I do most of my file management at the command line so I don't experience the pain of Finder very often, and I've generally been able to get Finder to do what I want without much fuss. Windows Explorer is, to me, a painful experience (but its 1980s DOS command line is so much worse)
I've found the various Linux desktop file browsers I've dabbled with clunky but serviceable, but again, I'm a command line guy. Just wondering what is out there that the Finder haters would prefer.
There seems to be this phenomenom where good products seems to get better right up until they get mainstream adoption, and then they steadily get worse. It's like up till then you have room to improve, and then suddenly you've hit the pinnacle of product design in your category, but rather than hold it there, you have to make random changes so your employees have something to do and don't quit.
(To be fair, the one company that's tried the "great, let's make a great product, kill off the competition, and then hold it there and reassign all the people" was Microsoft with IE6, and that worked fine up until Firefox and Chrome came around and then completely screwed them over.)
System 7 (or 8, 9 for that matter), didn't have copy & paste. You could copy file names into SimpleText, for example, but you couldn't use it to manage files. Also, clicking anywhere outside a window would deselect every file you had carefully chosen, so dragging and dropping was a Zen exercise.
And there were invisible files, plenty actually. Like, the desktop for instance? An invisible folder. Or every single custom icon? An invisible "Icon\r" resource fork file. We inherited the invisible attribute in HFS+ from those days.
We did have a much simpler file system structure, and I miss that as well. I welcomed the column view, but the spatial Finder is indeed missed, though it still lives in a sense in iOS's springboard.
Copy, then hold down the Option key while pasting, by keyboard or menu. In the Edit menu, "Paste Item" will change to "Move Item Here".
Even though it's not as discoverable as it should be, this is a well-reasoned UI move on Apple's part. Even on Windows, cut & paste has different semantics for files than for text, and this solution sidesteps the weird "cut-in-progress" mode and inability to paste again.
If the folder you're moving to isn't readily available just Cmd+N to open a new window, etc.
23 years later and I still can't consistently switch off "browser view" in the OS X Finder. Cmd-option-T works for windows on my local disks, but then I'll insert a USB stick or similar, and they appear as standard in browser view. Ah well.
EDIT: Article talking about it back during OS X 10.0 release http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/ma...
Couple reasons:
1. It preserves the metaphor of your desktop being a place where you can directly manipulate your files and folders. On early Mac versions, the Finder "was" your files, it wasn't just "a browser for" your files. That metaphorical consistency is very important for building a good UI, but products these days have gotten so complex that most of them lose it.
2. It prevents you from getting into a situation where you've opened up a bunch of Finder windows, navigated through them, and then find that they're all pointing at your home directory again. Ironically, the reason Steve Jobs gave for the new MacOS X finder was that the old one popped open a bunch of windows that you'd have to manually "garbage collect", but I feel like I'm garbage-collecting a lot more on MacOS X than on System 7. The reason is because on System 7, the Finder window I had open was a natural extension of my current task and I just closed it when I was done with the task, while in MacOS X, I just usually have one or two windows open and then periodically feel like they're a distraction that's getting in my way.
I don't see the difference. When I open Finder I see _my files_, I don't even think about the Finder as a browser.
So, yeah I miss the spatial finder too, but after 10+ years, I have gotten over it. People blow this out of proportion.
Or are you referring to the files themselves? So if you open up somephoto.jpg in Preview, you couldn't open it up a second time?
I'm struggling to understand you here.
I'm not necessarily siding with the parent post, but I think the point was fairly clear.
As far as I can tell, the current Finder has all of the things you list as desirable features.
I don't understand what is confusing about the filesystem as it is presented. It is exactly as it appears on disk, with some system folders hidden. Which can be unhidden easily. That's it.
>it didn't get too fancy and guess at your common tasks
I have no idea what this means.
>it was still simple enough that you could wrap your head around exactly how it worked
What one earth, _specifically_, is confusing about the new Finder?
All of the complaints I hear about it are so incredibly vague, like the ones above.
There is a clear and obvious problem with the quality of Apple's desktop software. Someone in charge is making very bad decisions about the competence of Apple users and their requirements.
The software has always been questionable - not least iTunes, which is a horrible example of how not to make a clean and elegant UI.
But lately it's been getting worse. The cosmetics are - possibly - improving. But usability and features are suffering.
When does the current Finder try to guess your common tasks? Sure, by default it shows all the files in your home directory but this can be turned off easy as pie.
I'm not really sure what your problem with Finder is. The defaults are there for those who have little/no experience of OS X but all of these can be easily overridden if you've got the more than the very basics of OS X skills.
Like one of the commenters below, I'm finding you're being rather vague in what your problem is with it.
- integrated command line whose PWD matches the directory shown in the graphic view. This is killer.
- automatic numbering if you rename a bunch of files.
- a tab-completeable navigation bar.
- integrated context menu items (e.g. send via email, compress, encrypt, convert file type).
- pretty, Apple-style image previews.
I really think it has it all.
I'd have comments on other points as well but if there is one thing KDE apps generally aren't then they consistently aren't pretty. I know, eye of beholder, but it's almost as bad as TK. In the link you provided there are:
- grooved borders between every second UI element.
- icons are way too colorful with gradients everywhere.
- underscore hints on menus are ugly.
- places panel takes up way too much space and eats away at the tree view panel.
That said, I use Dolphin, but only because other file browsers on Linux are for various reasons bigger catastrophes.
https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/apps...
If you care deeply about the latest fashions and what the new black of UI design is this season, then KDE is definitely not for you. If you just want something that works then it can be fine. I don't find any of those things to hinder my actual use of KDE, quite the opposite.
The bad design isn't of this trivial sort. If you think of stereotypical web pages from 90's you don't think that their design isn't current, you think that that their design is intrinsically bad.
> the latest fashions
KDE's analogue in clothing fashion is wearing potato sack. That is - this isn't even a mater of fashion. This isn't like ror, node or react.
> rather than usability
Nobody denies potato sacks can have nonzero usability. Visual clutter affects usability. That they completely fucked UI, even if usability were perfect, doesn't give users needed confidence that other areas were done competently either.
Turn off that option in the OS; it's not an app thing. One of the nice things about KDE is that it still gives you old-school configurability.
It's a matter of accesibility, not taste.
I love the sheer amount of customizability and options KDE offers.
I recommend Flattr icons[0] and the Hex QtCurve Style[1]
KDE and Dolphin send the transfer into the background immediately. You can track the progress in the system tray. Meanwhile, you can begin your next operation.
At least I'd like this feature..
This does sound good. I have a keyboard shortcut which launches a terminal in the current directory so that is kind of a workaround.
>- automatic numbering if you rename a bunch of files. >- a tab-completeable navigation bar. >- integrated context menu items (e.g. send via email, compress, encrypt, convert file type). >- pretty, Apple-style image previews.
Finder has all of these things.
In NeXTSTEP, as well as in Norton Commander and its clones, the view properties are associated with the window. You create a window, set the window size, adjust the sort order, set some filter and so on – and then you can visit any number of folders with those view settings applied. Another window can offer a different view of the same folder at the same time. This is the "browser" approach.
In the classic Finder, and in the OS/2 Workplace Shell, the view properties are associated with the folder. A folder can only be open in one window – the window is the folder. Other folders open in other windows. Any particular folder will always open its window in the same position and the same size (and in OS/2 have the same window background and various other properties). This makes it easier to find things (for reasonable amounts of files) because they stay where you put them and have the appearance you give them. This is the "spatial" approach.
If these very different approaches are combined they break down. If you try to use it as a browser, individual folders can suddenly override your view configuration. If you try to use it as a spatial file manager, folders will have their settings mangled any time you accidentally open two views of the same thing.
Windows Explorer has the same problem.
But, what iritates me is very poor handling of network shares. Those are critical to me, and it just won't work perfectly. On a previous job there was a windows share that could be browsed in command line but Finder wouldn't open the folder.
Or the credentials would get messed up every once in a while, with old values filled in when I logged in with the new credentials so many times already.
Or the Finder would go beachballing and stop responding when an nfs share is disconnected while navigating it in the Finder.
Or the list view refresh on a dropbox share while renaming a file, which can result in a partially typed file name getting commited automatically.
I hated windows, but I have to concede Explorer was rock solid and basically bug free in comparison.
My biggest issue with my Mac was eventually working out that my Ethernet over Power bricks don't actually forward any mac networking info, so networking only works properly over wifi for me at home!
It was really fast. As would be popular these days, it was WHITE everywhere and everything was FLAT.
I would cite regular frustrations with finder I wish I had been more assertive and suggested a move to windows server and stopping buying any macs at my curret place would make my job a lot easier and save money!
Some of these are also found from other people's comment but I want to highlight that they also matter for me.
1. The fact that most file browser has editable auto-complete location field. 2. That it doesn't show the size of the selected files in status bar. 3. That when you try to fix it by opening the info menu on the selection it does the most idiotic thing possible (in my judgement) and open a separate info window for each file. As far as I know I have no way in finder to find the size of a selection (to guess the time for a copy operation or space needed). 4. That the most basic operation in a file manager getting inside a folder or getting back requires a two key action (cmd+enter, cmd+delete). Seriously? 5. That opening a file is not the default but renaming is. Again seriously? 6. No cut-paste. 7. No compact view. Without it browsing a large selection of files quickly and organise cut/paste don't really work for me. 8. Zero find ability without index. Am I suppose to index all my portables?
I have been using xtraFinder so I don't know if I remember all the problem correctly. But I was almost ready to rip my hair off when I first moved to OSX specially when it felt like most people were happy with finder. It feels to me that for apple finder is kind of a file viewer in a limited sense and you are suppose to only organise files through the respective programs iPhoto, iMovie etc. I will shy away from calling finder a 'File Manager'. The way I try to manage/organise my files, finder is a nightmare.
The gold standard for me right now is Nemo. Handles all the above case and as a bonus (for me)
Just start typing and the cursor moves through sub selection starting with that prefix. Very helpful with a quick find or selection.
6 - command-c, command-option-v
7 - Don't know if that's what you mean, but you can hide everything on the view menu.
8 - If you mean spotlight index, yes
7 - Essentially is the default view of Windows Explorer, files are listed from top to bottom and wrapping around to next column. This is the most compact way to browse a lot of files when you are not worried about their size/type and only interested in the names.
But even if some of the problems can be fixed by installing extra software or obscure shortcut the fact remains finder is simply painful to use as is to manage or work with files. It can't even find files unless someone provides an index and it's named finder.
Apple and OSX has a lot to love from build quality to universal copy-paste (a sore issue in linux). But I find in some failures/limitations apple is by far the worst player around.
But to me, it is still far better than any of the alternatives. I like the way it protects the user from doing potentially dangerous actions by hitting a single key and I'm not bothered by command-o, command-delete at all.
It finds files on unindexed disks for me, it just takes longer (as expected). You might have a permission problem or using an unsupported format (like NTFS, through FUSE)
You can also get crazy file density in the Finder: http://i.imgur.com/wLW9WvF.jpg
What danger is finder saving a user from that other file managers aren't?
Its great for you that you don't mind command-o for open and return for rename. But please don't ask me not to think that making the most used file browser operation to be multi-key shortcut isn't beyond insane. This is exactly the thing that I hate most about this ... 'you are holding it wrong' is the kind of feedback I get from most OSX users.
> You can also get crazy file density in the Finder: http://i.imgur.com/wLW9WvF.jpg
I'm honestly not sure whats the point of this. I don't want to fit many files just for the sake of it. I want it to be useful like this http://imgur.com/EqB1drO
Accidentally deleting a file by pressing a single key
But please don't ask me not to think that making the most used file browser operation to be multi-key shortcut isn't beyond insane.
What do you think is more likely: that other people have different trade-offs and are perfectly happy with the way things are or that they are all beyond insane?
This is exactly the thing that I hate most about this ... 'you are holding it wrong' is the kind of feedback I get from most OSX users.
Some things can be objectively measured, others can't. The funny thing about the 'you are holding it wrong' comment is the absurdity of thinking that there is a right way to hold it. There isn't (or there shouldn't be).
In the right click menu (where you'd normally go to "get info"), hold option/alt. You'll see "get info" (cmd+i) change to "show inspector" (cmd+opt+i).
Couldn't agree more that it's dumb, but there's your multi-file properties window.
What's with the stupid column per directory level? This is an extremely bad use of display space.
Haven't used Windows in a long time, and the equivalent in Linux is useless. (Or, more precisely, I don't use it.) But there are a number of irritations that have been there for a long, long time.
$ defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles yes
Other options are here, I wish I remembered all those I had changed because I still haven't gotten by Finder back to how I had it:
or Option + ,
You can then drag + drop other folders into the side pane. Also worth learning the finder keyboard shortcuts.
Because it isn't obvious, or even really very easy to find.
Also, people will spend days customizing their Linux systems, but think OS X needs to be exactly the way they want it out of the box. Why is that? I agree the software quality has declined over the past few years, but many people here seem to be nitpicking.
But it's shitty UX. You can navigate to folders, except this arbitrary list of them that you can't control, in which case you go somewhere else to navigate to them.
And the 3 or 4 ways to view the folders, in (at least) one of them you can't create a new folder, but others you can. Brilliant.
.. = parent directory
Here's the funny thing: Click the Go menu in Finder, and look down at the bottom where it says Go to Folder...
See the shortcut? Yup, it's Command-Shift-G.
I have no idea why I never paid attention to that before.
Keeps getting hidden and you have to set a preference option via the command line to show it... only for it get hidden on the next OS update. Very frustrating!
That said, I preferred that they never removed it, but for the common user, they wont ever need it.
To get to it, you can also hold down Option when pressing the Go menu item.
showfiles=`defaults read com.apple.Finder AppleShowAllFiles` if [ "$showfiles" = "TRUE" ]; then defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles FALSE else defaults write com.apple.finder AppleShowAllFiles TRUE fi
In combination with the spotlight search it's really fast ;)
Edit: Formatting isn't that nice in the comments, here's a little gist which is pretty much the same. https://gist.github.com/rprieto/7349079
Why are such useful things so incredibly obscure?
Go to... has a menu entry and a shortcut in the finder...
I have been using Macs since 1989 and I have no idea. I believe it is similar to the equally useless "send to"-context item from Windows.
[edit] it's Shift+Command+H for the home directory, which you were targeting specifically, Shift+Command+G lets you type in the path to any directory (with tab completion)
You can setup an OSX service to let you do it[1]. Doesn't really work for network shares through.
[1] see 4 from http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-copy-a-file-path-in-os-x/
Then just click on those labels. It's even faster than typing the path in Window's location bar.
Disconnect and they disappear, never to be seen again.
I agree Finder could use some work, but I find your criticisms odd. If anyone is fantastic at consistent, system-wide keyboard shortcuts, it's Apple.
What's worse is that choosing something known to be under the home, like Desktop or Documents, yields a bare window with no way of seeing what's above it, in any of the view modes.
Eventually users will discover "Go" menu (yeah I guess Home is someplace I might want to "Go" - but I assumed that's where I already am and that it was just a view issue). Go menu seemss a pretty odd place to stash such an important location.
Not going to bite on the subject of requiring a three-finger solute just to go home ...
Seems a lot of people don't know about holding command then clicking on the folder in the title bar to view the hierarchy. I'm not sure what I think of that because I think once it's learned it's a pretty decent solution to the problem. Discovery is an issue though.
In the end I still say the Finder isn't perfect, but I find most complaints against it are from people that haven't learned it very thoroughly.
For more typical users it's a bigger problem I think, because they never learn to organize their files. I've seen the results of this with users having a Documents folder containing just a huge list of files with no organization whatsoever - just grouping some related files to send to someone else was a big chore. Theoretically, tagging is superior to a folder hierarchy, but most people just don't "get it" with tagging and never will. Tagging is not even very good for power users, because they will often use software that doesn't see the tags (cross platform editors/IDEs).
I don't disagree that Apple has done a good and thorough job with their keyboard shortcuts. I never felt motivated to learn these myself though because I spend a lot of times on various other platforms, where that muscle memory would be actually detrimental. This is as opposed to e.g. IDE/emacs/vi muscle memory which caries over pretty well across platforms.
But I just think Apple has taken a big step backwards by hiding home in favor of "All My Files". If you have a couple of repos under your home, or anything else with a lot of files that get updated from time to time, then "All My Files!" becomes pretty useless. I think they've pushed too far towards the tablet mentality and that it doesn't suit desktops and laptops very well for the way they are actually used.
They even removed the little dropdown widget that used to show the folder hierarchy (looking for that thing is what wasted my time and annoyed me before finding home under "go" menu). And the status bar at the bottom that shows the used/free space on the machine is also gone (you can turn it back on under the view menu but why make busy people go fumbling around to find these basic things?). Ask most Mac users now how much space they have left on their drive, and watch them fumble around for several minutes...
These things are all so easy to fix!
1)Finder search refuses to show the path for the files except in the status bar. So you can't sort by path.
2) Finder won't tell you the resolution of images.
In general, Explorer has way more columns in the Details view than Finder.
3) Selecting a bunch of files and having it tell me how big the selection is so I know if they're going to fit on my 4gig USB stick BEFORE I try to copy them
4) Letting me sort thumbnails by newest modified. Finder's version of this seems to be completely broken IMO. It makes endless rows grouped
5) Letting me print photos with all kinds of options without any special software. 1up, 2up, 4up, etc.. (not that I need to print anymore :P)
6) Letting me use pretty much ALL features of windows explorer from any open/save dialog vs OSX where only some features are available.
This one does have a solution: Select your multiple items, then use Command-Option-I instead of Command-I. If you're not careful to include Option in this chord, you'll be highly displeased with the results, especially with many items selected.
With the File menu open in the Finder, holding Option reveals that this feature is called "Show Inspector". And since it does follow an "inspector" metaphor, it's a persistent window that will remain in place and update its display as you continue changing your selection. Useful.
Even silly things like wanting to create a new folder and instinctively right clicking to look for a "New Folder" option. Nope, gotta go to the top menu and do it from there!
0) Good trackpad gestures.
1) Explorer can't sort alphabetically by name. WTH? No matter what I do, the closest I can get is "sort by folder/file status, THEN sort alphabetically by name." This really sucks for the common use cases of navigating the file tree by keyboard or unzipping into a crowded directory.
2) The retarded file open dialogs. I don't mean to say that all file open dialogs in Windows suck (although none of them allow drag-to-jump-to-file which is a minor PITA), I am referring specifically to a subset of file open dialogs which seem to be developmentally impaired by a few decades. They display the entire file hierarchy in a tree view that you have to scroll downwards vs the usual click-to-change-directory + breadcrumbs view. Ctrl+L to jump to a path doesn't work, they don't remember your location between invocations, they don't display common locations (desktop, docs, etc), jump-to-first-letter is broken, and they don't allow easy use of the down arrow to scroll because the next item is invariably hidden beneath the fold. These things are straight from the pits of UX hell, yet for some unknown reason they seem to constitute about ~20% of file selection dialogs on Windows. Ugh.
3) There are no consistent "jump to file" semantics (you know the "Open Enclosing Folder" contextual menu? Like that, but more universal). On OSX, this is the command key. Command click a document's icon in the header to jump to open an enclosing folder. Command click a search result or dock icon to jump to its location in the filesystem. Very handy. Very frustrating to find missing.
4) Hot corners to turn off the screen. Some screen/laptop manufacturers have a physical button, but some don't. Finder provides a built-in workaround. Explorer doesn't. In order to solve this issue I have to navigate the fake-download-button gauntlet and crapware-installer gauntlet twice before writing a line of code to emulate this feature with a keystroke. Yuck!
EDIT: added 0
http://i.imgur.com/LNRaPK7.png
It does.
Re: point 1.
True but I'm not sure how that would work as in the details view you're showing the files available in a particular directory. How would it sort by path? How does it work in Windows?
I don't think Finder's as bad as everyone says, but I do wish there was an address bar available at the top.
I can't overstate how much more productive I am with this tool. I wish the native file managers were anywhere near this good so I could have a high-quality experience on any given machine without having to install additional software.
As for open source - this one is, but it's written in delphi (pascal?) which makes it hard to contribute. Then again, it works well, so not sure what to contribute anyway.
Yes, I even have a copy of the Windows version of the original Norton Commander.
I used version 2.0 of NC in DOS 3 and version 3 in DOS 5.
I still miss the embedded viewing with Ctrl-Q that midnight commander is missing.
And I still prefer NC over TC, because it was so consistent.
I find the newer ones (especially total commander) much better than nc/mc.
Most TC fans I know are Russian, and most Russians I know are TC fans.
I really wish TC was open source so it was more actively developed.
* Directories are sorted separately as if they're some mystical entity that can't be mixed with files. Makes navigating by typing a PITA.
* List views can't show or sort by the size of directories.
* No spring-loaded folders makes drag and drop a huge PITA.
* I find the disclosure triangles to view multiple subdirectories in a single window extremely useful http://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fi...
Just lots of little stuff like this.
Apple usually doesn't let you customize anything. That's why I can have things like Tortoise Git/Hg/SVN and Mac users cannot.
And in Yosemite they've started opened up the Finder more with official extensions support.[1]
I don't see how Dropbox can do the things it does in the Finder and you couldn't do Tortoise Git on the Mac. It's just that nobody has done it.
[0] http://totalfinder.binaryage.com
[1] https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Genera...
Anyway, talk is cheap - have a look at all of the shell extensions you can build with Windows and compare them to what you can do in OS X: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/cc1...
1) somewhere to copy the file path without opening a "get info" dialog 2) tree-based view instead of the HORRIBLE thin columns that never auto-size to display filenames in a way you can view 3) ability to open command line from whatever folder you're in
I could go on and on - these are all trivial to implement and they never ever happen. number 2 is one of the most irritating of all.
When I ctrl-click (two-finger tap on a trackpad) on a file in Finder, I get a popup menu with several options, one of which is "copy". If I do this and paste in to a terminal window, I get the full pathname.
Alternatively, if I hilite the file in Finder, and press standard command-C (copy), then again the full pathname is pasted into the terminal window.
I thought this was widely known.
It seems as though apple is pushing non power users away from the finder altogether via apps that hide any notion of a filesystem from the user. Just try copying a movie project file from Final Cut - it's maddening. If they're going to continue down this road, then why not provide some additional features in finder for people who could use them (like breadcrumbs and the ability to type a file path like in windows, any IDE, etc).
- Having a foldable tree structure of the system on the left, and the list of the current directory on the right
- Having the full path of the current directory on the top (and being able to click on any subdirectory of the path, or being able to select the full path).
In Finder you have the choice of different views, none of which has the same practical use in my opinion. In any of those I'm always missing something.
You won't get any argument from me about the command line, though.
1. additional shortcut areas (instead of just a file tree; now we've got Favourites and Libraries)
2. big display areas (that irritating bar that sits above the status bar, repeating all the data found in the status bar)
3. a keyboard navigable top-of-list bar in list view (which stops you being able to tab between tree view, address bar and main pane)
4. a file tree that doesn't by default update the main pane on the right so you can quickly have no idea where the main pane actually "is" on the hard disk, or which part of your hard disk it is displaying because the treeview on the left can have an entirely different directory highlighted
5. inconsistent placement of menubar and toolbar / jigsaw-puzzle-designed ribbon bar (does the menu bar go ABOVE the toolbar or below? What does Windows' guidelines say? Load a few Windows apps [even under Windows 10] and spot the difference: Control Panel, Explorer, Internet Explorer, MMC, Notepad, MSPaint - none of them look the same; in fact under Windows 10 see how many different folder icons you can see: about 10 - is it flat, at a jaunty angle, at the opposite jaunty angle, bright or dark yellow: see https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Ia9kxBln51WTF0ekVWWjZCVnc for all the inconsistent icons and window layouts, non-themable notebook pages, with the View and Search pages in that notebook being white but the general page having an older window toolkit panel on it which ignore theming)
6. an additional bar to organize/uninstall and other things that are part of system management NOT file management, with this bar being on its own bar instead of the toolbar.
In short, it's a befuddled mess.
Finder's design means you have to use the mouse for most things. Using the keyboard, try moving a file from one place to another if you're in the List view: if you've got a directory expanded and are under a child node (with that child node highlighted), where does the file get pasted?
It forces you to open loads of new windows to move files. Admittedly this is easy if you're new to computers but it's frustratingly slow compared to the Ctrl-X, Ctrl-V.
Finder tabs should behave like browser tabs, where opening in a new tab is the default action unless the user really wants a new window. Total Finder, a third party app, did this better.
I can't even configure Finder to show the damn full path at the top at all times.
I'm a big fan of the approach Directory Opus used on the Amiga. On Linux I'm pretty much a full time midnight commander user, on OSX I use forklift. The latter's not as full featured as DOpus but it gets the basics right.
Path Finder is a good Finder alternative but despite its nifty use case features I can't justify a license for it. Especially when i'm already using mc or CLI-fu.
Basically, Finder never lets me do my work without thinking. I am always tripped one way or another, so usually I just use the terminal instead.
Shift-cmd-g, /tmp
System Preferences > Keyboard > Keyboard Shortcuts > Services > Enable New Terminal at Folder [0]
Not sure if this works in Yosemite.. 10.8.5 works fine for me currently, so not risked / bothered upgrading.
0: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/420456/open-terminal-here...
You can drag the file or folder (from the title bar or file list) icon icon into a terminal window and the path of that file/folder will be written to the command line. Not quite the same, but very useful (and a feature I often miss in Windows).
edit: I was mistaken about dragging files/folders into the Windows CLI, I was thinking about something else.
I'm a DOS guy not even PowerShell and I usually drag the folders icons to the CLI to browse directly to the location and complete the operation from the terminal ...
I use the cli (not via terminal.app, it crashes too), largely because finder does not want to be used.
It's far better more robust than Finder, it's got a much more powerful plugin environment and the keyboard acceleration actually makes sense, unlike Finder.
View -> Preview Pane.
Adds a pane in Windows Explorer that shows a preview of the file. I believe it was on by default back in the XP days, but since then it's just defaulted off.
EDIT: Huh. I knew it was there, but I never turned it on. It...actually looks pretty awesome. You can read an entire PDF in the preview pane.
Apart from that, Windows Explorer is definitely above the Finder that has been stalling for years now...
FWIW the Windows Explorer preview is much improved compared to what it used to be - it's not a little box, it's the entire right side of the Windows Explorer window. There's ample space to actually read a PDF, you have pagination controls, you can read spreadsheets, etc. I wasn't sure it even still existed until this thread, so thanks for that. :)
When bash is more useful than finder, there's probably an issue.
Case in point: not being able to open a specific path (unless I bookmark it)
Case in point: when I open my home directory in finder, I don't necessarily want the directory tree that was last expanded to still be expanded. For directories with a large item count, this can take a _long time_, even on a retina imac.
Renaming a file is always an exercise in "did I click it in just the right way? Oh, crap, no, don't launch it to edit it."
Windows Explorer has neither of those issues.
-Press return to rename the selected file
I'm not an Apple hater despite saying that. If anything, I usually prefer Apple products over the competitors, and I've used iMacs or Macbooks for years now. But, between the $17k gold Apple Watch and the recent updates to the Macbook Air and iPad lines, it seems clear to me where Tim Cook is taking the company. And I don't think Apple as a fashion company is even a bad thing, it's just a transformation that some will like and others will resent.
And as regards the Finder, well... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTFF
My perspective: Apple IIe -> Mac -> IIcx -> PowerMac -> XP - OS X.
And a swappable battery would be wonderful but I can live without it.
In the meantime, if, like me, you are stuck on OS X because it's the best GUI for a *nix now and in the foreseeable future, I suggest buying PathFinder (http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/) to bridge the gap. It's certainly a much better tool than Finder or Windows Explorer.
In my experience, trying to replace core OS apps with 3rd-party replacements just never quite works 100% in all situations. My preference is more toward apps that augment/improve the core OS apps. Xtrafinder is of this type, adding additional functionality to Finder, rather than being a wholly separate app like TotalFinder.
I also don't understand your sentiment for preferring it over TotalFinder... they both feel and act like augmentations. I got the impression that XtraFinder would work alongside the normal finder, but that's not the case.
Why are we here? People have decided with their pockets, Apple is now the biggest company in the history of humanity. Don't get me wrong, Apple has done a lot of stuff right, the amount of design and engineering behind the original iPhone it's incredible, and yes maybe a lot of the technology already existed but they polished the combined products until they got something that worked in such a nice fashion; that's the "magic" behind their products but from there is downhill.
iPad: bigger iphone. iPad mini: mini- bigger iphone. MacBook Air: let's trade some some performance and take away the capability of upgrade the machine in a pursuit of a more thinner machine. MacBook: let's take the least powerful CPU from Intel (the reason behind the no-fan design"), cripple the typing experience, take away all upgrade-ability, cripple the semantics of touch from the track pad, take away all the ports.... WTF.. charge for the hub... and make it more expensive.....
But I think the problem is not Apple but the people buying their products and how they use them. It's a super glorified version of "I belong to the better group" psychology.
now that I type all this... it could make some sense to start looking all this not as a computer... or apple as a computer and software company but a boutique selling accessories.
I would love to tell you that thinkpads still make sense but the "no leds" and "screw keyboard" may prove me wrong.
Why is hardware upgradeability so important? What's the harm in just upgrading to the next device?
This, incidentally, is almost certainly the purchasing behavior of the vast majority of computer owners. RAM and disk upgrades (particularly on laptops) are performed by a fairly tiny minority of consumers. Yet it seems disproportionately cited when shopping, likely due to an illusion of control or the laughable (in computing terms) myth of "future-proofing".
Also, I do upgrade every N devices. I'm not someone that buys the new model everytime they release one. I guess I should have phrased it "because not everyone can afford to upgrade to a new device".
Besides, when I pay a premium price for a product I expect it to be useful for more than a couple of years.
I was specifically replying to this comment:
> Why is hardware upgradeability so important? What's the harm in just upgrading to the next device?
Not everybody has the money to buy the next device, so upgrading is a great option to get a couple more years of work from a little old but otherwise solid laptop.
But, whatever the reason, Apple hardware tend to hold on to its value longer, without doubt.
I recently sold my 2010 13' Macbook Air, dented and with a cracked screen a for 300$ on ebay (and I expected more based on similar auctions), about 1/4 the price of a new model for a broken 4.5 years old model.
Technically you could just upgrade every year and recoup at least 60%-70% of the original price.
It might also boil down to something as simple as "Jony Ive". He strikes me as truly a designer of physical things by nature.
So I'm kind of wary of the 'wireless everything', which would be great if the wireless was working solidly in the first place.
They're all about brand. This was ok when they had technically excellent products to talk about, but their products are today mediocre, arrogant, and speak of a new, stupider, wealthier target audience.
Fucking gold!
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-gold-iphone-5s-sold-out-i...
I mean this more metaphorically than literally, but I'm so tired of complaints about the ridiculously primitive Finder being met with, "the edge of the iMac now appears even thinner, now that we've repositioned formerly convenient connectors and such into a bulge behind the screen. Surely you agree that the appearance of a thin edge is more important than usability of Finder or connectors."
Or a yearning for more battery life, or even just a swappable battery? "The bottom of our laptop looks better than the top of theirs!" Or, why is the text on my iPhone suddenly so low contrast and hard to read? "Surely you agree that having a fresh look matters more than readability! Look, the icons are flat. Don't you realize how critically important that is?"
Or, the apps get worse, not better, over time, and you always have to ask yourself whether each free OS upgrade is worth the risk of unreliable WiFi. Can't you work on this, Apple? "Thinner!"
Apple used to emphasize software quality and usability. Now, it's all about the style, about how the edges look in fashion magazines. And yet the rest of the industry is so fragmented that they don't do any better in terms of usability. The frustration is that unlike them, Apple could do so much better, but ever since the candy-colored iMacs, they've decided that Fernando (Billy Crystal's old SNL character) was right. When it comes to look and feel, "It's better to look good than to feel good!"