From: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: johnsd2@vccnw05.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:33:13 GMT

In article 1175@yvax.byu.edu, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>In article <9+21tnr@rpi.edu>  writes:
>>In article 1172@yvax.byu.edu, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>
>>>I think that NeXT realised early-on that it had to consolodate the  
>>>Workspace Managers' window system to avoid window-itis, like the Finder  
>>>typically has. (You know, 30 windows open to get at the file you need).
>>
>>My hard drive is not organized THAT badly. :) I never have to open more
>>than 4. Generally this doesn't happen tho as I can just hold down the  
>option
>>key and then whenever I open a folder, the window I double-clicked in
>>to do it closes. 
>
>Well, here at BYU's Computer Consultation Center, we have a Novell file  
>server with about 200 user accounts and huge numbers of applications,  
>utilities, and information files.  To organize it in an intelligent  
>manner, you're dealing quite typically with 10 subdirectories to go  
>through before you find the thing you want.  Aliases help, but not for the  
>amount of stuff we're dealing with here.
>
>This is actually pretty typical for shared file systems.  Might I guess  
>that your machine is pretty much stand-alone, perhaps even a home  
>computer?  In that case, the Finder works great.  But for situations like  
>mine, it's not so good anymore.

You guessed right.

Do all the users also have to go through rediculous amounts of  folderage,
or just Mr. Adminstrator? 

>
>
>>Or I can use list views to put more than one level in
>>one window. 
>
>If you think about it, this is pretty similar a notion to what the NeXT is  
>doing with its file viewers.
>

Not unless I misunderstand what file viewers do when they show multiple 
lists- those lists are part of a path, right? They aren't independant?

>   
>>Is there a way to do this more conviniently that the default I've seen,
>>namely that you must explicitly ask for annother window to get one?  
>(which
>>introduces a several-second delay, at least when Ive seen it used)
>
>Unfortunately, no.  NeXT assumed NeXT users would never have teeny file  
>systems.  Of course, we all know what happens when you assume.  :-)

Heh heh. (incidentally, what do you mean by 'teeny', more or less?)

>
>
>>I see. The "big file system" is the key here I think; on the mac you  
>don't
>>need to have a deep file system, and that seems to make quite a  
>difference.
>
>Well, it depends on what you do.  For *personal computer* users, you  
>certainly have no need for a *deep* file system, but I find that even more  
>than, say, 4 or 5 window-opening exercises gets to be a pain.  And I think  
>quite a few users have that situation regularly.  If your work is broad  
>enough, aliases aren't as useful as they would be normally, since you  
>can't have aliases for *everything*.  :)
>

You can do things like have aliases to folders of aliases, etc.

>
>>>The Finder is more intuitive, but it suffers when you get into large,  
>>>highly hierarchial file systems.
>>
>>How large does it have to be to trip it up?
>
>No, the question is, how large does it have to be to start being a pain?   
>I think 5 folders deep is about right.

Ah, but how big do you think it has to be before you hit 5 folders?
(I am wondering here if this is constant between systems... somehow
I doubt it)

>
>[referring to option-clicking etc.]
>>I never found these tricks hard. And why the need for particularly
>>extreme speed here? Can't you just hold down the option key- and keep
>>it that way till you've got where you're going?
>
>
>Because they're tricks.  Wasn't the Mac a machine that didn't require  
>tricks?  There should be a more intuitive way.

Ummm.. what question are you answering?

Actually, if you dont remember the option-thing you can close the windows
manually. Its not necessary.

>
>[Referring to the Finder not being like its predecessors]
>>Its already a long way from there. Of course things have changed- apple
>>has added some of the shortcuts we are describing, plus things like
>>heirchial list views, nested folders, desktop icons and aliases.
>>
>>Todays finder is not the same critter that the 128k used. That it seems
>>the same is undoubtably intentional- Apple seems to like continuity.
>
>
>You'd be surprised how similar it is, when comparing it against, say, the  
>Workspace Manager.

I doubt it. I already know that the Workspace Manager is rather dissimilar,
and I just said that the Finder seems the same... compared to the _old_
finder, never mind some other thing.

>  Try using it on a big file system like I described  
>above and you'll understand what I mean.

Hmmm, Ill wait until you answer my above question. If you say
that ALL users need to wade through all that garbage, I will wonder why.

>  As these become more prevalent,  
>we'll be seeing more of a need to do something like NeXT did, at least for  
>big stuff.

Hopefully most users do not require  that deep a tree; its needed
for handling many many users, but no one user needs to access all of
it (I should expect). In this case at least the Finder could be adapted
to it.

What Im trying to say is that you probably do not actually want that big
structure. It would be nice to hide it when you didn't need it.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy