If I didn't have to look for work and excercise and watch tv shows from b!ttor3nT and stuff I'd be posting like a madman (not saying that you are) ... But yeah, trying to keep my manic posting in control... *breathe in* *breathe out* ... I try to count to 10 and then see if I still should post something
Is a tabbed finder window present in Leopard? It certainly helps clear the clutter with web pages, and I think it could be a valuable tool with the Finder.
How about Apple allow global tabs for any app? Instead of having multiple windows laying around the desktop, associate them all for each app. Would clear the clutter and make my day.
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
If you like the idea of tabs, you might as well go back to System 6 without Multifinder. The idea of only being able to see one thing at a time is perfect for singletasking OSes and people that only need to see one thing up on the screen at any given time on small 9" screens.
Tabs are obsoleted by the fact that it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now and OSes can multitask efficiently...4 times moreso with computers that have 4 cores.
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.
I think a tabbed finder might not be as efficient to use as separate windows when managing files. I pretty much use the favorites panel on the left side almost like I would with tabs. I think tabs help make Exposé more useful, given that there would be fewer windows to clutter the "all window" view. Unfortunately, software like Firefox and Safari use a separate window to manage downloads, it would be nice if they offered an option to put the download manager in a tab. Safari's reputed feature for moving tabs between windows might be nice, I've often had the need to transfer multiple chunks of data between two different pages, separate windows make that easier.
Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.
Yes I definitely agree, Spaces is not a replacement for Exposé but a way of tidying it up a bit. Tabs can be useful but only in some apps and there is also a definite need sometimes for separate windows. It would be nice if Apple and Firefox could integrate the download window.
I use Tabs pretty much every day in PathFinder. They end up not being as handy as I thought they would but they are definitely a welcome edition.
Bread Crumbs would also be very nice to have, something that PathFinder has as well.
I always get annoyed when I do a search from Spotlight and drop into the Finder somewhere after clicking on my search results. It takes way to much time to find out where you are rather then just having a bread crumb path the refer to.
I heard vista was going to use bread crumbs... If so what ever, I think the Finder should as well.
I'd actually like a two window stacked Finder so that I could drop files from one to the next with out having to constantly maintain two separate Finder windows and worry about one getting covered by another open app, etc, etc. So you'd basically have a FINDER with TABS and BREADCRUMBS and the option of a second Finder window basically docked to the top or bottom of the First.
Does command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualify as a breadcrumb?
I think a bread-crumb in this usage specifically shows the trail all the time. I think command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualifies as a "list view" of the path but serves the same purpose, but inadequately.
The current solution in my opinion and my usage requirements is
an extra step
most average users don't know about that, especially switchers.
not as effective as seeing the path all the time
I can quickly compare a couple of paths in open Finder windows if I'm in similarly named folders with a quick glance. I cant have the path of multiple Finder windows seen curently with the Command clicking.
Agreed, bread crumbs would be a useful addition to spotlight. It's necessary to know where files come from.
In a way, yes, but in another way, no.
The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.
The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.
So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.
The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.
The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.
So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.
The current reality is the current file system can be radically improved with the simple step of adding bread-crumbs. Lets call it a bridged step to the future...
The future where "...the flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit", is still effectively ... the future. When it arrives in a simple usable implementation the bread-crumbs can be fed to the birds for all I care.
Why would you want to see an ugly, arcane concept like the path?
So don't name folders similarly…
it's all about how people work - I think maybe bread crumbs would be a bad approach maybe if you hovered over the file it could appear as links, would be a neater approach.
Edit: But spotlight does this already, so no need to implement (just without the links)!
Comments
(ignore, my comments weren't making sense)
Everything is normal then.
Is a tabbed finder window present in Leopard? It certainly helps clear the clutter with web pages, and I think it could be a valuable tool with the Finder.
How about Apple allow global tabs for any app? Instead of having multiple windows laying around the desktop, associate them all for each app. Would clear the clutter and make my day.
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
If you like the idea of tabs, you might as well go back to System 6 without Multifinder. The idea of only being able to see one thing at a time is perfect for singletasking OSes and people that only need to see one thing up on the screen at any given time on small 9" screens.
Tabs are obsoleted by the fact that it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now and OSes can multitask efficiently...4 times moreso with computers that have 4 cores.
? it's difficult to find screens smaller than 19" now ?
Reality check.
Tabs kind of make expose obsolete. Spaces will already tidy up a lot of applications. I agree the Finder and Safari would benefit from tabs actually so would mail. Do you know what now I think about it tabs make so much sense as they tidy up all the applications. Tabs to all apps!
Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.
I think a tabbed finder might not be as efficient to use as separate windows when managing files. I pretty much use the favorites panel on the left side almost like I would with tabs. I think tabs help make Exposé more useful, given that there would be fewer windows to clutter the "all window" view. Unfortunately, software like Firefox and Safari use a separate window to manage downloads, it would be nice if they offered an option to put the download manager in a tab. Safari's reputed feature for moving tabs between windows might be nice, I've often had the need to transfer multiple chunks of data between two different pages, separate windows make that easier.
Tabs don't help eliminate or really doesn't reduce the usefulness of Exposé, especially if you are running a dozen different types of apps. Spaces looks like it is being built as an extension of Exposé, not a replacement, at least it looks like it integrates well with it.
Yes I definitely agree, Spaces is not a replacement for Exposé but a way of tidying it up a bit. Tabs can be useful but only in some apps and there is also a definite need sometimes for separate windows. It would be nice if Apple and Firefox could integrate the download window.
Bread Crumbs would also be very nice to have, something that PathFinder has as well.
I always get annoyed when I do a search from Spotlight and drop into the Finder somewhere after clicking on my search results. It takes way to much time to find out where you are rather then just having a bread crumb path the refer to.
I heard vista was going to use bread crumbs... If so what ever, I think the Finder should as well.
I'd actually like a two window stacked Finder so that I could drop files from one to the next with out having to constantly maintain two separate Finder windows and worry about one getting covered by another open app, etc, etc. So you'd basically have a FINDER with TABS and BREADCRUMBS and the option of a second Finder window basically docked to the top or bottom of the First.
Ok back to work....
Does command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualify as a breadcrumb?
I think a bread-crumb in this usage specifically shows the trail all the time. I think command-clicking the proxy icon in the window title bar qualifies as a "list view" of the path but serves the same purpose, but inadequately.
The current solution in my opinion and my usage requirements is
Agreed, bread crumbs would be a useful addition to spotlight. It's necessary to know where files come from.
In a way, yes, but in another way, no.
The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.
The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.
So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.
In a way, yes, but in another way, no.
The hierarchical organization we see today is a filesystem relic that simply shouldn't be necessary anymore but that is being kept alive for legacy support purposes. Why have two different metadata handling? One is static and hardcoded into the filesystem, the other is a dynamic and flexible piece of software.
The future is probably like System 1's MFS. The flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit. Folders would still exist...but virtually somewhat like iTunes playlists or iPhoto albums. Otherwise, all files would sit at the virtual root and would be accessible through Spotlight queries.
So, maybe Apple could add a bread crumb for Spotlight but I think it's a waste of time when the idea is to kill hierarchical filesystems.
The current reality is the current file system can be radically improved with the simple step of adding bread-crumbs. Lets call it a bridged step to the future...
The future where "...the flat file idea would remove the unneeded hierarchic bullshit", is still effectively ... the future. When it arrives in a simple usable implementation the bread-crumbs can be fed to the birds for all I care.
not as effective as seeing the path all the time
Why would you want to see an ugly, arcane concept like the path?
I can quickly compare a couple of paths in open Finder windows if I'm in similarly named folders with a quick glance.
So don't name folders similarly?
Why would you want to see an ugly, arcane concept like the path?
So don't name folders similarly…
it's all about how people work - I think maybe bread crumbs would be a bad approach maybe if you hovered over the file it could appear as links, would be a neater approach.
Edit: But spotlight does this already, so no need to implement (just without the links)!