Indeed. It is all up in the air... although you'd *assume* that any major filesystem changes would have popped up as previews at WWDC... and so far, nada is being said. (NDAs, etc, yes, but still... that'd be *huge* news.)
No, it wouldn't be safe to assume much quite yet. The changes the Finder is undergoing, both layout wise and speed of searching could be indicative (or not) of a solution that is being crafted with metadata in mind. iPhoto and itunes both are essentially users of their own metadata already and the new Finder is beginning to look like them. It could be a coincidence or a feature yet to be fully implemented.
Guessing here, but fast searching in the finder just uses the locate database which is updated every week by your cron scripts. It'd be the easiest way for apple to implement such a feature.
Since you can selectively create a locate-type database per directory, this paves the way for the fast-searching in an indexed Project Builder project, too.
It just looks like they implemented it really well.
iPhoto and itunes both are essentially users of their own metadata already and the new Finder is beginning to look like them. It could be a coincidence or a feature yet to be fully implemented.
I would take your statement one step further. I would say that for all practical purposes iPhoto and iTunes are "Finders" in a manner of speaking and that Apple is in the process of re-defining what the "Finder" is. These two applications are special purpose "Finders" geared towards specific "file" types. More generally, forget about "files" and start thinking about "objects".
Many people complained about the fact that iPhoto (in particular) and iTunes (to a much lesser extent) "took over" their direct access to the image (or sound) "files". In some ways these people's thinking was "so yesterday". iPhoto is an "image media database finder". iTunes is a "sound media database finder".
Clearly this model would not work for every file. But it does for some and makes life (in many ways) quite a bit better.
I imagine that the "Finder" (in its traditional form) is dead. And "files" are dead. We are evolving to world of objects. Objects that have "properties" (meta-data) and even "behavior" (open, close, save, print...to name only the most basic). The "Finder" suddenly becomes an "object Finder" where tasks can be delegated to specialty "Finders" (e.g., iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, etc.) as needed.
Now...one step further...much further (time-wise)..."applications" go away. Enter object "tools"...tools for viewing, editing, printing, finding, etc.
Those are some really good points. Just thinking out loud here... Do you think that iTunes and iPhoto might ever get rolled into the Finder? Maybe a Finder with music mode with all the same functionality of iTunes. Or a picture mode for photos. That's not very NeXTian is it though?
In effect that wouldn't be the Finder. It would be a background launch of iTunes or iPhoto when you clicked on the Music/Pictures folder or files, with the Finder window becoming an iTunes/iPhoto window.
Kind of like how Windows Explorer transmorgifies into IE.
In the end, it just ends up a confusing mess. The user doesn't know what the hell's going on when one application transmorgifies into another.
Hey Chris, I like the way you're thinking. I think you are right and I think Apple is slowly evolving and redifining the Finder. Jobs and company invented the finder, the PC world sort of used it, but it became archaic. Now it is evolving toward a consistant use of data.
This is part of the promise of unix, not just Next. Also it is a different view than MS.
As people complain about how Apple is ruining the UI, I happen to think it is actually getting more logical and will slowly fade more into the background. The brushed metal sex "This is a Tool, don't pay too much attention to the blinking lights."
The concept that Chris is speaking of here is what Apple once explored with technology known as OpenDoc. OpenDoc was introduced in a limited fashion during the period of System 7.5, and it was also to be a cornerstone of Gershwin, the sucessor to Copland. Modular software components could be selectively embedded into "containers," which were to replace monolithic applications. One could, for example, have a web browser component sitting in the same window as a slideshow presentation. According to the plans for Gershwin, the Finder itself was to become a container application. At the time of OpenDoc's release Mac columnists were comparing its features to those of Microsoft's Olé, which eventually became known as ActiveX.
As someone else pointed out, this type of design ethos represents a paradigm shift that users have a difficult time accepting. Ultimately OpenDoc failed for this reason. Perhaps one day we'll switch to that paradigm, if such a transition is warranted.
The concept that Chris is speaking of here is what Apple once explored with technology known as OpenDoc. OpenDoc was introduced in a limited fashion during the period of System 7.5, and it was also to be a cornerstone of Gershwin, the sucessor to Copland. Modular software components could be selectively embedded into "containers," which were to replace monolithic applications. One could, for example, have a web browser component sitting in the same window as a slideshow presentation. According to the plans for Gershwin, the Finder itself was to become a container application. At the time of OpenDoc's release Mac columnists were comparing its features to those of Microsoft's Olé, which eventually became known as ActiveX.
As someone else pointed out, this type of design ethos represents a paradigm shift that users have a difficult time accepting. Ultimately OpenDoc failed for this reason. Perhaps one day we'll switch to that paradigm, if such a transition is warranted.
I remember MS 'ole, but it was so roughly implemented that I didn't see is as so much a paradigm shift as pre-emptive application grouping. I wonder if the rumored "piles" could be set up to hold, collect all files of many apps in a uniform sort of structure.
Thanks Big Mac. Does that mean that every file just became a doc that had lots of formats within it? Yeah, I don't think people are quite ready for that. I don't think the industry and developers are up for that either. Then by default every 3rd party app could become just a part of a MS Word document and lose all sense of individuality. I think we still like to think of computer programs (apps) as individuals with the right to live free.
I think (if this is where Apple is going) the transition will take time. Users will need to adjust. Apple is the only one that has the "courage" (or is that arrogance and chutzpah?) to do this by basicaly "forcing" on the users (and developers). In the end, I suspect the users (and developers) will be happy with it. Kind of like when you make your kids eat the good food before they get ice cream.
Anyway, yes it is a paradigm shift. But I think Apple is approaching it very carefully and strategically. They are doing it in applications where is makes sense first.
Secondly, regarding Apple vs. MS. The difference in software philosophy is becoming ever more obvious with each software release (in particular the OS). While someone suggested XP and X are getting closer...and they might be in some sense, Apple's overall software philosophy is being shown to be quite different.
Apple clearly appears to believe in the more UNIX-ish "one tool for the task, each tool can be connected to other tools" approach.
Microsoft appears to believe more in the "Swiss Army Knife" approach to application design.
In the end, it is always interesting (to me anyway) to take a step back and look at where Apple MIGHT be going based on where they are today. Sometimes the things we see today don't make much sense. They seem poorly thought out or disjointed. But if you "zoom out" and imagine the larger picture they are assembling from the puzzle pieces we see today, it looks (at least potentially) pretty cool. Its like they not only have thought things through...they REALLY thought things through over a longer time frame and strategy.
I remember this same topic being discussed maybe 1 or 2 years ago here that pertained to comments about iPhoto and iTunes. The poster (I forgot the name) was detailing Apple's future software direction and the transformation of the Finder into an iPhoto/iTunes structure. Panther (and labels) seem to be the first steps of the Finder toward this direction started by iTunes and iPhoto.
I wonder (pure speculation here) if Longhorn's release date being pushed back to 2005 gave Apple a little more breathing room to figure out how to design and implement a new filesystem.
More than breathing room, it might even be necessary to wait.. After all, with any metadata solution that Apple comes up with, it's going to be critical that it operates smoothly with Windows. This doesn't seem something that Apple can leap forward with, w/o keeping a close eye on WinFS and the behemoth in Redmond.
So, while the Windows FS is being resolved, it's taking small but welcome steps ahead in bringing search fields across the OS via SearchAPI, OS 9-style labels, and live searching to the Finder.
I remember MS 'ole, but it was so roughly implemented that I didn't see is as so much a paradigm shift as pre-emptive application grouping. I wonder if the rumored "piles" could be set up to hold, collect all files of many apps in a uniform sort of structure.
Indeed, you are correct, at the time MS' technology was quite crude (and perhaps still is), and while Olé/ActiveX deals in the world of applets, it doesn't attempt to remove the application from the equation. OpenDoc was far more ambitious. (Btw, after remembering more about the technology, the phrase "Compound Document Format" came into my head. Here's an old Byte article on the subject.)
Quote:
Thanks Big Mac. Does that mean that every file just became a doc that had lots of formats within it?
You're welcome. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Depending on which component type was in focus, I believe the menu bar would switch to those commands.
Quote:
Yeah, I don't think people are quite ready for that. I don't think the industry and developers are up for that either. Then by default every 3rd party app could become just a part of a MS Word document and lose all sense of individuality. I think we still like to think of computer programs (apps) as individuals with the right to live free.
I'm sure MS would love it, hypothetically speaking, if its container application were dominant and it got to take credit for all the components built by third parties. It is a pretty radical change in thinking, not without its merits; they probably fail to outweigh the negatives. The interesting thing is I believe OpenDoc was based on object oriented programming, and the Mac platform is OO now because of Cocoa. So it makes sense that Apple is moving back toward that space in a limited fashion. I don't expect to see anything like OpenDoc in the near future, but functional integration between Apple applications makes sense.
Comments
Originally posted by AirSluf
No, it wouldn't be safe to assume much quite yet. The changes the Finder is undergoing, both layout wise and speed of searching could be indicative (or not) of a solution that is being crafted with metadata in mind. iPhoto and itunes both are essentially users of their own metadata already and the new Finder is beginning to look like them. It could be a coincidence or a feature yet to be fully implemented.
Guessing here, but fast searching in the finder just uses the locate database which is updated every week by your cron scripts. It'd be the easiest way for apple to implement such a feature.
Since you can selectively create a locate-type database per directory, this paves the way for the fast-searching in an indexed Project Builder project, too.
It just looks like they implemented it really well.
Originally posted by AirSluf
iPhoto and itunes both are essentially users of their own metadata already and the new Finder is beginning to look like them. It could be a coincidence or a feature yet to be fully implemented.
I would take your statement one step further. I would say that for all practical purposes iPhoto and iTunes are "Finders" in a manner of speaking and that Apple is in the process of re-defining what the "Finder" is. These two applications are special purpose "Finders" geared towards specific "file" types. More generally, forget about "files" and start thinking about "objects".
Many people complained about the fact that iPhoto (in particular) and iTunes (to a much lesser extent) "took over" their direct access to the image (or sound) "files". In some ways these people's thinking was "so yesterday". iPhoto is an "image media database finder". iTunes is a "sound media database finder".
Clearly this model would not work for every file. But it does for some and makes life (in many ways) quite a bit better.
I imagine that the "Finder" (in its traditional form) is dead. And "files" are dead. We are evolving to world of objects. Objects that have "properties" (meta-data) and even "behavior" (open, close, save, print...to name only the most basic). The "Finder" suddenly becomes an "object Finder" where tasks can be delegated to specialty "Finders" (e.g., iPhoto, iMovie, iTunes, etc.) as needed.
Now...one step further...much further (time-wise)..."applications" go away. Enter object "tools"...tools for viewing, editing, printing, finding, etc.
Those are some really good points. Just thinking out loud here... Do you think that iTunes and iPhoto might ever get rolled into the Finder? Maybe a Finder with music mode with all the same functionality of iTunes. Or a picture mode for photos. That's not very NeXTian is it though?
Kind of like how Windows Explorer transmorgifies into IE.
In the end, it just ends up a confusing mess. The user doesn't know what the hell's going on when one application transmorgifies into another.
Barto
This is part of the promise of unix, not just Next. Also it is a different view than MS.
As people complain about how Apple is ruining the UI, I happen to think it is actually getting more logical and will slowly fade more into the background. The brushed metal sex "This is a Tool, don't pay too much attention to the blinking lights."
As someone else pointed out, this type of design ethos represents a paradigm shift that users have a difficult time accepting. Ultimately OpenDoc failed for this reason. Perhaps one day we'll switch to that paradigm, if such a transition is warranted.
Originally posted by Big Mac
The concept that Chris is speaking of here is what Apple once explored with technology known as OpenDoc. OpenDoc was introduced in a limited fashion during the period of System 7.5, and it was also to be a cornerstone of Gershwin, the sucessor to Copland. Modular software components could be selectively embedded into "containers," which were to replace monolithic applications. One could, for example, have a web browser component sitting in the same window as a slideshow presentation. According to the plans for Gershwin, the Finder itself was to become a container application. At the time of OpenDoc's release Mac columnists were comparing its features to those of Microsoft's Olé, which eventually became known as ActiveX.
As someone else pointed out, this type of design ethos represents a paradigm shift that users have a difficult time accepting. Ultimately OpenDoc failed for this reason. Perhaps one day we'll switch to that paradigm, if such a transition is warranted.
I remember MS 'ole, but it was so roughly implemented that I didn't see is as so much a paradigm shift as pre-emptive application grouping. I wonder if the rumored "piles" could be set up to hold, collect all files of many apps in a uniform sort of structure.
Thanks Big Mac. Does that mean that every file just became a doc that had lots of formats within it? Yeah, I don't think people are quite ready for that. I don't think the industry and developers are up for that either. Then by default every 3rd party app could become just a part of a MS Word document and lose all sense of individuality. I think we still like to think of computer programs (apps) as individuals with the right to live free.
Anyway, yes it is a paradigm shift. But I think Apple is approaching it very carefully and strategically. They are doing it in applications where is makes sense first.
Secondly, regarding Apple vs. MS. The difference in software philosophy is becoming ever more obvious with each software release (in particular the OS). While someone suggested XP and X are getting closer...and they might be in some sense, Apple's overall software philosophy is being shown to be quite different.
Apple clearly appears to believe in the more UNIX-ish "one tool for the task, each tool can be connected to other tools" approach.
Microsoft appears to believe more in the "Swiss Army Knife" approach to application design.
In the end, it is always interesting (to me anyway) to take a step back and look at where Apple MIGHT be going based on where they are today. Sometimes the things we see today don't make much sense. They seem poorly thought out or disjointed. But if you "zoom out" and imagine the larger picture they are assembling from the puzzle pieces we see today, it looks (at least potentially) pretty cool. Its like they not only have thought things through...they REALLY thought things through over a longer time frame and strategy.
I remember this same topic being discussed maybe 1 or 2 years ago here that pertained to comments about iPhoto and iTunes. The poster (I forgot the name) was detailing Apple's future software direction and the transformation of the Finder into an iPhoto/iTunes structure. Panther (and labels) seem to be the first steps of the Finder toward this direction started by iTunes and iPhoto.
More than breathing room, it might even be necessary to wait.. After all, with any metadata solution that Apple comes up with, it's going to be critical that it operates smoothly with Windows. This doesn't seem something that Apple can leap forward with, w/o keeping a close eye on WinFS and the behemoth in Redmond.
So, while the Windows FS is being resolved, it's taking small but welcome steps ahead in bringing search fields across the OS via SearchAPI, OS 9-style labels, and live searching to the Finder.
Originally posted by MacGregor
I remember MS 'ole, but it was so roughly implemented that I didn't see is as so much a paradigm shift as pre-emptive application grouping. I wonder if the rumored "piles" could be set up to hold, collect all files of many apps in a uniform sort of structure.
Indeed, you are correct, at the time MS' technology was quite crude (and perhaps still is), and while Olé/ActiveX deals in the world of applets, it doesn't attempt to remove the application from the equation. OpenDoc was far more ambitious. (Btw, after remembering more about the technology, the phrase "Compound Document Format" came into my head. Here's an old Byte article on the subject.)
Thanks Big Mac. Does that mean that every file just became a doc that had lots of formats within it?
You're welcome. Yeah, that's pretty much it. Depending on which component type was in focus, I believe the menu bar would switch to those commands.
Yeah, I don't think people are quite ready for that. I don't think the industry and developers are up for that either. Then by default every 3rd party app could become just a part of a MS Word document and lose all sense of individuality. I think we still like to think of computer programs (apps) as individuals with the right to live free.
I'm sure MS would love it, hypothetically speaking, if its container application were dominant and it got to take credit for all the components built by third parties.