mode? You can't drag a window to the desktop.



    My personal opinion, is they should ditch the spatial finder idea and go with some sort of cool, database browser.
  • Reply 75 of 94
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    If the new FS will break Classic they will probably just update classic to 'think' that it is accessing HFS.
  • Reply 76 of 94
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by pyr3

    If the new FS will break Classic they will probably just update classic to 'think' that it is accessing HFS.



    It makes one wonder. As OS X matures and evolves, is Apple going to keep maintaining Classic compatability. Remember, they disolved the OS 9 team. It's highly unlikely they'll be willing to make any major changes to keep it running in OS X. I don't think classic will disapear in Panther, but after that, it could go.
  • Reply 77 of 94
    kim kap solkim kap sol Posts: 2,987member
    If Classic held back OS X's potential, that'd be sad. I hope Apple isn't dropping cool ideas because "it wouldn't work with Classic".



    I'm already sick of developers trying really hard to support both OS 9 and OS X at the same time...and the app looks and feels like ass because it has to follow OS 9's limitations.
  • Reply 78 of 94
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by kim kap sol

    If Classic held back OS X's potential, that'd be sad. I hope Apple isn't dropping cool ideas because "it wouldn't work with Classic".



    I'm already sick of developers trying really hard to support both OS 9 and OS X at the same time...and the app looks and feels like ass because it has to follow OS 9's limitations.




    WarCraft III is a perfect example. It took a couple of patches before performance and stability were even acceptable in OS X, and of course it still runs better in 9
  • Reply 79 of 94
    netromacnetromac Posts: 863member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kecksy

    That might work, although would one move the folder to another location if the folder is in window mode? You can't drag a window to the desktop.



    My personal opinion, is they should ditch the spatial finder idea and go with some sort of cool, database browser.




    In what way would this "database browser" work that dosen't fit into the Spatial Finder + Browser Finder idea?

    I just don't see why we cant have both. You dont have to use the spatial finder if you don't want too. You can live in the browser if you want too, but they will be separate from each other.

    There's the "real" Finder that is spatial, like in say os 9, and in addition you have the Finder Browser / File Browser.



    In the real finder, a window IS the folder. Removing the folder icon when the window is open is taking it a bit to far i think. Read Johns article for more indepth information 'bout the idea of the spatial finder.



    The Finder Browser is a tool you use to browse the file system much in the same way you browse the internet.

    The browser looks different from folder windows so there can be no mistake about a Finder Browser BEING a folder. This browser is specialized towards working with files and filesystems and include many tools for this. Of course these tools are configurable to your exact need.

    You could start a browser session at any level in any folder as easy as right-clicking in a folder. Often used browsers could be saved anywhere. Ok, you get the idea.



    Hope this makes sense?



    Now, I have to go and get some coffee
  • Reply 80 of 94
    ricrocketricrocket Posts: 142member
    Quote:

    Using Finder view and toolbar plug-ins, and recalling the presupposed OS-level support for powerful, high-performance, arbitrarily extensible metadata, it's only a small stretch to create a saved Finder Browser window that is, essentially, iPhoto....It's a win-win situation: iTunes and iPhoto get slimmer, and the Finder becomes much more powerful.



    This is where Siracusa gets into trouble. Spatial vs. Browser issue aside, since we're talking about non-power users here, I think the big question is how much should these users be using the Finder anyway? It's natural for most experienced/savvy users to gravitate towards column mode, but for new users, the iApps stand a chance of making using the Finder a rare event.



    What I mean is that, if you want to browse your photos, use iPhoto. Finding pictures based on their thumbnail is far more intuitive than remembering that the photo you took a few days ago was auto-named by your camera "00020394488.jpg". Similarly with iTunes - if I want to listen to music, I'll launch that and browse through Artist: "Massive Attack", Album: "100th Window", Song: "A Prayer for England"...that's a whole lot easier than going into the Finder and clicking through "Macintosh HD:Usersowellr:Music:Massive Attack:100th Window:A Prayer For England.mp3".



    The kicker is that these "Live Queries" already exist in iTunes, and to some extent ("Last Imported Photos") in iPhoto. And since they exist in their appropriate media-browsers, the information/meta-data they can act upon is very specific to the types of files that you need. To create these in the Finder would involve too many criteria for the average user to have to deal with...If I'm creating a "Live Query" folder in the Finder for all the photos that I shot at "f 2.8", I don't want to have to wade through options like "Composer" and "Genre".



    These "custom Finders" exist already for photos, music, and email (the three I use most often... I'm sure there are others...), but what's really missing is a nice organizational app for office documents. Perhaps "iWorks" could remedy this (although I doubt it). But clearly there are different criteria for quickly finding office files. In the same way that I remember an email by who sent it to me, I might remember a doc file by the title (inside the document, not the filename) or by the subject (which could be dynamically created by summarizing the document). I might remember a Powerpoint/Keynote presentation I was working on by the look of the first slide (similar to iPhoto).



    iApps for different types of documents should include intelligent organizational interfaces specific to those types of documents. The Finder is not going to go away, but it would only be needed occasionally by power-users, novice users would just launch the appropriate iApp and start working.



    rr.
Sign In or Register to comment.