21 ms·

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 comman

by nsxwolf 12y ago

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 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.

etrautmann 12y ago
features from pathfinder come to mind: 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.
- ohhmaagawd 12y ago
  There are apps for features 1,3.... I use copy path app myself
  - etrautmann 12y ago
    I know, but why should this have to be a tack-on. These are things that can drive anyone crazy and have for the last six versions of OS X. They're willing to completely overhaul interfaces elsewhere (iTunes, iOS), why not add some unambiguously useful features here?
- hultner 12y ago
  I used to be a Path Finder guy but since I moved almost all my file management to the terminal I haven't even installed Path Finder since I switched to a Retina MacBook Pro in late 2013. But I could definitely agree as a power- or semi poweruser Path Finder seems much more sensible but to be honest my mother understands Finder so much better than Path Finder and The Explorer on Windows. For me OS X probably peaked around Snow Leopard but there's probably a lot of novice users that like the new features and iOS-users that switched to OS X probably likes the similarities in App Store, Launchpad, etc. Sadly it feels that Apple is giving us powerusers less and less love.
  - etrautmann 12y ago
    I agree in general, but I think there are simple things that even non power users should have. The column interface is one that could drive anyone crazy, especially with the unintelligent defaults for sizing the windows and columns. It's damn near impossible to get around a filesystem with finder as is. 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).
- mturmon 12y ago
  Regarding (1): 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.
JBiserkov 12y ago
I personally swear by Total Commander[0] (previously Windows Commander). [0] http://www.ghisler.com/ http://www.ghisler.com/
- reilly3000 12y ago
  Looks like truly handy software. but my god that website. I mean, if you have have a counter that old, I wouldn't touch it either, but the rest... oiy. I want keybindings for browsing through screenshots, damnit!
  - JBiserkov 12y ago
    I agree. The product itself is not updated as regularly as I would like, yet it's still way ahead in many areas - multi-rename tool, search, FTP client, plugins, customizability to name a few.
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  I was going to ask if you were Russian, then I noticed your username. Most TC fans I know are Russian, and most Russians I know are TC fans.
  - JBiserkov 12y ago
    I'm not Russian, I'm Bulgarian :-) I really wish TC was open source so it was more actively developed.
- DrPhish 12y ago
  I came here to say this as well. There is nothing this software (+ plugins) cannot do. want to open an avi as a series of frames and extract individual images? Want to open MSIs and extract individual files from the installer? ISOs? Floppy images? DEB files? Want to copy files from a website in explorer view? An ssh server? Dropbox/GDrive/Onedrive? Ext2/3/4, ReiserFS, HFS/HFS+ partitions? There are also integrated viewers for everything from DBF files to SWF files, and the ability to add almost any file metadata as a sortable column in the file view. Having regex everywhere is also killer. 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.
hrabago 12y ago
I'm also curious - what about Windows Explorer makes it a painful experience? I learned how to use computers using DOS/Windows and it's what my idea of "correct" is. I'm curious about the other perspective.
- tormeh 12y ago
  For me? Lack of tabs and lack of right-click open-in-terminal. I don't use Windows much anymore, but I remember those, so I guess they're the worst ones. But nevermind the file manager, it's the Windows terminal that really sucks.
  - jhasse 12y ago
    You can use shift+right click to open in terminal. Also try https://github.com/jhasse/smart_cmd https://github.com/jhasse/smart_cmd which I use together with MSYS2's mintty.
- coliveira 12y ago
  The worst thing of new versions of WinExplorer in my opinion is that you can't position files at the location you want (with the exception of the desktop). I have some folders in my Mac that I organize strictly by location, and that is impossible to do in recent versions of Windows.
- kalleboo 12y ago
  I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe these are fixed now. * 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/Finder-disclosure-triangles.png http://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fi... Just lots of little stuff like this.
  - WorldWideWayne 12y ago
727374 12y ago
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 directory you have to use the 'GO' menu, which is just too much work for something so simple and common.
- eric_h 12y ago
  Shift+Command+G doesn't seem particularly strenuous. Admittedly, you need to work to learn the shortcut, but like all shortcuts, once you've got it it costs nothing. [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)
  - jfroma 12y ago
    Yes, I use that a lot but something I miss from Windows Explorer is that i can actually copy the path. The widespread suggestion is that you can drag and drop the icon in the title but I prefer the other thing.
    - kagamine 12y ago
      Iirc you used to be able to have the path visible at the bottom of the finder window but like so many things in OSX you have to set it to visible in the View or settings menu. I'm at work on a Winbox right now, anyone want to confirm this?
      - jfroma 12y ago
        Yes, you can see it, but you can't select it and copy it.
    - nl 12y ago
      I miss that from Windows/Ubuntu too. 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/ http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-copy-a-file-path-in-os-x/
geophile 12y ago
How about showing the actual filesystem? Instead of some restricted fictional view? For example, how the hell do you get to /tmp from the Finder? 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.
- dan1234 12y ago
  Cmd+Shift+G then type /tmp
  - vlunkr 12y ago
    How did I not know this? I've always run the open command in the terminal for hidden folders.
    - michaelcampbell 12y ago
      > How did I not know this? Because it isn't obvious, or even really very easy to find.
      - hmcdona1 12y ago
        To be fair the average user doesn't ever need to see hidden folders. Who cares what the defaults are, set your Mac up however you want, I'm sure everyone here is plenty capable. 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.
      - coliveira 12y ago
        If you search "shortcuts for Finder" in your preferred search engine, this is one of the first that will be listed.
      - 12y ago
brianpgordon 12y ago
I'm sure it's not the gold standard, but the best file manager I've ever used is Windows Explorer from the XP era, with the blue left pane replaced with the hierarchical filesystem view.
- ImprovedSilence 12y ago
  I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more. I haven't used anything since that come close to working half as well as Explorer in XP...
nmridul 12y ago
I wish I was able to right click a folder and get an option "open terminal here" and then terminal opens and directory changes to the current selected folder. Is this available currently that I'm not aware of ? Else, make it easy to copy the path.... Just like the windows explorer does.
- _puk 12y ago
  I use this feature a lot.. 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-in-mac-os-finder http://stackoverflow.com/questions/420456/open-terminal-here...
  - etrautmann 12y ago
    your comment highlights that we all perceive "risk" now to upgrading. I used to not worry about this, but it seems that new OS X releases are broken enough to warrant not upgrading
  - kalleboo 12y ago
    Yes this still works in Yosemite
- Anechoic 12y ago
  Else, make it easy to copy the path 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.
  - timepiece 12y ago
    What do you mean it's missed in Win? 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 ...
hrktb 12y ago
I also think the Finder interface is just fine because there are so many other ways to navigate around. From the command line of course, spotlight works great as well, and usually files and folders will also be better browsed from the application managing them (e.g.A text editor's file panel, or photo management software, vlc or itunes, etc.) 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.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Finder is rubbish windows 3.1 is better
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    Despite no arguments or valid reasons in your post, Windows 3.11 that I used actually had a really good file manager, FileMan.exe which sadly disappeared after Windows 95 some time I think? Or was it 98? It was really fast. As would be popular these days, it was WHITE everywhere and everything was FLAT.
    - walshemj 12y ago
      That was the point finder is still not as good as the first good filemanger windows had let alone the Amigas. 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!
guelo 12y ago
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.
- brandon272 12y ago
  I'm a former Windows user and now an all Mac user and I find that Finder is sub-par compared to Explorer. 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!
  - genghisjahn 12y ago
    On a OSX, when I two finger click(touchpad) on the Desktop, I get the context menu that shows "New Folder" right at the top.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
  - coliveira 12y ago
    Why don't you just type Command-Shift-N like everyone else? Only beginners use the menu for these common operations.
    - jozzas 12y ago
      It's even Ctrl-Shift-N in Windows. I use that command almost every day.
      - frik 12y ago
        It's a very new shortcut in Windows, afaik since Win8.
nostrademons 12y ago
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 Apple's prescribed guess at what your filesystem should do, and it was still simple enough that you could wrap your head around exactly how it worked. 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.)
- Doctor_Fegg 12y ago
  A thousand times this. I loved the "spatial Finder" of System 7. It was such a 1:1 mapping onto the filesystem that even my DOS-using friends realised that this wasn't a GUI abstraction over something cruder, this was the Mac and this was how it worked. 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.
  - sigzero 12y ago
    Does this help: http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/04/change-finder-window-view-style-command-line/ http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/04/change-finder-window-view-sty...
    - rmckayfleming 12y ago
      It's not quite the same. The old Mac OS had a one to one mapping of open windows to directories in the filesystem. As I recall, you couldn't open two windows of the same directory, it would just bring the existing one to focus. Hence the term spatial, opening a folder wouldn't create duplicate windows, there is only ever one in existence. EDIT: Article talking about it back during OS X 10.0 release http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-9.html http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/ma...
ams6110 12y ago
I'm with you. The ls(1) and find(1) utilities in the shell are my day-to-day file management tools. I almost never use the GUI Finder.
mrbabbage 12y ago
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 really think it has it all. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29>
- jamiesonbecker 12y ago
  Fixed link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29
- RaleyField 12y ago
  > 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 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.
  - mintplant 12y ago
    That's an old screenshot. Here's one from KDE 5. https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/apps-open.png https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/apps...
    - ouchy 12y ago
      Better, but it still reinforces the notion that there's some secret rule somewhere requiring virtually all aspects of any Linux UI to be ugly.
igl 12y ago
Since nobody else mentioned it: Directory Opus. Looks big and clunky at first look but it's actually very fast and 100% customizable. You could strip it down to a dual list view and operate it purely by keyboard shortcuts. Buttons are defined in a copy pasteable xml format, are scriptable, come in various forms and let you bind events for left/right/middle click. The only caveat is: windows only. I would kill for a Linux version.
- sitkack 12y ago
  Path finder on OSX comes close. DO on the Amiga circa 1992 is still superior with the commands down the middle, kinda like Midnight Commander but better.
- otakucode 12y ago
  My brother! Seriously though, Directory Opus is a magnificent tool. Its interface could use a lot of work, but its extensibility isn't matched by anything in the Linux world. I know, I've looked and looked. I couldn't even find a decent open source project I could dive into with the goal of making it as flexible as DOpus. I emailed the DOpus guys and they definitely won't create a Linux port. And as I'm sure you already know, it doesn't play well with Wine. If I were creating a comparable application for Linux I'd make it extensible via Python rather than the custom scripting language they use, and I'd take a good long look at things like Sublime Text for UI cues (how to present a massively customizable and extensible system and maintain a very 'clean' interface). It would be a big project, but if I had the time I would gladly sink those hours into such a thing if only so I could use it at the end...
warfangle 12y ago
>what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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.
- sprawl_ 12y ago
  -shift+command+G to go directly to a path -Press return to rename the selected file
  - NathanKP 12y ago
    Hopefully most of us already know these tips and tricks, but for a new user Shift + Command + G is something that they will probably never discover. Even click and enter to rename is excessively complicated compared to adding a rename option to the context menu like Windows.
    - sitkack 12y ago
      ⇧ ⌘ G is right under the [Go] menu item in the Finder. Never discover ... if they don't poke around in the finder menu for 5 minutes. One needs to learn their tools or find a better tool. Suffering in a fog of dis-edumacatedness is a fools <noun verbular>.
    - poolpool 12y ago
      Most computer users don't understand or give a damn about managing their file system. It seems like many HN users do, yet clicking on the "go" menu to see options and keyboard shortcuts available when they want to go to a folder is too confusing for them.
thrillgore 12y ago
Personally, I use mc since I grew up with Windows and mc is a great little curses Commander clone. 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.
EpicEng 12y ago
I don't know about perfection, but I know this; Explorer is, imo, more usable. Seriously. I can Windows+D, start typing, tab to autocomplete, and be in the folder I want in a couple of seconds. I can set focus in the window and start typing to quickly get to the file/directory I want, press enter, repeat. In finder I can type to filter... but I have to press the arrow button to move the next... column (column? WTF?). I can't even configure Finder to show the damn full path at the top at all times.
- mateuszf 12y ago
  Cmd+shift+g in finder also has autocomplete.
  - spronkey 12y ago
    And it's awful. It only completes once, and it doesn't give you a visual set of completions.
krisgenre 12y ago
I am mostly on Ubuntu and only use a Mac occasionally, was really surprised that there is no quick way to copy the current folder path in Finder ( Something like Ctrl + L in Ubuntu ). Agreed its a pretty minor issue but still an annoyance.
WorldWideWayne 12y ago
What could your problem with Windows Explorer possibly be? It is generally considered to be the gold standard as far as I know. 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.
- kagamine 12y ago
  Personally I hate it, I use NexusFile whenever I can. It may just be personal preference but I think Explorer is hard to use, doesn't preview anything like Finder does (and the Enlightenment File Browser also does on Linux). I think a lot of my dislike actually stems from the Windows file system, I just don't like the way in which files are organised (in comparison ti unix-like systems).
  - Amezarak 12y ago
    > doesn't preview anything like Finder does 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.
    - moystard 12y ago
      I really love the Finder Quick Look option using the space key, so you can have a quick pick without using a pane. Apart from that, Windows Explorer is definitely above the Finder that has been stalling for years now...
      - kagamine 12y ago
        The space key preview was the one I meant, not the little box in a column to the right. Windows Explorer does not preview like Preview.
        12y ago
cmurf 12y ago
I consider the gold standard of file browsers to be the one the pro-NeXT+Cocoa/anti-Carbon camp swore on Jesus' grave that would vastly exceed and suck less than the Carbon one once Apple finally rewrote it entirely in Cocoa. Well that happened and yet there's been essentially no change. It still hangs and spins a beachball when a network is disconnected, it's still gets confused what icons to use, and duplicate app icons in contextual launch menus, on and on, it's like - yeah it's not a Cocoa vs Carbon thing, can we admit that now?
madaxe_again 12y ago
Oh, I don't know, basic things like not crashing when you look at it wrong. Having copy and paste reliably work rather than being a crapshoot? I use the cli (not via terminal.app, it crashes too), largely because finder does not want to be used.
thirdsun 12y ago
What bothers me most is the fact that tabs aren't as useful as they should be - I want folders to always open in tabs, resulting in just ONE finder window unless I explicitly say otherwise. Instead whenever I trigger an action that shows something in finder I'm presented with a new window. In my typical use case I'll end up with several finder windows unless I manually merge them. 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.
smenko 12y ago
I used to love the physical cabinet I had in the fifties. The sound of it opening, the actual rustle of the paper under your fingers - these _were_ your files, with real letters written on real paper, not some representation of them in a window on a screen. They don't make finders like that any more....
- brixon 12y ago
  Except when Nancy was filing. I swear that she did not know her ABC's.
72deluxe 12y ago
I thought the excellent standard of GUI file management was XP's Explorer - since then it has gone downhill with: 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 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.
iuguy 12y ago
> Curious - what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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.
netheril96 12y ago
I haven't had used any file explorer that perfectly fits my usage pattern because usually it does not matter that much, but Finder is plainly horrible. I cannot open /tmp without using the terminal, there is no "cut" command (I know you can copy then press Alt for "Move to here", but that is non-intuitive and illogical) and the "enter" command renames rather than opens (which one is the more common operation?). These are just on the top of my head. 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.
- rsynnott 12y ago
  > I cannot open /tmp without using the terminal Shift-cmd-g, /tmp
  - netheril96 12y ago
    Requiring a three-button shortcut just to open a folder is a horrible design.
    - rsynnott 12y ago
      MacOS has a good few of these; you get the impression that someone at Apple, or NeXT (I think they mostly showed up on MacOS 10) really liked emacs.
jdhendrickson 12y ago
Pathfinder.
tmd83 12y ago
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.
- kevinschumacher 12y ago
  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.
- tambourine_man 12y ago
  3 - Show Inspector: command-option-i 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
Kurtz79 12y ago
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.
rlonstein 12y ago
Also a CLI guy but I use Pathfinder, http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/ http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/
rebootthesystem 12y ago
Windows Explorer is, by no means, perfect, but it is miles ahead from finder. I use both regularly and find myself cussing at Apple far more than at Microsoft. Applications too. Get rid of "Save As". Now you have a doubly useless menu on top if each monitor instead of on the app window, where it belongs. They are trying to stick to an interface that worked fine on a single screen 9 in mac in the dark ages. Well, it sucks. Don't believe what I say, go run a Mac with three 30 inch monitors and have a dozen apps open. Do the same on a PC. Even if you go back to Windows XP it is FAR more usable. No contest. All if our machines have 2 to 3 large monitors so these grievances are a source of daily frustration and productivity hits in the real world.
ptx 12y ago
The fundamental problem with the Mac OS X Finder is that it tried to combine the NeXTSTEP File Viewer with the classic Mac OS Finder, but the designs are complete opposites of each other, so the combination doesn't really work. 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.

by nsxwolf 12y ago

etrautmann 12y ago

features from pathfinder come to mind: 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.

ohhmaagawd 12y ago
There are apps for features 1,3.... I use copy path app myself
- etrautmann 12y ago
  I know, but why should this have to be a tack-on. These are things that can drive anyone crazy and have for the last six versions of OS X. They're willing to completely overhaul interfaces elsewhere (iTunes, iOS), why not add some unambiguously useful features here?
hultner 12y ago
I used to be a Path Finder guy but since I moved almost all my file management to the terminal I haven't even installed Path Finder since I switched to a Retina MacBook Pro in late 2013. But I could definitely agree as a power- or semi poweruser Path Finder seems much more sensible but to be honest my mother understands Finder so much better than Path Finder and The Explorer on Windows. For me OS X probably peaked around Snow Leopard but there's probably a lot of novice users that like the new features and iOS-users that switched to OS X probably likes the similarities in App Store, Launchpad, etc. Sadly it feels that Apple is giving us powerusers less and less love.
- etrautmann 12y ago
  I agree in general, but I think there are simple things that even non power users should have. The column interface is one that could drive anyone crazy, especially with the unintelligent defaults for sizing the windows and columns. It's damn near impossible to get around a filesystem with finder as is. 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).
mturmon 12y ago
Regarding (1): 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.

JBiserkov 12y ago

I personally swear by Total Commander[0] (previously Windows Commander). [0] http://www.ghisler.com/ http://www.ghisler.com/

reilly3000 12y ago
Looks like truly handy software. but my god that website. I mean, if you have have a counter that old, I wouldn't touch it either, but the rest... oiy. I want keybindings for browsing through screenshots, damnit!
- JBiserkov 12y ago
  I agree. The product itself is not updated as regularly as I would like, yet it's still way ahead in many areas - multi-rename tool, search, FTP client, plugins, customizability to name a few.
lawnchair_larry 12y ago
I was going to ask if you were Russian, then I noticed your username. Most TC fans I know are Russian, and most Russians I know are TC fans.
- JBiserkov 12y ago
  I'm not Russian, I'm Bulgarian :-) I really wish TC was open source so it was more actively developed.
DrPhish 12y ago
I came here to say this as well. There is nothing this software (+ plugins) cannot do. want to open an avi as a series of frames and extract individual images? Want to open MSIs and extract individual files from the installer? ISOs? Floppy images? DEB files? Want to copy files from a website in explorer view? An ssh server? Dropbox/GDrive/Onedrive? Ext2/3/4, ReiserFS, HFS/HFS+ partitions? There are also integrated viewers for everything from DBF files to SWF files, and the ability to add almost any file metadata as a sortable column in the file view. Having regex everywhere is also killer. 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.

hrabago 12y ago

I'm also curious - what about Windows Explorer makes it a painful experience? I learned how to use computers using DOS/Windows and it's what my idea of "correct" is. I'm curious about the other perspective.

tormeh 12y ago
For me? Lack of tabs and lack of right-click open-in-terminal. I don't use Windows much anymore, but I remember those, so I guess they're the worst ones. But nevermind the file manager, it's the Windows terminal that really sucks.
- jhasse 12y ago
  You can use shift+right click to open in terminal. Also try https://github.com/jhasse/smart_cmd https://github.com/jhasse/smart_cmd which I use together with MSYS2's mintty.
coliveira 12y ago
The worst thing of new versions of WinExplorer in my opinion is that you can't position files at the location you want (with the exception of the desktop). I have some folders in my Mac that I organize strictly by location, and that is impossible to do in recent versions of Windows.
kalleboo 12y ago
I haven't used Windows in a while so maybe these are fixed now. * 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/Finder-disclosure-triangles.png http://www.bgcarlisle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Fi... Just lots of little stuff like this.
- WorldWideWayne 12y ago

727374 12y ago

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 directory you have to use the 'GO' menu, which is just too much work for something so simple and common.

eric_h 12y ago
Shift+Command+G doesn't seem particularly strenuous. Admittedly, you need to work to learn the shortcut, but like all shortcuts, once you've got it it costs nothing. [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)
- jfroma 12y ago
  Yes, I use that a lot but something I miss from Windows Explorer is that i can actually copy the path. The widespread suggestion is that you can drag and drop the icon in the title but I prefer the other thing.
  - kagamine 12y ago
    Iirc you used to be able to have the path visible at the bottom of the finder window but like so many things in OSX you have to set it to visible in the View or settings menu. I'm at work on a Winbox right now, anyone want to confirm this?
    - jfroma 12y ago
      Yes, you can see it, but you can't select it and copy it.
  - nl 12y ago
    I miss that from Windows/Ubuntu too. 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/ http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-to-copy-a-file-path-in-os-x/

geophile 12y ago

How about showing the actual filesystem? Instead of some restricted fictional view? For example, how the hell do you get to /tmp from the Finder? 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.

dan1234 12y ago
Cmd+Shift+G then type /tmp
- vlunkr 12y ago
  How did I not know this? I've always run the open command in the terminal for hidden folders.
  - michaelcampbell 12y ago
    > How did I not know this? Because it isn't obvious, or even really very easy to find.
    - hmcdona1 12y ago
      To be fair the average user doesn't ever need to see hidden folders. Who cares what the defaults are, set your Mac up however you want, I'm sure everyone here is plenty capable. 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.
    - coliveira 12y ago
      If you search "shortcuts for Finder" in your preferred search engine, this is one of the first that will be listed.
    - 12y ago

brianpgordon 12y ago

I'm sure it's not the gold standard, but the best file manager I've ever used is Windows Explorer from the XP era, with the blue left pane replaced with the hierarchical filesystem view.

ImprovedSilence 12y ago
I'm surprised this isn't mentioned more. I haven't used anything since that come close to working half as well as Explorer in XP...

nmridul 12y ago

I wish I was able to right click a folder and get an option "open terminal here" and then terminal opens and directory changes to the current selected folder. Is this available currently that I'm not aware of ? Else, make it easy to copy the path.... Just like the windows explorer does.

_puk 12y ago
I use this feature a lot.. 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-in-mac-os-finder http://stackoverflow.com/questions/420456/open-terminal-here...
- etrautmann 12y ago
  your comment highlights that we all perceive "risk" now to upgrading. I used to not worry about this, but it seems that new OS X releases are broken enough to warrant not upgrading
- kalleboo 12y ago
  Yes this still works in Yosemite
Anechoic 12y ago
Else, make it easy to copy the path 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.
- timepiece 12y ago
  What do you mean it's missed in Win? 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 ...

hrktb 12y ago

I also think the Finder interface is just fine because there are so many other ways to navigate around. From the command line of course, spotlight works great as well, and usually files and folders will also be better browsed from the application managing them (e.g.A text editor's file panel, or photo management software, vlc or itunes, etc.) 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.

walshemj 12y ago
Finder is rubbish windows 3.1 is better
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  Despite no arguments or valid reasons in your post, Windows 3.11 that I used actually had a really good file manager, FileMan.exe which sadly disappeared after Windows 95 some time I think? Or was it 98? It was really fast. As would be popular these days, it was WHITE everywhere and everything was FLAT.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    That was the point finder is still not as good as the first good filemanger windows had let alone the Amigas. 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!

guelo 12y ago

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.

brandon272 12y ago
I'm a former Windows user and now an all Mac user and I find that Finder is sub-par compared to Explorer. 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!
- genghisjahn 12y ago
  On a OSX, when I two finger click(touchpad) on the Desktop, I get the context menu that shows "New Folder" right at the top.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- coliveira 12y ago
  Why don't you just type Command-Shift-N like everyone else? Only beginners use the menu for these common operations.
  - jozzas 12y ago
    It's even Ctrl-Shift-N in Windows. I use that command almost every day.
    - frik 12y ago
      It's a very new shortcut in Windows, afaik since Win8.

nostrademons 12y ago

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 Apple's prescribed guess at what your filesystem should do, and it was still simple enough that you could wrap your head around exactly how it worked. 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.)

Doctor_Fegg 12y ago
A thousand times this. I loved the "spatial Finder" of System 7. It was such a 1:1 mapping onto the filesystem that even my DOS-using friends realised that this wasn't a GUI abstraction over something cruder, this was the Mac and this was how it worked. 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.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Does this help: http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/04/change-finder-window-view-style-command-line/ http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/04/change-finder-window-view-sty...
  - rmckayfleming 12y ago
    It's not quite the same. The old Mac OS had a one to one mapping of open windows to directories in the filesystem. As I recall, you couldn't open two windows of the same directory, it would just bring the existing one to focus. Hence the term spatial, opening a folder wouldn't create duplicate windows, there is only ever one in existence. EDIT: Article talking about it back during OS X 10.0 release http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/macos-x-9.html http://archive.arstechnica.com/reviews/01q2/macos-x-final/ma...

ams6110 12y ago

I'm with you. The ls(1) and find(1) utilities in the shell are my day-to-day file management tools. I almost never use the GUI Finder.

mrbabbage 12y ago

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 really think it has it all. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29>

jamiesonbecker 12y ago
Fixed link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_%28file_manager%29
RaleyField 12y ago
> 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 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.
- mintplant 12y ago
  That's an old screenshot. Here's one from KDE 5. https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/apps-open.png https://www.kde.org/announcements/plasma5.0/screenshots/apps...
  - ouchy 12y ago
    Better, but it still reinforces the notion that there's some secret rule somewhere requiring virtually all aspects of any Linux UI to be ugly.

igl 12y ago

Since nobody else mentioned it: Directory Opus. Looks big and clunky at first look but it's actually very fast and 100% customizable. You could strip it down to a dual list view and operate it purely by keyboard shortcuts. Buttons are defined in a copy pasteable xml format, are scriptable, come in various forms and let you bind events for left/right/middle click. The only caveat is: windows only. I would kill for a Linux version.

sitkack 12y ago
Path finder on OSX comes close. DO on the Amiga circa 1992 is still superior with the commands down the middle, kinda like Midnight Commander but better.
otakucode 12y ago
My brother! Seriously though, Directory Opus is a magnificent tool. Its interface could use a lot of work, but its extensibility isn't matched by anything in the Linux world. I know, I've looked and looked. I couldn't even find a decent open source project I could dive into with the goal of making it as flexible as DOpus. I emailed the DOpus guys and they definitely won't create a Linux port. And as I'm sure you already know, it doesn't play well with Wine. If I were creating a comparable application for Linux I'd make it extensible via Python rather than the custom scripting language they use, and I'd take a good long look at things like Sublime Text for UI cues (how to present a massively customizable and extensible system and maintain a very 'clean' interface). It would be a big project, but if I had the time I would gladly sink those hours into such a thing if only so I could use it at the end...

warfangle 12y ago

>what do Finder complainers consider the gold standard of file browsers that Finder should aspire to be? 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.

sprawl_ 12y ago
-shift+command+G to go directly to a path -Press return to rename the selected file
- NathanKP 12y ago
  Hopefully most of us already know these tips and tricks, but for a new user Shift + Command + G is something that they will probably never discover. Even click and enter to rename is excessively complicated compared to adding a rename option to the context menu like Windows.
  - sitkack 12y ago
    ⇧ ⌘ G is right under the [Go] menu item in the Finder. Never discover ... if they don't poke around in the finder menu for 5 minutes. One needs to learn their tools or find a better tool. Suffering in a fog of dis-edumacatedness is a fools <noun verbular>.
  - poolpool 12y ago
    Most computer users don't understand or give a damn about managing their file system. It seems like many HN users do, yet clicking on the "go" menu to see options and keyboard shortcuts available when they want to go to a folder is too confusing for them.

thrillgore 12y ago

Personally, I use mc since I grew up with Windows and mc is a great little curses Commander clone. 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.

EpicEng 12y ago

I don't know about perfection, but I know this; Explorer is, imo, more usable. Seriously. I can Windows+D, start typing, tab to autocomplete, and be in the folder I want in a couple of seconds. I can set focus in the window and start typing to quickly get to the file/directory I want, press enter, repeat. In finder I can type to filter... but I have to press the arrow button to move the next... column (column? WTF?). I can't even configure Finder to show the damn full path at the top at all times.

mateuszf 12y ago
Cmd+shift+g in finder also has autocomplete.
- spronkey 12y ago
  And it's awful. It only completes once, and it doesn't give you a visual set of completions.

krisgenre 12y ago

I am mostly on Ubuntu and only use a Mac occasionally, was really surprised that there is no quick way to copy the current folder path in Finder ( Something like Ctrl + L in Ubuntu ). Agreed its a pretty minor issue but still an annoyance.

WorldWideWayne 12y ago

What could your problem with Windows Explorer possibly be? It is generally considered to be the gold standard as far as I know. 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.

kagamine 12y ago
Personally I hate it, I use NexusFile whenever I can. It may just be personal preference but I think Explorer is hard to use, doesn't preview anything like Finder does (and the Enlightenment File Browser also does on Linux). I think a lot of my dislike actually stems from the Windows file system, I just don't like the way in which files are organised (in comparison ti unix-like systems).
- Amezarak 12y ago
  > doesn't preview anything like Finder does 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.
  - moystard 12y ago
    I really love the Finder Quick Look option using the space key, so you can have a quick pick without using a pane. Apart from that, Windows Explorer is definitely above the Finder that has been stalling for years now...
    - kagamine 12y ago
      The space key preview was the one I meant, not the little box in a column to the right. Windows Explorer does not preview like Preview.
      - 12y ago

cmurf 12y ago

I consider the gold standard of file browsers to be the one the pro-NeXT+Cocoa/anti-Carbon camp swore on Jesus' grave that would vastly exceed and suck less than the Carbon one once Apple finally rewrote it entirely in Cocoa. Well that happened and yet there's been essentially no change. It still hangs and spins a beachball when a network is disconnected, it's still gets confused what icons to use, and duplicate app icons in contextual launch menus, on and on, it's like - yeah it's not a Cocoa vs Carbon thing, can we admit that now?

madaxe_again 12y ago

Oh, I don't know, basic things like not crashing when you look at it wrong. Having copy and paste reliably work rather than being a crapshoot? I use the cli (not via terminal.app, it crashes too), largely because finder does not want to be used.

thirdsun 12y ago

What bothers me most is the fact that tabs aren't as useful as they should be - I want folders to always open in tabs, resulting in just ONE finder window unless I explicitly say otherwise. Instead whenever I trigger an action that shows something in finder I'm presented with a new window. In my typical use case I'll end up with several finder windows unless I manually merge them. 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.

smenko 12y ago

I used to love the physical cabinet I had in the fifties. The sound of it opening, the actual rustle of the paper under your fingers - these _were_ your files, with real letters written on real paper, not some representation of them in a window on a screen. They don't make finders like that any more....

brixon 12y ago
Except when Nancy was filing. I swear that she did not know her ABC's.

72deluxe 12y ago

I thought the excellent standard of GUI file management was XP's Explorer - since then it has gone downhill with: 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 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.

iuguy 12y ago

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

netheril96 12y ago

I haven't had used any file explorer that perfectly fits my usage pattern because usually it does not matter that much, but Finder is plainly horrible. I cannot open /tmp without using the terminal, there is no "cut" command (I know you can copy then press Alt for "Move to here", but that is non-intuitive and illogical) and the "enter" command renames rather than opens (which one is the more common operation?). These are just on the top of my head. 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.

rsynnott 12y ago
> I cannot open /tmp without using the terminal Shift-cmd-g, /tmp
- netheril96 12y ago
  Requiring a three-button shortcut just to open a folder is a horrible design.
  - rsynnott 12y ago
    MacOS has a good few of these; you get the impression that someone at Apple, or NeXT (I think they mostly showed up on MacOS 10) really liked emacs.

jdhendrickson 12y ago

Pathfinder.

tmd83 12y ago

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.

kevinschumacher 12y ago
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.
tambourine_man 12y ago
3 - Show Inspector: command-option-i 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

Kurtz79 12y ago

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.

rlonstein 12y ago

Also a CLI guy but I use Pathfinder, http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/ http://www.cocoatech.com/pathfinder/

rebootthesystem 12y ago

Windows Explorer is, by no means, perfect, but it is miles ahead from finder. I use both regularly and find myself cussing at Apple far more than at Microsoft. Applications too. Get rid of "Save As". Now you have a doubly useless menu on top if each monitor instead of on the app window, where it belongs. They are trying to stick to an interface that worked fine on a single screen 9 in mac in the dark ages. Well, it sucks. Don't believe what I say, go run a Mac with three 30 inch monitors and have a dozen apps open. Do the same on a PC. Even if you go back to Windows XP it is FAR more usable. No contest. All if our machines have 2 to 3 large monitors so these grievances are a source of daily frustration and productivity hits in the real world.

ptx 12y ago

The fundamental problem with the Mac OS X Finder is that it tried to combine the NeXTSTEP File Viewer with the classic Mac OS Finder, but the designs are complete opposites of each other, so the combination doesn't really work. 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.