FTP and presumably iDisk still suck horrendously in the current finder.
FTP takes way too long to connect, hanging the Finder until it does. Then, drag the window around... and watch the finder hang again as well as waste your network bandwidth.
FTP and Webdav (iDisk) can and should be blazing fast. The Finder can and should be heavily threaded. FTP and iDisk Finder window drags should NOT write (window placement) data to the remote folder until AFTER THE WINDOW HAS STOPPED MOVING, APPLE! Watching the window stutter around the screen is embarrassing to mac users everywhere.
I'd also like to see Finder copies increase in speed by a factor of at least 5. Copying files from the command line reveals that the bottleneck is not HFS+ but the finder Copy window. It slows things down ridiculously. Compare that to copying gigs of data in ReiserFS 3 in linux... or even copying to my HFS+ volume while in linux... boom! Done. Dig through that open source code, Apple, and figure out how to do it. Or make OS X filesystem independant, by storing 'metadata' in a DB. I'd rather use reiserFS than HFS+ if given the chance. Video editors would drool over XFS.
Speed, speed, speed. Profile every nook and cranny of the OS and optimize, as per my FTP/iDisk suggestion above.
I concur that Apple should use one, unified appearance for all apps. Anything but brushed metal is fine by me. Mail looks nice, as does iTunes 6. Maybe make Graphite the default theme instead of the goofy blue aqua.
That's all I want in 10.5. Everything else is just gravy.
FTP and presumably iDisk still suck horrendously in the current finder.
FTP takes way too long to connect, hanging the Finder until it does. Then, drag the window around... and watch the finder hang again as well as waste your network bandwidth.
FTP and Webdav (iDisk) can and should be blazing fast. The Finder can and should be heavily threaded. FTP and iDisk Finder window drags should NOT write (window placement) data to the remote folder until AFTER THE WINDOW HAS STOPPED MOVING, APPLE! Watching the window stutter around the screen is embarrassing to mac users everywhere.
I'd also like to see Finder copies increase in speed by a factor of at least 5. Copying files from the command line reveals that the bottleneck is not HFS+ but the finder Copy window. It slows things down ridiculously. Compare that to copying gigs of data in ReiserFS 3 in linux... or even copying to my HFS+ volume while in linux... boom! Done. Dig through that open source code, Apple, and figure out how to do it. Or make OS X filesystem independant, by storing 'metadata' in a DB. I'd rather use reiserFS than HFS+ if given the chance. Video editors would drool over XFS.
Speed, speed, speed. Profile every nook and cranny of the OS and optimize, as per my FTP/iDisk suggestion above.
I concur that Apple should use one, unified appearance for all apps. Anything but brushed metal is fine by me. Mail looks nice, as does iTunes 6. Maybe make Graphite the default theme instead of the goofy blue aqua.
That's all I want in 10.5. Everything else is just gravy.
SUN Is developing that 128bit filesystem that will be opensourced as part of OpenSolaris - why doesn't Apple look at using that? it would address a large number of issues relating to the limitations of existing file systems and it also has a great error correction and detection algorithm.
i don't know. it doesn't sound right. i think they painted themselves in a corner with the OS X naming convention. OS X is such a brand and idea in itself, OS 11 sounds like an evolution of OS 8 or 9 or whatever.
I don't think the X in OS X is so much to denote the number 10 as it is to denote the Mac OS's UNIX core. OS X was a complete overhaul of the operating system and IMO changed the way we use our computers. It needed a new designation. You couldn't call it Mac OS 10. You call it Mac OS X. Designate it as a new beginning forget the crap that was the previous OS. I tend to believe once Apple hits OS X 10.9, you'll either see something as revultionary as OS X was to begin with or you'll see OS X 11. Of course, many users now, just refer to the OS by its code name. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard ... Giraffe. The retail people use the names also. I think you'll see the numbering left to the CS people that worry about stuff like that, while the rest of the world starts referring to ANY OS, whether it be Mac or Windows by the name.
I don't think the X in OS X is so much to denote the number 10 as it is to denote the Mac OS's UNIX core. OS X was a complete overhaul of the operating system and IMO changed the way we use our computers. It needed a new designation. You couldn't call it Mac OS 10. You call it Mac OS X. Designate it as a new beginning forget the crap that was the previous OS. I tend to believe once Apple hits OS X 10.9, you'll either see something as revultionary as OS X was to begin with or you'll see OS X 11. Of course, many users now, just refer to the OS by its code name. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard ... Giraffe. The retail people use the names also. I think you'll see the numbering left to the CS people that worry about stuff like that, while the rest of the world starts referring to ANY OS, whether it be Mac or Windows by the name.
Agreed; when I go into the local retailer, I'm the only one, it seems, who uses 'Mac OS X 10.4' - whilst the customer service people will say "Mac OS X Panther" or what have you.
Personally, they'll keep keep calling it for it is really use; Mac OS X, release 4 (in the case of 10.4.2) - thats how I explain it to people; Version Ten; release 4, patch level 2.
A widget-launched Services menu would be great. Most of those actions are as small as widgets and could be opened in the same amount of time (Or should be by next year or two!) that would be nice. Widget versions of many apps to interact with others without load time. Also.... what would be nice is software update also takes care of all your apps. A little developer help, but something easy that could be written into the code, like a rss file or something of the latest download. That would also be pretty nice. I'm already excited. I didn't realize how excited I would get when I read about what new stuff Tiger was coming out with... and doing it all.
don't know if it's been mentioned before, but has anyone said that leopard may finally let the other shoe drop and use the nextstep tear-off menus to make the mac os x -to- nextstep transformation complete? i just have a hunch they've been waiting for the market to be ready for a gui paradigm shift like that. somedays, i think nextstep failed, not because it was so far ahead of its time, but that it tried to show off so many great ideas and technologies at once, it was like no one knew what to do with it.
Ok, after reading several posts about the Finder, I want to throw in a couple of different things that I would like to see in there.
1. Location Bar. I love the column format, and it works well. However, once you start going deep into some nested directories, it would be simpler to just be able to type it out, and for the Mac to follow allong with you. Pull from Linux, they did a good job of the Location Bar (Window's version of it sucks ass, but that's just my opinion).
2. Better FTP/SFTP/SMB support. Ok, SMB support is atrocious. These are drives in the network, and it should not take a couple of minutes for it to load the directory structure. I have dealt with SMB in the Linux world, using Gnome or KDE, and both stomp OS X's ass to the ground in this area. This needs to be refined and optimized. As for FTP/SFTP, I would love to have upload support turned on, but I do kinda understand why they didn't do that. It would piss off too many FTP Client makers in the world. However, in FTP's current form in the Finder, it is also pathetic in terms of raw speed.
3. Threading. This has been said before, but it deserves to be said again. OS S's Kernel is very threaded and optimized. However, the Finder (for whatever reasons known to Apple) is not Cocca Based, and it doesn't utilize the threads like it should. I know this because I have an iMac G5 2.0 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I should NEVER see a spinning beach ball in the Finder. However, I do frequently in the Finder.
4. Themes. Ok, this one is purely eye-candy, however people who use Macs are as diverse as.... well... people . Some people love the Aqua theme, some love the Graphite theme. However, give people more choices than that. Or, even give the real creative a way to create their own themes.
5. Spotlight. This sucker is fast. It probably is using the locate command in Unix as the backend. However, have it search network drives, please. This should be something that the user needs to setup first though, for privacy reasons. (Do you want you brother Bob to do a search for his friend Ron, and accidently come across your Pron folder?? )
6. Piles/Stacks. Ok, I don't like this idea at all. Why?? Can someone come up with a reason to "pile" more stuff on top of each other?? That makes no sense. Someone explain that one to me, giving real-world reasons, and I'll come on board with that one.
7. Sharing. File sharing can both have a simple method (the Shared folder), and a more "expert" form of it ("Share this folder"!!). We should have access to both, and that would just add to the functionality of the Finder, and not detract from its ease of use.
8. Experts Allowed. Apple, I love you guys. You guys have made computing so much simpler that in the Windows and Linux worlds. However, some people want to have some Expert functions (Location Bar, Expert File Sharing, Piles/Stacks) that would make their lives easier. Make the Finder into truely the wonder it should be, and allow Expert or Power Users the ability to turn on more advanced functions, while not taking away from the ease of use of your Finder.
I know this was a long rant, but I some things I just needed to say.
1) Total Finder revamp. The current one is okay at best, when it works as intended, very poor at worst when it lags and the task is such that the basic design flaws show. The least they will do is to integrate metadata. In my fantasyland Finder would stop pretending to be an app and flow onto its own layer. Unlike widgets, it deserves to.
agreer: I think it would totally suck to push photo tweaking onto Finder. That's not Finder's job. If they did that, next thing you'd have the Finder offering all sorts of random things to do to the files, and generally limit your choices and take away from your ability to manage files (which is Finder's job). It'd be exactly like Windows. Microsoft had a lot of this going on in XP, now they're touting that they are putting a lot more of it in Vista. Brrr. It's good exactly as long as you are only doing the specific task the people at Microsoft anticipated, and because everything else (orthogonality, consistency, power) in the design has been sacrificed to the dummy-usability altar, it really sucks at all other times.
If direct access is really, *really* necessary in Finder, you can do it with the current Finder. Just make a Photo Adjuster app (set not to show in Dock / Expose / cmd-tab, and to close itself if it loses focus) and an Applescript button on the toolbar that loads the selected file in Photo Adjuster. I already extended my Finder with a button that asks a filename and makes such a file.
2) Resolution independence.. It would be nice if my display worked equally well at arm's length or from the sofa. As we have seen the technology is in place behind the scenes, I expect this will happen by 10.5 and be a major selling point.
3) Fullscreen, video information in QT Player, establishing it as an actual video player instead of the pitiful cripple that shows Apple keynotes and one-minute videos from the Web. (thanks for reminding me of this agreer!) QT Pro features distributed in iMovie, FCP Express and FCP whichever way makes sense, QT Pro discontinued.
1. Location Bar. I love the column format, and it works well. However, once you start going deep into some nested directories, it would be simpler to just be able to type it out, and for the Mac to follow allong with you. Pull from Linux, they did a good job of the Location Bar (Window's version of it sucks ass, but that's just my opinion).
You realize you currently can type it out by going cmd-shift-g and typing?
That said, I'd like to see a Location Bar too, preferably one that gives more power both to mouse and keyboard users at the same time. Drag and drop to anywhere in your path... springloaded, etc. And the ability to jump in and write the address, or copy-paste it in. It's non-trivial how to give access to both mouse and keyboard reasonably.
Quote:
3. Threading. This has been said before, but it deserves to be said again. OS S's Kernel is very threaded and optimized. However, the Finder (for whatever reasons known to Apple) is not Cocca Based, and it doesn't utilize the threads like it should. I know this because I have an iMac G5 2.0 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I should NEVER see a spinning beach ball in the Finder. However, I do frequently in the Finder.
Quoted for truth.
This is a very low level thing, though. The main problem is that the qualities that make OS core robust, efficient and secure need an approach centered on the core, while the UI needs to be equally firmly centered on the user to provide prompt feedback. Apple can't help it if an individual app lags, but they should prioritize things so that Finder is given the resources it needs to work promptly, no matter how much the apps are trying to use power.
Quote:
7. Sharing. File sharing can both have a simple method (the Shared folder), and a more "expert" form of it ("Share this folder"!!). We should have access to both, and that would just add to the functionality of the Finder, and not detract from its ease of use.
6. Piles/Stacks. Ok, I don't like this idea at all. Why?? Can someone come up with a reason to "pile" more stuff on top of each other?? That makes no sense. Someone explain that one to me, giving real-world reasons, and I'll come on board with that one.
I agree, however I welcome anything new someone has me try, and the only excuse for piles would be for specific applications, and maybe those files in a finder. This to me, makes no sense from the folder idea that has been around forever. I suppose it's for messy people... or the process of production for Professional applications - in which it were transferred to the Finder... but often people erase or the files are simply overwritten. I could see it being used in Logic and Final Cut... as in takes to pick from, like the photos are in Aperture. That's about it for it. Other than the visual wow of it, I would rather see cooler things.
And just thinking of it (Although I don't have use for a site now) FTP in the finder (Copy of FTP in IE) would be really great. I wouldn't use it enough for something like Fetch or Transmit.
Comments
Originally posted by Project2501
I don't know what you mean with mounting FTP in finder, but at least I can mount FTP fine in my finder ( GO > Connect to Server).
I should have been more specific. I would like to mount FTP and upload (and the same for SFTP)
FTP takes way too long to connect, hanging the Finder until it does. Then, drag the window around... and watch the finder hang again as well as waste your network bandwidth.
FTP and Webdav (iDisk) can and should be blazing fast. The Finder can and should be heavily threaded. FTP and iDisk Finder window drags should NOT write (window placement) data to the remote folder until AFTER THE WINDOW HAS STOPPED MOVING, APPLE! Watching the window stutter around the screen is embarrassing to mac users everywhere.
I'd also like to see Finder copies increase in speed by a factor of at least 5. Copying files from the command line reveals that the bottleneck is not HFS+ but the finder Copy window. It slows things down ridiculously. Compare that to copying gigs of data in ReiserFS 3 in linux... or even copying to my HFS+ volume while in linux... boom! Done. Dig through that open source code, Apple, and figure out how to do it. Or make OS X filesystem independant, by storing 'metadata' in a DB. I'd rather use reiserFS than HFS+ if given the chance. Video editors would drool over XFS.
Speed, speed, speed. Profile every nook and cranny of the OS and optimize, as per my FTP/iDisk suggestion above.
I concur that Apple should use one, unified appearance for all apps. Anything but brushed metal is fine by me. Mail looks nice, as does iTunes 6. Maybe make Graphite the default theme instead of the goofy blue aqua.
That's all I want in 10.5. Everything else is just gravy.
Originally posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R
FTP and presumably iDisk still suck horrendously in the current finder.
FTP takes way too long to connect, hanging the Finder until it does. Then, drag the window around... and watch the finder hang again as well as waste your network bandwidth.
FTP and Webdav (iDisk) can and should be blazing fast. The Finder can and should be heavily threaded. FTP and iDisk Finder window drags should NOT write (window placement) data to the remote folder until AFTER THE WINDOW HAS STOPPED MOVING, APPLE! Watching the window stutter around the screen is embarrassing to mac users everywhere.
I'd also like to see Finder copies increase in speed by a factor of at least 5. Copying files from the command line reveals that the bottleneck is not HFS+ but the finder Copy window. It slows things down ridiculously. Compare that to copying gigs of data in ReiserFS 3 in linux... or even copying to my HFS+ volume while in linux... boom! Done. Dig through that open source code, Apple, and figure out how to do it. Or make OS X filesystem independant, by storing 'metadata' in a DB. I'd rather use reiserFS than HFS+ if given the chance. Video editors would drool over XFS.
Speed, speed, speed. Profile every nook and cranny of the OS and optimize, as per my FTP/iDisk suggestion above.
I concur that Apple should use one, unified appearance for all apps. Anything but brushed metal is fine by me. Mail looks nice, as does iTunes 6. Maybe make Graphite the default theme instead of the goofy blue aqua.
That's all I want in 10.5. Everything else is just gravy.
SUN Is developing that 128bit filesystem that will be opensourced as part of OpenSolaris - why doesn't Apple look at using that? it would address a large number of issues relating to the limitations of existing file systems and it also has a great error correction and detection algorithm.
Originally posted by Project2501
how about OSXI wouldn't that be next logical?
i don't know. it doesn't sound right. i think they painted themselves in a corner with the OS X naming convention. OS X is such a brand and idea in itself, OS 11 sounds like an evolution of OS 8 or 9 or whatever.
OS Y? But then we'd have to say a letter
Originally posted by Project2501
how about OSXI wouldn't that be next logical?
I don't think the X in OS X is so much to denote the number 10 as it is to denote the Mac OS's UNIX core. OS X was a complete overhaul of the operating system and IMO changed the way we use our computers. It needed a new designation. You couldn't call it Mac OS 10. You call it Mac OS X. Designate it as a new beginning forget the crap that was the previous OS. I tend to believe once Apple hits OS X 10.9, you'll either see something as revultionary as OS X was to begin with or you'll see OS X 11. Of course, many users now, just refer to the OS by its code name. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard ... Giraffe. The retail people use the names also. I think you'll see the numbering left to the CS people that worry about stuff like that, while the rest of the world starts referring to ANY OS, whether it be Mac or Windows by the name.
Originally posted by Project2501
depends how you pronounce OSXI, To my ear "o' sexy" sounds actually guite good
Originally posted by AgNuke1707
I don't think the X in OS X is so much to denote the number 10 as it is to denote the Mac OS's UNIX core. OS X was a complete overhaul of the operating system and IMO changed the way we use our computers. It needed a new designation. You couldn't call it Mac OS 10. You call it Mac OS X. Designate it as a new beginning forget the crap that was the previous OS. I tend to believe once Apple hits OS X 10.9, you'll either see something as revultionary as OS X was to begin with or you'll see OS X 11. Of course, many users now, just refer to the OS by its code name. Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard ... Giraffe. The retail people use the names also. I think you'll see the numbering left to the CS people that worry about stuff like that, while the rest of the world starts referring to ANY OS, whether it be Mac or Windows by the name.
Agreed; when I go into the local retailer, I'm the only one, it seems, who uses 'Mac OS X 10.4' - whilst the customer service people will say "Mac OS X Panther" or what have you.
Personally, they'll keep keep calling it for it is really use; Mac OS X, release 4 (in the case of 10.4.2) - thats how I explain it to people; Version Ten; release 4, patch level 2.
*res independance (it is there now, just needs a lot of tuning up, and it would be a vista killer like none before)
*faster spotlight
*new cocoa finder
->faster+more stable
->interesting new hierarctical FS view
->better integration of spotlight
->photo tweaking (using core image and the floating pallette from iPhoto)
*Quicktime ?.?
->full screen no longer pro
->video information no longer pro
The next finder will look and perform like Aperture!
1. Location Bar. I love the column format, and it works well. However, once you start going deep into some nested directories, it would be simpler to just be able to type it out, and for the Mac to follow allong with you. Pull from Linux, they did a good job of the Location Bar (Window's version of it sucks ass, but that's just my opinion).
2. Better FTP/SFTP/SMB support. Ok, SMB support is atrocious. These are drives in the network, and it should not take a couple of minutes for it to load the directory structure. I have dealt with SMB in the Linux world, using Gnome or KDE, and both stomp OS X's ass to the ground in this area. This needs to be refined and optimized. As for FTP/SFTP, I would love to have upload support turned on, but I do kinda understand why they didn't do that. It would piss off too many FTP Client makers in the world. However, in FTP's current form in the Finder, it is also pathetic in terms of raw speed.
3. Threading. This has been said before, but it deserves to be said again. OS S's Kernel is very threaded and optimized. However, the Finder (for whatever reasons known to Apple) is not Cocca Based, and it doesn't utilize the threads like it should. I know this because I have an iMac G5 2.0 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I should NEVER see a spinning beach ball in the Finder. However, I do frequently in the Finder.
4. Themes. Ok, this one is purely eye-candy, however people who use Macs are as diverse as.... well... people
5. Spotlight. This sucker is fast. It probably is using the locate command in Unix as the backend. However, have it search network drives, please. This should be something that the user needs to setup first though, for privacy reasons. (Do you want you brother Bob to do a search for his friend Ron, and accidently come across your Pron folder??
6. Piles/Stacks. Ok, I don't like this idea at all. Why?? Can someone come up with a reason to "pile" more stuff on top of each other?? That makes no sense. Someone explain that one to me, giving real-world reasons, and I'll come on board with that one.
7. Sharing. File sharing can both have a simple method (the Shared folder), and a more "expert" form of it ("Share this folder"!!). We should have access to both, and that would just add to the functionality of the Finder, and not detract from its ease of use.
8. Experts Allowed. Apple, I love you guys. You guys have made computing so much simpler that in the Windows and Linux worlds. However, some people want to have some Expert functions (Location Bar, Expert File Sharing, Piles/Stacks) that would make their lives easier. Make the Finder into truely the wonder it should be, and allow Expert or Power Users the ability to turn on more advanced functions, while not taking away from the ease of use of your Finder.
I know this was a long rant, but I some things I just needed to say.
1) Total Finder revamp. The current one is okay at best, when it works as intended, very poor at worst when it lags and the task is such that the basic design flaws show. The least they will do is to integrate metadata. In my fantasyland Finder would stop pretending to be an app and flow onto its own layer. Unlike widgets, it deserves to.
agreer: I think it would totally suck to push photo tweaking onto Finder. That's not Finder's job. If they did that, next thing you'd have the Finder offering all sorts of random things to do to the files, and generally limit your choices and take away from your ability to manage files (which is Finder's job). It'd be exactly like Windows. Microsoft had a lot of this going on in XP, now they're touting that they are putting a lot more of it in Vista. Brrr. It's good exactly as long as you are only doing the specific task the people at Microsoft anticipated, and because everything else (orthogonality, consistency, power) in the design has been sacrificed to the dummy-usability altar, it really sucks at all other times.
If direct access is really, *really* necessary in Finder, you can do it with the current Finder. Just make a Photo Adjuster app (set not to show in Dock / Expose / cmd-tab, and to close itself if it loses focus) and an Applescript button on the toolbar that loads the selected file in Photo Adjuster. I already extended my Finder with a button that asks a filename and makes such a file.
2) Resolution independence.. It would be nice if my display worked equally well at arm's length or from the sofa. As we have seen the technology is in place behind the scenes, I expect this will happen by 10.5 and be a major selling point.
3) Fullscreen, video information in QT Player, establishing it as an actual video player instead of the pitiful cripple that shows Apple keynotes and one-minute videos from the Web. (thanks for reminding me of this agreer!) QT Pro features distributed in iMovie, FCP Express and FCP whichever way makes sense, QT Pro discontinued.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
1. Location Bar. I love the column format, and it works well. However, once you start going deep into some nested directories, it would be simpler to just be able to type it out, and for the Mac to follow allong with you. Pull from Linux, they did a good job of the Location Bar (Window's version of it sucks ass, but that's just my opinion).
You realize you currently can type it out by going cmd-shift-g and typing?
That said, I'd like to see a Location Bar too, preferably one that gives more power both to mouse and keyboard users at the same time. Drag and drop to anywhere in your path... springloaded, etc. And the ability to jump in and write the address, or copy-paste it in. It's non-trivial how to give access to both mouse and keyboard reasonably.
3. Threading. This has been said before, but it deserves to be said again. OS S's Kernel is very threaded and optimized. However, the Finder (for whatever reasons known to Apple) is not Cocca Based, and it doesn't utilize the threads like it should. I know this because I have an iMac G5 2.0 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I should NEVER see a spinning beach ball in the Finder. However, I do frequently in the Finder.
Quoted for truth.
This is a very low level thing, though. The main problem is that the qualities that make OS core robust, efficient and secure need an approach centered on the core, while the UI needs to be equally firmly centered on the user to provide prompt feedback. Apple can't help it if an individual app lags, but they should prioritize things so that Finder is given the resources it needs to work promptly, no matter how much the apps are trying to use power.
7. Sharing. File sharing can both have a simple method (the Shared folder), and a more "expert" form of it ("Share this folder"!!). We should have access to both, and that would just add to the functionality of the Finder, and not detract from its ease of use.
Very true.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
6. Piles/Stacks. Ok, I don't like this idea at all. Why?? Can someone come up with a reason to "pile" more stuff on top of each other?? That makes no sense. Someone explain that one to me, giving real-world reasons, and I'll come on board with that one.
I agree, however I welcome anything new someone has me try, and the only excuse for piles would be for specific applications, and maybe those files in a finder. This to me, makes no sense from the folder idea that has been around forever. I suppose it's for messy people... or the process of production for Professional applications - in which it were transferred to the Finder... but often people erase or the files are simply overwritten. I could see it being used in Logic and Final Cut... as in takes to pick from, like the photos are in Aperture. That's about it for it. Other than the visual wow of it, I would rather see cooler things.
And just thinking of it (Although I don't have use for a site now) FTP in the finder (Copy of FTP in IE) would be really great. I wouldn't use it enough for something like Fetch or Transmit.