Computer Science Canada :: View topic - Battle of the file browsers!

Computer Science Canada

Battle of the file browsers!

Author:	Insectoid [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:58 am ]
Post subject:	Battle of the file browsers!
Differing opinions have been expressed over the shoutbox about the file browsers of different operating systems (or, the different UIs of the same OS for you Linux users). So I figured I'd make a thread about it. So, why do you prefer the browser you prefer? The one in the shoutbox was Win8' Ribbon. Feel free to discuss OS X, KDE or Gnome browsers as well as other popular or obscure interfaces. For the purposes of this discussion limit to the default UI. I don't want to see everyone post their own custom interface. Here's a comparison of OS X's Finder and Win8's Explorer. I prefer the mac interface myself. There's just so many words and pictures in win8's browser that I don't know where to look. Why all those buttons? This is a file browser, for looking at files. It's not a word processor. I'm not trying to create art here. I'm trying to get from whatever folder I'm in now, to whichever folder I want to get to, as quickly as possible. Macs are (or were...) built for power users. If I'm copy/cut & pasting a file, I cmd/ctrl-c/v. I don't click buttons! But if you're the type to use buttons, most can be found in the edit menu (in the application bar, not the window itself), the 'action' menu, or the right-click menu (YES macs can right-click, and anyone who says otherwise is ignorant). It has its forward & back buttons are right in the corner where you expect them to be. The 'quick look' button I admit is useless. I don't think I've ever 'quick look'ed except to find out what quick look does (not much). The View buttons accurately mimic what each view looks like (they were kind mangled in compression) and are all labelled 'view'. You can look at a Finder window and within moments you know where the buttons you need are so you can begin working productively right away. The other less-used things become apparent as you work (no 'up' button? The file path is at the bottom of the screen. Click on any level to go there). Things I would change? I'd drop the quick look button, remove the 'search for' drop-down and customize the 'places' drop-down with my own folders (does anyone actually use the default documents/music/pictures folder in any OS?). Also, you can't see in the screenshot, but the zoom slider goes all the way from really damn small to the entire window fitting a single icon. I'd change this to reasonable zoom levels that people actually use (I often zoom in/out via trackpad and it's SOOOO damn fast! Sure, there's plenty of control at high magnification, but at any size you'd use it's unwieldy to the point of not worth using). And that is my 'review' of OS X 10.6's Finder. I'll leave Explorer to someone who actually likes it, 'cause I'm really biased and don't trust myself to review it honestly. The other ones too, 'cause I don't know jack shit about 'em. But yeah, just, post what you like/don't like about your favorite file browser, and we'll argue and debate and it will be great fun. Just don't rage or flame. This isn't Mac vs PC, it's Finder vs Explorer vs Whatever other file browsers people choose to bring up.

Author:	andrew. [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:48 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Just a note, in Finder, to go up, you can press "Cmd + Up arrow".

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:06 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
IMO, in terms of finger-friendly Finder wins. However, in terms of a desktop with keyboard/mouse, I actually prefer Win7's Explorer. I agree completely, Microsoft is making Win8 look like over-complicated shit.

Author:	Insectoid [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: in terms of a desktop with keyboard/mouse How is this different? I use a mouse with my laptop, on a desk. Keyboard comes attached. It's just a low-power desktop really. When I'm browsing I ditch the mouse almost completely and use the trackpad (which is faster than a mouse when you're typing a lot 'cause it's closer to the keys). This situation doesn't exist for most PC's 'cause most (NOT all) non-Apple trackpads are too shitty/small to actually use. Apple trackpads are so useful, you can get one instead of a mouse with an iMac. If you working on an iMac and you had both the trackpad and mouse, would you still prefer win8's browser? I'm not trying to start a mac vs pc war here, I'm just trying to invalidate your reasoning, to stimulate discussion

Author:	DemonWasp [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:34 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
I like Gnome's File Manager (Nautilus): http://files.cyberciti.biz/uploads/faq/2009/01/Gnome_File_Browser.png I really don't like how the Windows file manager shows you a bunch of extra garbage that maps to various locations scattered about the computer, without ever defining what they're to be used for. "Favourites" is straightforward but totally useless, "Libraries" would be useful if I stored anything under my home directory, etc. The OSX version, for all that it is nicer, commits the same stupid mistake. In GNOME, areas you designate as "Bookmarks" appear in...the Bookmarks menu. The biggest other problem I have with OSX is that opening the properties for some kinds of files takes an eternity (at least, the few times I've tried this). OSX is also completely braindead about SAMBA shares, but at least it sorta-works. The reality for me is that I'll probably be using whatever version of Windows is most stable + recent for at least the next 5 years, because I love my videogames far too much to quit.

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:28 pm wrote: Quote: in terms of a desktop with keyboard/mouse How is this different? I use a mouse with my laptop, on a desk. Keyboard comes attached. It's just a low-power desktop really. When I'm browsing I ditch the mouse almost completely and use the trackpad (which is faster than a mouse when you're typing a lot 'cause it's closer to the keys). This situation doesn't exist for most PC's 'cause most (NOT all) non-Apple trackpads are too shitty/small to actually use. Apple trackpads are so useful, you can get one instead of a mouse with an iMac. If you working on an iMac and you had both the trackpad and mouse, would you still prefer win8's browser? I'm not trying to start a mac vs pc war here, I'm just trying to invalidate your reasoning, to stimulate discussion I believe you misunderstood me...you see, Microsoft is adding the Ribbon and Metro UI to Win8 to make it tablet friendly. I was saying that if they two were to run on tablets, I would go with mac but if they were for PCs, I would prefer the Win7 Explorer. As for trackpad vs mouse, I'm more used to a mouse since a) I don't have an Apple trackpad and b) trackpad < mouse for gaming. DemonWasp wrote: I like Gnome's File Manager (Nautilus): http://files.cyberciti.biz/uploads/faq/2009/01/Gnome_File_Browser.png Something like that is probably the best for a tablet version of Windows.

Author:	Insectoid [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: I love my videogames far too much to quit Who needs to quit? Quote: I really don't like how the Windows file manager shows you a bunch of extra garbage that maps to various locations scattered about the computer, without ever defining what they're to be used for. I agree. I've got plenty of documents, but my Documents folder is empty. Same with my pictures folder, and my downloads folder, and most of the other default folders. I keep my video and pictures on an external drive unless I need them with me, in which case they're on the desktop (I delete 'em when I don't need 'em). Honestly, just give me root, user, and desktop folders and lemme do the rest. What would I like to see on the sidebar? An area where I can pin files/folders like my dev folder. Right-click any folder and hit 'pin to Finder' or whatever browser you're using, and poof, it's on the sidebar. Sure, maybe pre-pin 'documents' and 'pictures' for the non-savvy, but allow customization. If nothing is pinned, no sidebar.

Author:	2goto1 [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm wrote: What would I like to see on the sidebar? An area where I can pin files/folders like my dev folder. Right-click any folder and hit 'pin to Finder' or whatever browser you're using, and poof, it's on the sidebar. Sure, maybe pre-pin 'documents' and 'pictures' for the non-savvy, but allow customization. If nothing is pinned, no sidebar. The Windows library on the left-hand sidebar allows that. Right click on the "Libraries" node. From the pop-up menu, select New -> Library. Name your library "Dev" or whatever you wish. Your "Dev" library node then appears on the sidebar. Right click your Dev library node and select "Properties" from the pop-up menu. Use the "Add Folder" option to add your dev folders.

Author:	2goto1 [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm wrote: If nothing is pinned, no sidebar. You can always get rid of the sidebar: Organize -> Layout -> Uncheck Navigation Pane

Author:	2goto1 [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:00 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
And if you don't use Favourites, just collapse it. Windows Explorer will remember your setting. Same with Libraries, Computer, and Network

Author:	DemonWasp [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm wrote: Who needs to quit? Cute, but my Steam directory is over 400GB, and I don't even have everything installed. That's not to mention the dozens of non-Steam games I've got, most of which are depressingly Windows-only. Let me know when CoD4, Portal, Magicka, SC2, DotA2 et al get ported to Linux, because I can't wait to switch. (No, I'm not switching to OSX; I've had too many terrible experiences trying to use Apple software / hardware). Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:32 pm wrote: ...can pin files/folders... That's pretty much exactly what Nautilus has, except that it happens to pin to a menu. You can also make it show your Bookmarks on the left-hand side by switching from "Places" to "Bookmarks".

Author:	RandomLetters [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Windows. The mac browsers at our school always makes me think that some files are hidden in some obscure category the OS thought was right. A simple xxx/yyy/zzz.doc gives much more peace of mind IMO.

Author:	Tony [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:58 am wrote: If I'm copy/cut & pasting a file, I cmd/ctrl-c/v. I don't click buttons! Fun statistic http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/crazy-90-percent-of-people-dont-know-how-to-use-ctrl-f/243840/ Quote: 90 percent of the US Internet population does not know [how to use CTRL/Command + F to find a word in a document or web page]. This is on a sample size of thousands It's a pretty amazing finding... something that most of us don't realize, as we tend to talk about computer things (such as UI design) only with other computer-skilled people. As ugly as the new UI in microsoft's bar is, apparently half of that real-estate covers 84% of what users actually do there. http://seldo.tumblr.com/post/9549775746/this-is-genuinely-microsofts-idea-of-a (though apparently users use the context menu for almost everything anyway) Point is -- UI is hard

Author:	RandomLetters [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:17 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Wait, am I the only one still using Windows XP?

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
RandomLetters @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:17 pm wrote: Wait, am I the only one still using Windows XP? I have XP on 2/3 computers...

Author:	Zren [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
I doubt the menu will be locked up, and will probably have an option to hide it for those who never use it. The point is to teach those who don't even realize these features exist. That said, I prefer minimalism, so OS X gets points (though I've never used it), as Explorer keeps getting more and more cluttered. Nautilus (Gnome) is getting better at being more professional, however I prefer window's approach to breadcrumbs which keeps the address bar if you click beside the crumbs. OS X and Gnome both have the advantage of slimming off the menu bar to their taskbar. However I prefer the straight out hiding of it in Win7 (comes back with Alt). Hiding it from illiterate users is probably a bad idea.

Author:	Insectoid [ Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:10 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: The Windows library on the left-hand sidebar allows that. Right click on the "Libraries" node. From the pop-up menu, select New -> Library. Name your library "Dev" or whatever you wish. Your "Dev" library node then appears on the sidebar. Right click your Dev library node and select "Properties" from the pop-up menu. Use the "Add Folder" option to add your dev folders. This sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather right-click a folder -> pin to Explorer/Finder/Nautilus/whatever. As for your following posts- I was referring only to the mac Finder. I haven't used Windows extensively since XP, so forgive me if I suggest existing functionality. Quote: Cute, but my Steam directory is over 400GB, and I don't even have everything installed. That's not to mention the dozens of non-Steam games I've got, most of which are depressingly Windows-only. Let me know when CoD4, Portal, Magicka, SC2, DotA2 et al get ported to Linux, because I can't wait to switch. (No, I'm not switching to OSX; I've had too many terrible experiences trying to use Apple software / hardware). Almost everything on that website was built with Wine wrappers. Everything that's been ported on that site (including titles such as Crysis, CoD:MW2, Dead Space 2, Borderlands, Fallout 3/NV, Mass Effect, Prototype, Assassin's Creed, Bioshock 2, Bad Company 2, I think you get the idea) is playable at worst (if you have the hardware) and perfect at best. Most games work near-flawlessly or completely flawlessly. The most common bug is multiplayer, and that's due to DRM (you have to use a crack to play most games). Oh, and all of this runs the same or better in Wine on Linux. Cod 4 runs natively on macs so they haven't ported it, but it probably runs in Wine. But this is going off-topic. Quote: The mac browsers at our school always makes me think that some files are hidden in some obscure category the OS thought was right. A simple xxx/yyy/zzz.doc gives much more peace of mind IMO. wut? Nothing is hidden in obscure categories. Your Windows exe's are .app files (technically folders containing appdata and an executable file but it looks for regular users it's just a program). Everything else is the same (well, you can have files without any extension at all, but that's a UNIX thing). We're not talking about the file system though, we're talking about the browser. By the way, Explorer actually DOES hide most system files by default. OS X hides nothing Window wouldn't, and anything it's hiding, you usually don't want to see (do YOU want to see a .trash in every single folder?). @Tony- That's incredible! I did not know that! I'm actually stunned by that figure. Quote: Wait, am I the only one still using Windows XP? It's still the most-used operating system. Quote: The point is to teach those who don't even realize these features exist. That may be the point, but that's not gonna happen. I think it's more likely to scare new users away. Honestly, clippy is the best tool for the job here. Maybe not clippy himself (and certainly less annoying) but some way of providing hints to people of better ways to do things. Power-users will look for shortcuts, and they will be documented, but new users need to be nudged in the right direction. If you manually click copy & paste, for example, just flash a notification that says "did you know you can do that with the keyboard?". Or maybe an intuitive help bar- type in 'cut' and it points an arrow to the button so you know where it is and lists keyboard shortcuts. Just throwing all the buttons in one ugly, messy pile is the first thing anyone should be taught not to do in Interfaces 101.

Author:	2goto1 [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:44 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:10 pm wrote: Quote: The Windows library on the left-hand sidebar allows that. Right click on the "Libraries" node. From the pop-up menu, select New -> Library. Name your library "Dev" or whatever you wish. Your "Dev" library node then appears on the sidebar. Right click your Dev library node and select "Properties" from the pop-up menu. Use the "Add Folder" option to add your dev folders. This sounds like a lot of work. I'd rather right-click a folder -> pin to Explorer/Finder/Nautilus/whatever. As for your following posts- I was referring only to the mac Finder. I haven't used Windows extensively since XP, so forgive me if I suggest existing functionality. You can do that too with the Favourites node - quick & easy. Windows post XP has significantly improved usability-wise. I was happy to see a good built-in Launchy introduced in Windows 7. It has reduced the time it takes me to find programs, files, emails, etc. as compared to stock Windows XP by orders of magnitude. If I were comparing Win XP to OS X for all-around usability I would choose OS X in a heartbeat.

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:43 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
OS X's file browser has no address bard (let alone a dynamic one like windows has. That is a dealbreaker for me

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:50 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
It totally does mirhagk. It's at the bottom of the finder window.

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:57 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:50 am wrote: It totally does mirhagk. It's at the bottom of the finder window. Those are breadcrumbs, if there is a bar, I don't see it...

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
ProgrammingFun @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:57 am wrote: Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 8:50 am wrote: It totally does mirhagk. It's at the bottom of the finder window. Those are breadcrumbs, if there is a bar, I don't see it... "breadcrumbs" is a new term to me, so lemme try to understand it. It's like an address bar, but you can't type shit into it to go somewhere. Okay, that's cool. If you want to go back, click on the breadcrumb. If you want to go somewhere else, look at the application bar, hit go -> go to folder and type in your directory. I don't really see the need for a fully functional address bar 'cause I never need it. Give me one solid reason to have include an address bar. I don't ask this aggressively, I just want to know why you would want an address bar instead of/in addition to these 'breadcrumbs'.

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:00 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
If I'm in my documents and I want to go to C:\hla or C:\ruby (happens all the time for me) breadcrumbs are neat. but they should be combined with an address bar as in vista/7/8

Author:	Tony [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:05 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Keep in mind that there are 4 different view layouts to Finder. The "column view" will let you easily keep track of where in the filesystem you are, if that is what you want from from an address bar. Protip: drag a file from Finder into the Terminal, to have the file's full path entered into the command line.

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:11 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Meh, I guess. I suppose that OS X already has so many features for getting to places quickly that you don't need it. I mean, cmd-shift-G will open the 'go to folder' dialogue, you can type in your folder in the search window and 99 times our of 100 it's the first result, you can click the 'breadcrumbs', etc. I can see it can be useful now. It seems like breadcrumbs are just a crippled address bar. The wiki suggests that it displays how you got to where you are, but in OS X it just lists the parent directories. If you follow a symlink, the breadcrumb displays the parents of the file, not the directory through the symlink. This seems more to me like a crippled address bar than what I believe a breadcrumb to be after reading the wiki. Correct me if I'm wrong. In other news, I had a look at the Finder preferences for the first time in ages, and I was able to remove the search for dropdown, but not add my own folders. Baby steps!

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:19 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
@tony does any OS not do this?

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:21 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: Protip: drag a file from Finder into the Terminal, to have the file's full path entered into the command line. This. There is so much click & drag functionality in OS X that people coming from Windows won't initially know about. Hell, installing most programs is as simple as copying the .app into your application (or any) directory. This throws a lot of people off when they first start using OS X. Going from clicking 'next...' all the time to just moving an icon blew my mind when I first got my laptop. OS X does have an installer for more integrated applications though, and I frequently use the Windows installer in Wine. EDIT: Case in point: you can drag folders to the sidebar, and on the sidebar it will be. I just found that out today. Remember when I suggested a right-click menu? I think click-and-drag works better (though a checkbox in the context menu in addition to click & drag would be preferable).

Author:	Tony [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:30 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
mirhagk @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:19 am wrote: @tony does any OS not do this? Certainly! I wrote an OS (part of school work), and it doesn't have this feature You obviously meant just some specific set of OSs, not all; but I don't know which set you are thinking of.

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:32 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: I don't know which set you are thinking of. Oh please Tony. You know what he's talking about. If you don't, just think for like 15 seconds.

Author:	Tony [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:35 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
With mirhagk I don't think one can ever be certain

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:42 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
No you can if you stop and think about it, most people generally don't stop and think though.

Author:	DemonWasp [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Breadcrumbs are exactly what your web browser automatically tracks with the Back and Forward buttons. Explorer keeps track of your breadcrumbs for its own Forward/Back buttons, but doesn't display it. I can't speak to other file managers, because it's extremely rare that I use them. An address bar shows you where you are right now. It usually displays the canonical path to your current location (that is, if you follow a symlink to /home/DemonWasp/derp, it will display /home/DemonWasp/derp). This is what every file manager shown here displays (in Explorer and Nautilus, it's at the top; in Finder, it's at the bottom). The only major difference is that Explorer and Nautilus let you type in paths, while Finder doesn't seem like it (I don't have any Macs on hand to test, so correct me if I'm wrong). Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:21 am wrote: ...as simple as copying the .app into your application (or any) directory. That's just straight-up retarded. The fact that copying a file ending in .app runs it as an installer is the single most un-intuitive thing I've ever heard of a computer doing (including dropping a disk in the trash to eject it). The much more intuitive way of installing an app is to just click on the Install button next to its name in your Install Applications app. The Windows way of running a setup program, flawed though it is, is also way more intuitive.

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: The fact that copying a file ending in .app runs it as an installer You misunderstand me. Copying the file is the installation. There is no background installer happening. The app will generate the preference files when you run it the first time. Even in Windows, all the installer does is manually copy the files over and add some reg entries. OS X does, as I mentioned in an earlier post, include an installer for applications that cannot be 'just copied'. This is mostly for utilities that need access to more restricted OS functions. Hell, you don't even need to install most apps. They can be run straight from the .dmg or CD. You know what a game repack is right? Someone installs it, cracks it, and uploads their game files somewhere so other people can play it without 'installing' as we define it. Just download, unpack and play. Quote: An address bar shows you where you are right now. It usually displays the canonical path to your current location (that is, if you follow a symlink to /home/DemonWasp/derp, it will display /home/DemonWasp/derp). This is what every file manager shown here displays (in Explorer and Nautilus, it's at the top; in Finder, it's at the bottom). The only major difference is that Explorer and Nautilus let you type in paths, while Finder doesn't seem like it (I don't have any Macs on hand to test, so correct me if I'm wrong). Thank you, now I get it. So, the thing at the bottom of the Finder is indeed an address bar as I suspected. You just can't type in it (that sucks, I agree). Fortunately as I mentioned there's a separate dialog available to do this. Inconvenient as it is, at least it's there.

Author:	DemonWasp [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:57 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 1:30 pm wrote: You misunderstand me. Copying the file is the installation. There is no background installer happening. The app will generate the preference files when you run it the first time. Even in Windows, all the installer does is manually copy the files over and add some reg entries. Ah, okay. That's definitely better than the Windows way. Though, to be fair, the installer (on Windows) usually extracts the files from some compressed format or downloads the latest binaries from the web nowadays. Lots of Linux apps can be installed the same way, but the usual preference is to install through the package manager (because package managers are awesome).

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:16 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
yeah, we don't have package managers for mac . I did enjoy that feature during my brief stint with Ubuntu. Most developers write installer apps for exceptionally large programs like games, but these aren't built into the OS. You typically run the installer and delete it (or it's on the disk/dmg). An example is Portal 2, which includes an installer on the disk that extracts the data to the steam directory.

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:21 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Just out of curiosity, does any OS support compression for normal file navigation (ie can you compress a folder such that you can still access it by it's file name etc)

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
7zip can browse compressed files, but you have to expand them to use them. It would be nice to have full disk on-the-fly compression/expansion, but it would be very, very slow.

Author:	Tony [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:16 pm wrote: yeah, we don't have package managers for mac Sure we do -- MacPorts, Homebrew, etc. Fun fact: .app are actually directories that are treated in a special way to appear to be a single executable. You could browse through its insides in a Terminal Quote: Applications tony$ ls -al iTunes.app/ total 0 drwxr-xr-x 3 root wheel 102 11 Aug 06:13 . drwxrwxr-x+ 52 root admin 1768 16 Aug 07:01 .. drwxr-xr-x 10 root wheel 340 11 Aug 06:10 Contents

Author:	Insectoid [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:04 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Quote: Fun fact: .app are actually directories that are treated in a special way to appear to be a single executable. You could browse through its insides in a Terminal I remember when I discovered this. I was trying to install Cube 2 mods and the instructions said to put it inside cube 2.app/blah blah blah. I was like, wtf? then I right-clicked on it and had a revelation.

Author:	DemonWasp [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:18 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Insectoid @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:25 pm wrote: It would be nice to have full disk on-the-fly compression/expansion, but it would be very, very slow. Only if you have to update them. Turns out, it can actually be faster to read compressed data from the disk than uncompressed data, just because it's so much smaller (hence, less time spent waiting for the HDD to do its thing). There are lots of games that slurp their levels, models, textures and so forth from cleverly-designed compressed archives. The compression is great both for the install size and for load times. Plus, it helps keep your thousands of resource files from demolishing the poor file browser's mind. In a similar vein, your web browser will usually compress requests to web pages, and servers will often respond with compressed data. Helps cut down on the bandwidth requirements (and therefore latency and expense). Of course, if you have to write out the compressed file to disk, that usually takes a lot longer. This is one area where Explorer definitely, definitely loses. If you have enough small files floating around, especially in the same directory, Explorer starts to collapse in on itself. If you (in XP) have those files very fragmented, then visiting that directory will cause Explorer to generate millions of page faults per second; if you're lucky, it will crash before the filesystem or operating system itself dies.

Author:	Brightguy [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
DemonWasp @ Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:18 pm wrote: If you have enough small files floating around, especially in the same directory, Explorer starts to collapse in on itself. My experience is that Nautilus is unusably slow for directories with lots of files, even when I turn off all preview settings. Every other file manager I've ever used has been faster, even Windows Explorer through WINE. And Nautilus' Ctrl+F directory search never worked properly for me. (I just saw it might have always been searching some default directory instead. WTF?)

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
@demonwasp why would compressing it take longer to write to disk? And even if it doesn't you could write the uncompressed data, and flag it, and later when the hard drive isn't busy it can compress it. Best of both worlds.

Author:	DemonWasp [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
@Brightguy: I don't have Nautilus in front of me, so I can't test (and I no longer have an image directory with 20K images, because I don't subscribe to + autodownload image newsgroups anymore), but I've never had a problem with it. I've also always searched with /Derp to find Derp.jpeg in the current directory. @mirhagk: Compression typically is a more intensive process than decompression. To oversimply the problem tremendously, compression is looking for patterns in arbitrary data, while decompression is the equivalent of following a recipe. There are exceptions, but in general compressing a file is much much worse than decompressing it, in terms of CPU. Worse, if you change a file in the "middle" of a compressed, unfragmented file on-disk, then you need to either move the latter portion of the file, or fragment the file; it's very unlikely you'll be able to change it in place because the compressed size will change. There are plenty of clever schemes, mostly at the OS level, to defer writing to the hard disk, but they all fall victim to the same problem: anything you store in memory is volatile -- it goes away when the power does (or the OS, or the motherboard, or...). Plus, the problem I mentioned in the previous paragraph gets even worse when you consider journaling file systems, too, because the "double the writes" is compounded again when you need to write to do so many separate read-and-write operations. The idea to write uncompressed data at run-time and later compress it has several flaws. First, it doesn't speed up runtimes very much (since you're writing uncompressed data). Second, you have to later re-read the uncompressed data, compress it, then pump it back out to disk (this will take a very, very long time, because it has to both read and write, usually from the same disk). Third, you're sucking up extra disk space while you're running, to the tune of double to quadruple the file's size. Fourth, suppose you goof up and your program explodes (this always happens at the least-convenient possible time); now you have to restart your program, but instead of just reading the compressed data, it has to read the compressed data, read the uncompressed data (assuming it got written), merge the two by some mechanism, then sanity-check and try to proceed. This additional complexity ironically makes it much more likely that such a problem will occur in the first place! One thing most OS do support is transparently-compressed filesystems: you read and write data as if it were uncompressed, but the filesystem compresses it before storing on physical media. That's the "Compress this disk to save disk space" option under Drive Properties in Windows. This option is infrequently used because the performance hit is worth way more than a hard disk size upgrade. Ooh! A point in favour of Nautilus: side-by-side panes, each with their own set of tabs (optionally). Makes for much easier transfers.

Author:	mirhagk [ Wed Aug 31, 2011 9:59 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
This gave me an awesome idea. For some reason the manufacturer of my laptop gave me 2 harddrives(actually I know the reason for that) but they were partioned into 2 partitions each. So when I go to my computer I have 4 drives it says lol. Anyways what I'm going to do is transfer all my music and videos to one of the partitions, along with other read only things, and declare it my read only drive. Then I will tell windows to use compression to store information on it, so then all those files will be compressed as well as read faster. Then I will have my main drive for my OS and programs and game installs. Then my 3rd partition (the only one on my 2nd drive to make sure that it uses it's cache on it's hybird drive) will be dedicated to programming source.

Author:	rdrake [ Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:13 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Battle of the file browsers!
Let's see... Finder - Primitive, hate it. I'm using it right now. Explorer (7) - Works well enough. Explorer (8) - If you can collapse the ribbon it won't be so bad. Nautilus - Used it a lot, like it. I tend to keep files split up nicely between directories so this performance issue has not come up. Thunar - Enjoyed using it when toying with Xfce. KDE's what-cha-ma-call-it - Was OK, but KDE "eye candy" hurts my eyes. Adding to what was said above about an OS X package manager, Homebrew is pretty great. It doesn't even require root to run.

Author:	ultimatebuster [ Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:44 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
personally I like ls -l and cd .... I don't know why we need file browsers Though everytime i go on windows and type in ls, it pisses me off.

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:11 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!

Author:	Insectoid [ Fri Sep 02, 2011 8:20 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Somehow I missed that comic.

Author:	mirhagk [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:24 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
I love that XKCD, since it's pretty true. Woulda been interesting to see that google chromium OS show up on the market. I think that idea should be incorporated into every OS. Press one key to start normally, press another button to start up in internet mode where it only loads the necessities for the internet.

Author:	Tony [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:43 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Wut? http://www.google.com/chromebook/

Author:	mirhagk [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:50 am ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Oh thank you Tony, didn't realize it was out. Does this mean that the OS is out (and free perhaps?). I'd love to dual boot with it, if it's possible.

Author:	ProgrammingFun [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:55 am ]
Post subject:	Re: RE:Battle of the file browsers!
mirhagk @ Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:24 am wrote: I think that idea should be incorporated into every OS. Press one key to start normally, press another button to start up in internet mode where it only loads the necessities for the internet. Well, OS X Lion incorporated a semi-working version of it... mirhagk wrote: Oh thank you Tony, didn't realize it was out. Does this mean that the OS is out (and free perhaps?). I'd love to dual boot with it, if it's possible. From what I have heard, the official Google Chrome OS won't be available for download, it's only available with chromebooks... As for chromium OS, there's a whole different story. There are many great ones out there with Hexxeh probably being one of the best.

Author:	mirhagk [ Sat Sep 03, 2011 2:17 pm ]
Post subject:	RE:Battle of the file browsers!
Thanks, I'll try those out.

:

You can syndicate this boards posts using the file backend.php or view the topic map using sitemap.php.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy