Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The new MacBook

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: The new MacBook

#921

Post by tmd83 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #561
SiVal wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can't really tell how well software is working when looking at the device edge-on, and that's apparently the way Apple looks at them most of the time. 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…

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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…

Fairly new OSX user and I kind of hate finder. My first gripe is of course the feeling that no one cares about these basic conveniences @apple.

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.

Re: The new MacBook

#922

Post by welly »

guelo wrote: post #617
nsxwolf wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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…

Two features that Windows has that Finder doesn't, and annoy me all the time in my workflow are: 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.

Re: point 2.

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?

Re: The new MacBook

#923

Post by jeromegv »

gcr wrote: post #701
girvo wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For it to be nasty and hard to get rid of, your friend must have given it admin access when he installed it? No security model that I'm aware of can stop that; OS X out of the box stops you from being able to run unsigned code, which would've stopped that entirely.

Windows also prevents untrusted code from running as an admin user by default. As you say, the user clicked "Allow"; there's nothing that could prevent that except changing the mindset of the general end user.

Actually that user probably did more than "Allow". Apps non signed by Apple are prevented to launch entirely on the default config. You have to go disable that protection in system preferences or right shift to launch the app, to go around this. So you really need an extra step and also need to know what you're doing

Re: The new MacBook

#924

Post by [deleted] »

jkot wrote: post #30

I am bit disappointed. Dell has similar sized laptop, with bigger display, smaller bezel and higher resolution. http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-13-9343-laptop/pd

[deleted]

Re: The new MacBook

#925

Post by kevinschumacher »

tmd83 wrote: post #921
nsxwolf wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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…

Fairly new OSX user and I kind of hate finder. My first gripe is of course the feeling that no one cares about these basic conveniences @apple. 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…

for your issue 3 about not being able to check the size of multiple files:

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.

Re: The new MacBook

#926

Post by Kurtz79 »

nsxwolf wrote: post #561
SiVal wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can't really tell how well software is working when looking at the device edge-on, and that's apparently the way Apple looks at them most of the time. 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…

Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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…

I'm not saying it's the gold standard, but it's serviceable enough: at the very least it has these two features I terribly miss in Finder:

- 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.

Re: The new MacBook

#927

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

unfamiliar wrote: post #886
nostrademons wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a big fan of the Finder of System 7. It seemed to hit the sweet spot where you could do just about everything you needed to easily (it had collapsible tree views, folders, computed folder sizes, drag & drop, copy & paste, labels, etc.), but it didn't try to hide things from you or restrict what you could do, it didn't get too fancy and guess at your common tasks, it actually showed your filesystem instead of Appl…

Sorry, but this doesn't really answer the question for me. 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 t…

The fact that you have to install XtraFinder to get Finger - sorry, Finder - to do something basic like auto-size columns doesn't say much for Apple's diligence.

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.

Re: The new MacBook

#928

Post by JetSetWilly »

RaleyField wrote: post #766
mrbabbage wrote: post #668

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Dolphin on Linux? It's absolutely the best graphical file shell I've ever used: - 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…

> pretty 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…

Most of those complaints seem to be down to fashion, rather than usability. In five years, people will be moaning about icons being "too monochrome" or "undifferentiated".

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.

Re: The new MacBook

#929

Post by Goronmon »

throwawaymsft wrote: post #414
dntrkv wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're looking purely at specs, Windows laptops always were the better deal. But only when you use those alternatives do you realize how much further ahead Apple is.

And specs don't capture the OS UX differences (do you love metro on a non-touch device?), bloatware/spyware/adware pre-installed, activation headaches, app ecosystem... It's like comparing the value of two watches using the slag value of melting them down. If that's how you shop, the device isn't for you.

(do you love metro on a non-touch device?)

Metro is largely insignificant on non-touch devices. Most days I only see it in the brief period during "Windows Key -> 'chr' -> Enter".

I never understood the Metro hate mainly because I find it such an unimportant part of the OS in non-touch day-to-day use.

Re: The new MacBook

#930

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

jayfuerstenberg wrote: post #673
727374 wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is claiming a gold standard. With that said, I prefer windows explorer because you can simply type a path into the address bar (with tab completion if you need it) and navigate to a place on the filesystem. That's all. If finder added this one feature I'd be overjoyed. Instead, I find myself opening up menus to get to so many locations on the machine. For example, if you want to simply go to your home director…

Take your well-visited paths and drag them to the left (where Apps, Documents, etc… are). Then just click on those labels. It's even faster than typing the path in Window's location bar.

Unless some of them are on a network share or a USB drive.

Disconnect and they disappear, never to be seen again.

Post reply on HN