5 ms·

Even better: you could create a RAM disk, copy system file and reboot from it at lighting speed. What I miss the most is the true spacial Finder. Copy a file t

Even better: you could create a RAM disk, copy system file and reboot from it at lighting speed. What I miss the most is the true spacial Finder. Copy a file to a floppy disk, add a custom icon and place it at a precise location on a window. Go to a different Mac and insert the drive. All those attributes are honored. Every single time no matter what. Such a simple and powerful model.

classichasclass 8y ago
And one window, one folder. That was a powerful yet subtle way of enforcing consistency.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  Exactly
Zelizz 8y ago
Don't they still have that? Isn't that what the .DS_Store folders are for? I feel like I used to do that with USB drives to use on school computers.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Yep, I can absolutely confirm this still works. (And honestly, while I see the advantages, I'd rather we not have this feature so we can also not have .DS_Store files. .DS_Store files suck.)
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    The files are an implementation detail that could be handled by metadata on a modern 1990's filesystem.
  - tambourine_man 8y ago
    Not reliably and consistently. And it's not a bug, it's a design decision. There used to be a one to one mapping of folders to windows. The moment you decide 2 windows can show the content of the same folder simultaneously (which has its advantages), you run in these issues. Which is the canonical view that should be preserved? And yes, we had all that without . DS_Store files.
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      > There used to be a one to one mapping of folders to windows. The moment you decide 2 windows can show the content of the same folder simultaneously (which has its advantages), you run in these issues. Which is the canonical view that should be preserved? I'd posit most of us rarely open the same folder in two different windows, which means the icons should behave as expected in all but an uncommon edge case. It has worked in my experience, at least. But separately, just as a though experiment: when an icon is moved in one window, the placement ought to update in both windows, in real time. Probably wouldn't have been feasible when macOS X was new, but perfectly doable today given modern computing power.

classichasclass 8y ago

And one window, one folder. That was a powerful yet subtle way of enforcing consistency.

tambourine_man 8y ago
Exactly

Zelizz 8y ago

Don't they still have that? Isn't that what the .DS_Store folders are for? I feel like I used to do that with USB drives to use on school computers.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Yep, I can absolutely confirm this still works. (And honestly, while I see the advantages, I'd rather we not have this feature so we can also not have .DS_Store files. .DS_Store files suck.)
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  The files are an implementation detail that could be handled by metadata on a modern 1990's filesystem.
- tambourine_man 8y ago
  Not reliably and consistently. And it's not a bug, it's a design decision. There used to be a one to one mapping of folders to windows. The moment you decide 2 windows can show the content of the same folder simultaneously (which has its advantages), you run in these issues. Which is the canonical view that should be preserved? And yes, we had all that without . DS_Store files.
  - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
    > There used to be a one to one mapping of folders to windows. The moment you decide 2 windows can show the content of the same folder simultaneously (which has its advantages), you run in these issues. Which is the canonical view that should be preserved? I'd posit most of us rarely open the same folder in two different windows, which means the icons should behave as expected in all but an uncommon edge case. It has worked in my experience, at least. But separately, just as a though experiment: when an icon is moved in one window, the placement ought to update in both windows, in real time. Probably wouldn't have been feasible when macOS X was new, but perfectly doable today given modern computing power.