CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 God, I long for an "explorer"-like manager in OS X. Finder is so lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 God, I long for an "explorer"-like manager in OS X. Finder is so lame. DIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!! no but seriously, what do you mean? Finder is great. It looks good, works well, and hes every option of explorer plus the directories view. I don't understand what you don't like about it. Someone should port KDE to windows. or have they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Someone should port KDE to windows. or have they? *ahem* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 DIIIIEEEEEEEE!!!!!!no but seriously, what do you mean? Finder is great. It looks good, works well, and hes every option of explorer plus the directories view. I don't understand what you don't like about it. Someone should port KDE to windows. or have they? It doesn't have the raw power of Explorer. Example, dragging file(s) with right click from one location to another opens a menu that asks if you want to move the files there (cut), or copy files. There's a lot of little things that Finder lacks that I miss from Explorer. But I'm not switching back to Windows over that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSONATOR Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 Now if windows changed thier filesystem on the other hand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 It doesn't have the raw power of Explorer. Example, dragging file(s) with right click from one location to another opens a menu that asks if you want to move the files there (cut), or copy files. There's a lot of little things that Finder lacks that I miss from Explorer. But I'm not switching back to Windows over that in finder, cut is automatic (easier) and copy is still there in the right click menu if you want it. more examples please? What about the lack of side-by-side directories in explorer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scj312 Posted January 25, 2008 Share Posted January 25, 2008 please chill out and learn better english so how does this work? How does it replace the explorer shell without modifying system files? I'm assuming it doesn't run on top of explorer... There is a setting which can change what application starts as the shell when you log in to Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 in finder, cut is automatic (easier) and copy is still there in the right click menu if you want it.more examples please?What about the lack of side-by-side directories in explorer?You're not getting the point -- as soon as I try to drag the file upon right click, it just pops open a menu. Useless. More clicks then I need to. It's a well known fact that Explorer is more powerful than Finder, you can't argue that. And I like tree menus better. Even in Finder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 You're not getting the point -- as soon as I try to drag the file upon right click, it just pops open a menu. Useless. More clicks then I need to. It's a well known fact that Explorer is more powerful than Finder, you can't argue that. too bad I am arguing it. Now if it is so much more powerful, then you should have an easy time beating my arguments, right? well finder is different, but not necessarily weaker. You can easily right click, copy, click in another folder, and paste. 4 clicks. Instead of 2 clicks + drag in explorer. So explorer wins by one click. And I venture to say that this is a rarely used feature. Explorer lacks the side-by-side view, which is much better imo. The only time I ever use tree is when I'm trying to find a file in my cluttered downloads folder. and explorer is very messy, with {censored} everywhere. Finder is clean. Everything available is useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 and explorer is very messy, with {censored} everywhere. Finder is clean. Everything available is useful. I'm not going to argue that Finder is clean and useful, that is true. Explorer however, is not messy and does not have '{censored} everywhere'. In fact, I am very productive and efficient in Vista's Explorer. I made a diagram explaining every feature of the Explorer in Vista, please explain where the mess is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 too bad I am arguing it. Now if it is so much more powerful, then you should have an easy time beating my arguments, right? well finder is different, but not necessarily weaker. You can easily right click, copy, click in another folder, and paste. 4 clicks. Instead of 2 clicks + drag in explorer. So explorer wins by one click. And I venture to say that this is a rarely used feature. Explorer lacks the side-by-side view, which is much better imo. The only time I ever use tree is when I'm trying to find a file in my cluttered downloads folder. and explorer is very messy, with {censored} everywhere. Finder is clean. Everything available is useful. Just because you don't use the feature often, doesn't mean other people are the same way. Here's another example -- what if I wanted to hop to a directory and already know the path? The path bar is right there in explorer. In Finder, it's hidden with Command+Shift+G. It's called being efficient. More clicks and keyboard presses means more time wasted. It all adds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Just because you don't use the feature often, doesn't mean other people are the same way. Here's another example -- what if I wanted to hop to a directory and already know the path? The path bar is right there in explorer. In Finder, it's hidden with Command+Shift+G. It's called being efficient. More clicks and keyboard presses means more time wasted. It all adds up. Typing in the complete path to a folder is pretty unusual. I'd say that very few people do it. And, if you do it that often, then the keyboard shortcut is not that hard to memorize. And if you want to type in all those letters, then hitting those extra three keys is trivial. lol erei33, I guess you proved its not full of "{censored}". The only thing i can really say is Finder is more clean, and this makes me happier. however this is more personal preference. efficiency is not wasting screen real estate with every feature you could possibly use. efficiency is putting the main ones out there, with the rest one or two clicks (or a keyboard shortcut) away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CLiDE FTW!!1 Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Typing in the complete path to a folder is pretty unusual. I'd say that very few people do it. And, if you do it that often, then the keyboard shortcut is not that hard to memorize. And if you want to type in all those letters, then hitting those extra three keys is trivial. lol erei33, I guess you proved its not full of "{censored}". The only thing i can really say is Finder is more clean, and this makes me happier. however this is more personal preference. efficiency is not wasting screen real estate with every feature you could possibly use. efficiency is putting the main ones out there, with the rest one or two clicks (or a keyboard shortcut) away. I see what your saying about being able to memorize key presses -- I just think it's unnecessary. A well laid out file browser should already have these features easily accessible on the screen. There's no wasted real estate on the screen when it comes to the explorer though... in fact, a path bar could easily fit beside the search bar in Finder. I like Finder -- don't get me wrong -- but I'm more efficient with Explorer. I can do more with less clicks and less time. That's what efficiency means to me. But like I said before, that aint enough for me to go back to Windows full time ... ick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmdshft Posted January 27, 2008 Author Share Posted January 27, 2008 Hierarchical view is superior to all, and is something I constantly wish Explorer had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavillor Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I do like how Explorer can display details like image resolution, etc. that are specific to certain file types as columns in column view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnniecarcinogen Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 Bob, I think it's a desktop environment (or shell?) replacement and not a skin this could be even faster than the default one like litestep.net, and it looks great to me. I hate the windows environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socal swimmer Posted January 27, 2008 Share Posted January 27, 2008 I see what your saying about being able to memorize key presses -- I just think it's unnecessary. A well laid out file browser should already have these features easily accessible on the screen. There's no wasted real estate on the screen when it comes to the explorer though... in fact, a path bar could easily fit beside the search bar in Finder. I like Finder -- don't get me wrong -- but I'm more efficient with Explorer. I can do more with less clicks and less time. That's what efficiency means to me. But like I said before, that aint enough for me to go back to Windows full time ... ick. ok I see what you mean. Hierarchical view is superior to all, and is something I constantly wish Explorer had... I agree heavily. This is really why I can't stand explorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warrenz Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Thanks for the news... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I'm not going to argue that Finder is clean and useful, that is true. Explorer however, is not messy and does not have '{censored} everywhere'. In fact, I am very productive and efficient in Vista's Explorer. I made a diagram explaining every feature of the Explorer in Vista, please explain where the mess is. Bloatrly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Bloatrly? Yeahrly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lostgame Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 I'm not going to argue that Finder is clean and useful, that is true. Explorer however, is not messy and does not have '{censored} everywhere'. In fact, I am very productive and efficient in Vista's Explorer. I made a diagram explaining every feature of the Explorer in Vista, please explain where the mess is. You mean other than the fact that it's totally bloated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Bloatrly?Yeahrly. You mean other than the fact that it's totally bloated? Kthx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paranoid Marvin Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Yeahrly. Kthx. It may use less resources, but at least the interface isn't full of useless information that interferes with your workflow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Yeahrly. Kthx. WTF my image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 Cairo looks excellent. Anyone notice that Cover Flow type thing in the explorer? But I hate that yellow background Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts