![]() For example, in Windows I can very easily tell Explorer to show system files. A tree structure is only one aspect of this. That said, I firmly believe that advanced users, which includes developers, could benefit from a much more advanced Finder. Judging from those I know, they don't ever create deep directory structures on their own and probably don't need anything beyond what Finder offers. ![]() I can see Apple's point in keeping it simple for the typical non-tech user. Which, of course, has supported deep and complex directory structures for a long time. The irony today is that the the OSX GUI sits on top of Unix. Overlap a few terminal windows full of text to see the effect. ![]() Yeah, only being able to resize a window from one corner is a pain in the ass.Īlso, not having a border around a window makes for a fine mess. I can't remember most of them but I think one I liked was that the focus followed the mouse, you didn't have to click on a window to give it focus. I remember when I was using Irix (Silicon Graphics) heavily many moons ago. Any UI can benefit from ideas borrowed from others. This thinking is, of course, unfortunate. ![]() (Years later, I couldn't help but smirk when Lion had resize handles on all corners and edges.) The point is, if something potentially useful has too many associations with Windows, it was (and still is, to some extent) taboo. I actually got boos from the audience and a look of horror from most of the panel, and a straight up "No. Anecdote: in 2008-ish, at WWDC, there was a feedback forum, and while I can't remember what prompted the question, I asked if there were going to be resize handles on all the corners. If tree view has ever been discussed at Apple in the past 15 years (and I wouldn't be surprised if it hasn't), it was almost certainly rejected as a throwback to the old Windows Explorer ca. So naturally that was left in the OS X Finder along with icon and list views from classic Mac OS. There was even some outcry in OS 8 when the system got menus where you didn't have to hold down the mouse button to keep them open.Ĭome at it from the other side, NeXTStep Workspace's primary view was column view. Having a tree view would have been mostly unnecessary and very Windows-like, which was something to avoid back then. (fun fact - though on OS X, you can adjust a slider to change icon sizes, back in OS ≤9, there was also "Small Icon View", which used 16x16 icons instead of the traditional 32x32, and put the labels to the side, rather than underneath) Despite a few other miscellaneous additions to the Finder over the years (tab view, At Ease (not really the Finder, but it shipped with certain Mac lines)), for System 7 through OS 9, most folks' file systems weren't that deep or complex. Still no tree view though, and I don't think it was until System 6 that there was a list view, and not til System 7 were there disclosure triangles so you could drill down. With HFS in System 4 (IIRC), that changed. Heck, for a couple System versions, the file system (MFS) didn't support more than one level of folder hierarchy, so it would have been completely pointless. The classic Mac OS Finder never had a tree view.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |