From: johnsd2@jec328.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: How MS could annoy Apple
Reply-To: johnsd2@jec328.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 03:01:05 GMT

In article 1179@yvax.byu.edu, feijai@endor.byu.edu (Sean Luke) writes:
>In article <fg211x#@rpi.edu>  writes:
>
>>Do all the users also have to go through rediculous amounts of   
>folderage,
>>or just Mr. Adminstrator?
>
>All users, since all use that stuff.  It's an unusual situation, but 4-5  
>folders deep is not, even for a home computer.  Consider [Watch out  
>everyone; LOTS O' SCROLLING WARNING]:

DUCK! ITS SCROLLING! :)

>
>Apps
>	Utilities
>		Compression
>			Blah
>			Blah Blah...
>		File Fixing
>			Blah
>			Blah Blah...
>		Etc.
>	Desktop Publishing
>		(Etc.)
>	(Etc.)

Just how many Compression utilities (say) do you need? File Fixing?
Etc? Its just divide it up as Utilites and Applications.

(obviously the "sean" or "jeff" layer can be nuked, since thats
one thing the computer can see for itself (in a NeXT); if you are
Jeff you want the Jeff directory (unless you explicitly say otherwise))

I also wonder why you divide the thing with all CS cources
separate like that. Why not either just have a CS folder or
have each course wth its own folder in Papers? Do you
really take that many courses? :)

>Files
>	Sean
>		Papers
>			CS
>				CS550
>					Paper 1
>					Paper 2
>					Etc.
>				CS421
>					(Papers)
>				CS330
>					(Papers)
>				(More CS Classes)
>			English...
>			(Etc.)
>		Sound Files
>		(Etc.)
>	Jeff
>	(Etc.)
>(Etc.)
>

Basically this shows that you organize your HD differently than I. (surprise);
I do not like depth (for the obvious reasons); You like categorizing things
more than I.

>This is in my *home* computer, shared by three roomates.  It's the *width*  
>that shows, somewhat, why setting up all sorts of aliases for  
>folders/files isn't super efficient, and it's the *depth* that makes  
>searching through folders a bit of a pain.

I dont see how the width hurts aliases.

>  You have to search through the  
>folder for the right subfolder, then double-click on it while holding the  
>option key, or close the previous window.  But what if your new window  
>covered the old one?  Then it's time to move stuff out of the way.

Huh? Why?

>This the Mac was not made to do.

Move a window? I assure you it was. :)

>  The Mac's design, if you recall, was  
>originally not even hierarchical.  It was flat, with an artificial  
>hierarchy built on top.

I do so recall.

>  HFS was an answer to growing file systems that  
>needed some kind of decent folder system.  But the Finder's  
>every-folder-has-a-window design is annoying even in situations like my  
>home computer system.

But not on mine. Its a question of organization. I suspect we each
have organizations optimized for our respective file managers.

>  Apple's gotten away from that, with the  
>introduction of subfolders showing their contents within a folder (the  
>little rotatable triangle thingies).  This is very similar to the concept  
>of NeXT viewers showing, in several different ways, directories within  
>other directories, all in one window.  The difference is that Apple's  
>subfolder system can show several open folders at one time, whereas NeXT's  
>only shows the folder and its parents.  This is a difference, I suppose,  
>but it's not that major--there are many more similarities.

Im not so sure- they are similar, but are they that similar?

>  Apple's  
>advantage here is that you can see several folders at one time.  NeXT's  
>advantage is that you can manipulate folders with lots of stuff in them  
>more easily, which is useful for myself, since I often have fifty items in  
>a folder (doesn't everyone?  :)

I don't. :) (usually)

When I do (my sounds subtree is like that) I use list views, cuz the
icon view get insane.

I dont see how the NeXT design handles "folders with lots of stuff in them"
better; deep trees yes, but not "folders with lots of stuff"

>It's not that big of a deal.

I tend to agree with you here.

>Nonetheless, Sys. 7, I think, shows that Apple has recognized a need to  
>accomodate larger file systems with grace.

Yes, and they will have to continue doing so in the future.

>
>>>>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?)
>
>
>Well...after working on a NeXT, I'd say "teeny" means "fewer than 200 Meg"   
>:-)

Heh heh!

They you have me. Mines a mere 100. (but with autodouble its supposed
to come to 150 or so.. still teeny)

>
>
>>>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.
>
>
>It's a mess to set up that much.  Aliases have their place (the NeXT has  
>them too...it's called "Links"), but there should be an intuitive, easy  
>way to access stuff without having to go through that much work.

I tend to agree that aliases are more work than they should be.
But they do help. (incidentally, aliases != links in a couple of
ways, you know 'bout that 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)
>
>It's a question of how much organization you do.  My home computer  
>regularly hits 5 folders.  Computers at work hit much more.  Depends on  
>what you do, I suppose.  But I'd be willing to bet it's pretty common.   
>Once again, as I described above, how *big* you get is a measure both of  
>the width of your hierarchy _and_ the depth.

Yes, it is. That's why I think its system-dependant.
Well, thats part of it.

>
>
>>>  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.
>
>
>Because the Mac has an "open", users have no option.  On a Novell network,  
>we can at least hide stuff from users.  However, in our situation, the  
>data and applications we're dealing with must be common to everyone, since  
>everyone uses it.  :-(
>
>Nonetheless, on a Mac's own hard drive, where a lot of organized stuff  
>often resides, there is no way to hide folders, etc.  Thus the only easy  
>way to set these things up for fifty computers' hard drives is to have  
>lots 'o folders.
>
>Does any of this make sense?  I'm trying to get across a concept that is  
>better seen than read.  Sorry.
>

Um, I agree that the Mac does not provide adequate tools for
handling large network drives like this well. If THATS what you
are arguing, then Im with you. I dont agree that doing so requires
a massive change the Finders UI, tho.

>
>>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.
>
>
>Well, as I described above, 1) sometimes you don't want to hide it, or  
>more often 2) you can't.  It's MacOS, after all.  No protection, hiding,  
>etc.  That's a great concept--completely democratic.  But it has its  
>problems.

It does. But surely the users do not usually want to see each others
personal home directores, no? That cuts of a big chunk there.

>One more thing to consider is that the Workspace Manager was designed by a  
>company that had already had extensive experience with the Finder.  They  
>might have been trying to avoid copying the Finder, but I doubt it.  After  
>all, the NeXT has a trash can. :-)  The only other conclusion I can think  
>of is that they saw a reason for the style change.

They certainly did- but I question teh change they made. Don't like it. :)

>This isn't really that big of a deal--it really is just a "style change",  
>and so somewhat of a moot point.

Hmm. Probably is, when you come down to it. There are plenty of more important
things.

>  Anyway, even if we settled on "The  
>NeXT's viewers aren't as nice as the Finder's", they're still better than  
>the Windows' File Manager.
>
>But that goes without saying.

Of course it does. Speaking of which, why are we arguing this on c.s.os-w.a?



---
			- 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