ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/20/85)
[]
I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder,
Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders.
Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.
Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick
everything in a folder. It's bad enough that they are taking
away the "put back" feature of the Finder.
I know Apple listens to this net. If enough people agree with
me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it.
On the other hand, I could get used to anything. I even learned
VM/CMS once.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (03/21/85)
> [] > I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder, > Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders. > Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on > the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. > > Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick > everything in a folder. It's bad enough that they are taking > away the "put back" feature of the Finder. > > I know Apple listens to this net. If enough people agree with > me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it. > On the other hand, I could get used to anything. I even learned > VM/CMS once. > -- > > Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD What?! Oh dear. This sounds like Apple is trying to turn all of us into neat little boys and girls. Taking a look at my desk (hell, my office) right now, it might not be a bad idea. But I prefer having everything on the main window, thank you. And, at least from what I understand, the original idea behind the Macintosh is that it is a computer that caters to us rather then us having to cater to it. Sounds like a change in plans to me. -- Peter Merchant
hako@ur-univax.UUCP (03/21/85)
>Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on >the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. I disagree with that move also. I always put the files I am currently using along one edge of the screen, and the applications I am using along the bottom of the screen. I leave my inactive stuff in folders on my disk window, and have the disk window usually closed anyway, leaving the disk icon fully closed. I find this much more convenient to seperate out my stuff and would deplore this move on Apple's part. Hanne ..!rochester!ur-univax!hako
ee163ahe@sdcc13.UUCP (VICTOR ROMANO) (03/24/85)
In article <2851@dartvax.UUCP> merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) writes: >> [] >> I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder, >> Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders. >> Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on >> the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. >> >> Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick >> everything in a folder. It's bad enough that they are taking >> away the "put back" feature of the Finder. >> >> I know Apple listens to this net. If enough people agree with >> me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it. >> On the other hand, I could get used to anything. I even learned >> VM/CMS once. >> -- >> >> Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD > >What?! Oh dear. This sounds like Apple is trying to turn all of us into >neat little boys and girls. > >Taking a look at my desk (hell, my office) right now, it might not be a bad >idea. But I prefer having everything on the main window, thank you. > >And, at least from what I understand, the original idea behind the Macintosh >is that it is a computer that caters to us rather then us having to cater to >it. Sounds like a change in plans to me. >-- > Peter Merchant Personally, I prefer to be able to put files on the desktop, so I can move them around windows that overlap easier. Also, I like them to stay around even when I close all windows (I don't like keeping the top window open because all the "junk" files get put there and clutter it up). While we're on the subject of folders: I would much rather allow two files of the same name appear in separate windows (like sub-directories on UNIX). To keep a good standard with Mac, obviously, we must still be able to specify the file by its name alone. BUT, if a file name exists in two windows, how about needing to specify the file by its full "path name" THEN? Yet another preferable feature with folders: the allowance of two diss with the same name, which will have some "default" order for searching a file of any particular name. This is useful because so much of the software on the Mac wants everything to be on a disk with the same name. I have had the problem many times where, even though I have two disk drives, I had to put everything on the same disk and not have enough room JUST BECAUSE the stupid software insists on having it that way! Victor Romano "What's that sound?" "What sound?" "Is it the piper?" "Do you mean Syd?" "No, I mean Dave." -------------------------------- "" -The Screaming Abdabs
spector@acf4.UUCP (David HM Spector) (03/25/85)
None of the Beta copies of the 3.x series of finders do any thing of the kind they work just like the current incarnations, just faster, and with a bunch more options and true (honest to G-d) features. I can't WAIT to see the ROM upgrade though. Just think, a REAL file system! Dave Spector NYU/acf Systems Group
briand@tekig1.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (03/25/85)
> > [] > > I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder, > > Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders. > > Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on > > the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. > > > > Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick > > everything in a folder. It's bad enough that they are taking > > away the "put back" feature of the Finder. > > > > I know Apple listens to this net. If enough people agree with > > me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it. > > On the other hand, I could get used to anything. I even learned > > VM/CMS once. Another "BOO HISS" on that one. I place the principal application(s) of a disk directly on the desktop - where else do they logically go? Gosh, just imagine, the way they want to do it, if I insert my MacWrite disk I won't even SEE MacWrite! Until I double-click the mouse on their disk, anyway. Do you suppose they're getting a heavy kickback on replacement mouse switch replace- ments? :-) -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (*** INSERT YOUR DISCLAIMER HERE ***)
lsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (03/26/85)
In article <hao.1412> ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) writes: >[] >I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder, >Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders. >Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on >the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. Normally I don't comment on unreleased software, but in this case I wouldn't want anyone to lose any sleep over this issue. All the versions of the "new" Finder that I have used let you place icons on the desktop, and I don't expect this to change. (Perhaps the "reliable" source was referring to some other program that also uses icons. I just saw such a program; it had icons like the Finder, but did not allow you to place icons on the desktop because that feature was not yet implemented.) -- Larry Rosenstein UUCP: {nsc, dual, voder, ios}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNET
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (03/27/85)
> [] > I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder, > Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders. > Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on > the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow. They wouldn't *really* do that, would they? What about all of us who have disks full of files not in folders? How would they handle the conversion? Please say it isn't so! > Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick > everything in a folder. It's bad enough that they are taking > away the "put back" feature of the Finder. What is the "put back" feature? -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems Tilapia Aurus is the way and the light. This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
reid@dciem.UUCP (Reid Ellis) (03/27/85)
One reason for Apple's deciding to insist on everyone using folders may be
that they are going to have a true hiearchial file structure (like a tree)
which demands that every file be 'under' the root directory (in Unix "/").
They could make the desktop a strange folder; ie "/DeskTop". This would
allow both tree-structured directories AND allow people who don't care about
tree-structure to move their files anywhere they bloody well please.
The only problem with this might be files from different disks being on the
desktop. Maybe for each disk you could have a DeskTop directory and thus any
files on the DeskTop are *really* in the DeskTop folder of that disk. Although
it may appear that files from different disks are in the same folder this way,
the two [or more?] different DeskTops would just be transparent overlays.
Speaking of disks, has anyone else heard a rumour about September bringing
Quad-density double-sided drives? [Wow, 1.6 Meg per disk. 3.2 Meg online if
you have two drives!]
--
Reid Ellis "Confounded poslfit" - justin@utcs
{{allegra,decvax,duke,floyd,linus}!utzoo,{ihnp4,utzoo}!utcsri}!dciem!reidlsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (03/28/85)
Oops!! I was wrong.
Earlier I had stated that I did not expect the new Finder to prohibit
placing icons on the desktop. Well today I ran into Steve Capps, who is
doing the new Finder, and he confirmed that he was in fact thinking about
making this restriction.
His reason for doing this is to simplify the Finder. The desktop would
become the place where *only* "system-created" icons (disks, trash can,
etc.) would appear. All "user-created" icons (documents & applications)
would appear in a folder or disk.
I also found out that the new Finder is scheduled to go into production in
about 2 weeks, so...
this is your opportunity to give some input about the new Finder. If you
have any *constructive* suggestions about this change or any other feature,
send me mail and I will pass it on to Steve. (I will be collecting all the
comments from net.micro.mac, so there is no need to mail me another copy of
those.)
Note that arguments of the form "But I've always put my application icons
on the desktop." are not going to be enough to change Steve's mind.
Good Luck.
--
Larry Rosenstein
UUCP: {nsc, dual, voder, ios}!apple!lsr
CSNET: lsr@Apple.CSNETward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/29/85)
> What is the "put back" feature?
It sits in the "File" menu of Finder 1.1g, and returns icons
that are scattered over the screen to wherever they came from.
This has already been removed from the prelease versions of the
finder that are floating around.
By the way, my reliable source says that "Apple" has indicated
that he probably won't force us to folders. Did we have any
effect?... probably not.
--
Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/31/85)
> this is your opportunity to give some input about the new Finder. If you > have any *constructive* suggestions about this change or any other feature, > send me mail and I will pass it on to Steve. (I will be collecting all the > comments from net.micro.mac, so there is no need to mail me another copy of > those.) > > Note that arguments of the form "But I've always put my application icons > on the desktop." are not going to be enough to change Steve's mind. Of course not! Why should anyone at Apple care what we like to do. They know what's best for us. Just like IBM! -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
mdth@ur-univax.UUCP (04/01/85)
It seems to me that having a hiearchial file system is *MUCH*
more important than having the ability to put non-system stuff directly
on the desktop - if this feature has to go away for a tree-like file system,
than I say so be it (of course, I can't stand having applications on my
desktop, anyway). However, I hate to see such a (theoreticly) useful
feature go away, so I would like to make the following suggestion:
How about allowing links of some sort that would allow stuff to
at least look like it was on the desktop (while actually being in a system-like
folder on a (mounted) device). This would provide a nice implementation of
"/bin" type directories - important applications would all appear on the
desktop, and the execution of double-clickable documents could be done by
looking for the "right" application to run in the current folder and on the
desktop.
Along similar lines, it would be nice if DA-type programs could appear
as icons on the desktop (Oh, well - I think it would be neat).
There are obviously some problems with this (i.e. what if you've got
a LARGE number of applications that you want on the desktop, and how do you
see those items if you've got lots of folders open?) but I think that the
basic idea is sound.
tnx,
Mike Thome
"Hey, bomb????"
{allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-univax!mdthtdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (04/01/85)
Is the new Finder going to use true subdirectories (like Unix and Accent), or
is it going to continue to use folders to disguise a flat file system? A true
multi-level file system would be a great improvement over the current one.
The Standard File Dialog boxes could be extended so that
(1) They show the name of the current subdirectory for the disk
(2) There is a "parent directory" button that does the obvious thing
(3) Subdirectories of the current directory are listed with the files,
but in a way that makes them easy to identify (such as "letters/"
instead of just plain "letters"). "Opening" a subdirectory does
the obvious thing, e.g. moves down one level in the tree and changes
the filename listing appropriately (without returning).
(4) Absolute path names can be given, and they override the default
directory (in the same way that "disk_name:" overrides the default
diskette). (this comment applies to the "put file" dialog box).
This way, the Mac could have real subdirectories without sacrificing the ease
of use of the Standard File Dialog boxes. Of course, a "separator" character
would need to be set aside, in much the same way that ":" is set aside now.
My favorite would be "/", the separator used by Unix and by Accent.ee163ahe@sdcc13.UUCP (VICTOR ROMANO) (04/02/85)
OK, so the writers of the finder insist that they won't put up with the reason "I put things on the desktop all the time". Well, I know of another reason to take away this feature: I thought that one of the nice things about the mouse on the Mac is its ability to manipulate windows (for normal commands, I still prefer keys, guys. The mouse is a terrible inconvenience on that. That's why I like to make sure that there is a key associated with almost everything on the menu bar, even if it is not a command key!) Well, if they don't allow us to use the desktop, just think how hard it could be sometimes to move an item from one folder to another! Suppose you have two overlapping folders, and they are both open, and one folder completely obscures the other. Now, you want to move an item from the front window into the back window. Simple now: move the item to the desktop, close the front window, and finally put it in the back window, which is now exposed. If you didn't have the features, you would have to move windows around! So there! Victor Romano What's that sound? What sound? Is it the piper? Do you mean Syd? No, I mean Dave. -------------------------------- The game never ends when the whole world depends on the turn of a friendly card. -AP
sumacc@uwmacc.UUCP (Rick Keir) (04/02/85)
(lsr@apple has said that Steve Capps is thinking of rewriting the
finder so that only system-created files - i.e., disks and trashcans -
can appear on the desktop. Applications and documents go into folders.)
A rereading of the Macintosh owner's manual points out to me that the
word "desktop" refers to that gray gunk under your disk, trash, and
windows. I usually find that I call the window for the boot disk
the desktop...and so does some documentation (compare the usage
of "desktop" on pages 12, 37 and 106 of the owners guide with
that on page 35, which refers to file folders as being used to
organize your "desktop": to me this means organizing the window.)
IF the new finder is eliminating putting files into the gray gunk
desktop, that's fine by me -- I never liked having things out
there anyway, since it is hard to tell what disk they belong to.
BUT, IF the new finder is going to eliminate putting documents
and applications onto the window-associated-with-the-open-disk
desktop, I'm against this revision. It adds an extra step and
an extra window to have to open a folder to get at, say,
MacPaint from a disk. When not using a hard disk (95% of
us?...) a tree structure directory that is enforced that
much seems like overkill.
So, which "desktop" are we going to be unable to put files onto?
The gray gunk or the open window?
--
SUMacC file system & "readnews" for the Mac groups; e-mail to:
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!sumacc (OR) uwmacc!rick vishniac@wanginst.UUCP (Ephraim Vishniac) (04/02/85)
> > this is your opportunity to give some input about the new Finder. If you > > have any *constructive* suggestions about this change or any other feature, > > send me mail and I will pass it on to Steve. > > ... > > Note that arguments of the form "But I've always put my application icons > > on the desktop." are not going to be enough to change Steve's mind. > > Of course not! Why should anyone at Apple care what we like > to do. They know what's best for us. Just like IBM! > This is bizarre! (But entertaining.) Someone starts about a ludicrous rumor about unreleased software. The alleged change makes no sense, and does not appear in any pre-release versions of said software. An Apple spokesman (Larry Rosenstein, are you listening?) denies said rumor, and attempts to explain how it might have originated. Two weeks later, people are still abusing Apple for something they haven't done and never intended to do! C'mon folks, let's shed a little more light and a little less heat on the subject. -- Ephraim Vishniac [apollo, bbncca, cadmus, decvax, harvard, linus, masscomp]!wanginst!vishniac vishniac%Wang-Inst@Csnet-Relay
emil@rochester.UUCP (Emil Rainero) (04/03/85)
One good reason for being able to put files on the desktop is to select
multiple files in diffent folders/volumes and force an application in a
different folder/volume to open the document(s). I seem to be doing this all
the time with Edit/File/MacWrite and downloaded text files. Having to have
both the application and document in the same folder if the documents creater
is not the application is a major pain. Equally important, why can't I select
multiple files in different folders/volumes? This seems like a reasonable
thing to have. How many times have you had to do a painfully slow finder
file copy just to do something simple like open multiple files.
****FLAME ON****
If Apple really thinks that it is easier to convince 300,000 users that you
really don't need desktop files rather than spending a little extra coding
time doing it better, they are (I hope) sadly mistaken.
****FLAME OFF****
Emil Rainero
UUCP: (..!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!emil)
ARPA: emil@rochester.arpa
USmail: Emil Rainero, Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627.ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (04/03/85)
> An Apple spokesman > (Larry Rosenstein, are you listening?) denies said rumor, and attempts to > explain how it might have originated. Two weeks later, people are still > abusing Apple for something they haven't done and never intended to do! > > C'mon folks, let's shed a little more light and a little less heat on the > subject. You must have missed the part where it said >OOPS, I found out that Capps is planning to do that nasty thing.< Funnny, since you copied the rest of that posting. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307