🚀 go-pugleaf

> []
> I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder,
> Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders.
> Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
> the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.
> 
> Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick
> everything in a folder.  It's bad enough that they are taking
> away the "put back" feature of the Finder.
> 
> I know Apple listens to this net.  If enough people agree with
> me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it.
> On the other hand, I could get used to anything.  I even learned
> VM/CMS once.
> -- 
> 
> Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD

What?!  Oh dear.  This sounds like Apple is trying to turn all of us into
neat little boys and girls.

Taking a look at my desk (hell, my office) right now, it might not be a bad
idea.  But I prefer having everything on the main window, thank you.  

And, at least from what I understand, the original idea behind the Macintosh
is that it is a computer that caters to us rather then us having to cater to
it.  Sounds like a change in plans to me.
--
                                                    Peter Merchant

>Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
>the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.

I disagree with that move also. I always put the files I am currently
using along one edge of the screen, and the applications I am using
along the bottom of the screen. I leave my inactive stuff in folders
on my disk window, and have the disk window usually closed anyway, leaving
the disk icon fully closed. I find this much more convenient to seperate
out my stuff and would deplore this move on Apple's part.

Hanne
..!rochester!ur-univax!hako

In article <2851@dartvax.UUCP> merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) writes:
>> []
>> I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder,
>> Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders.
>> Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
>> the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.
>> 
>> Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick
>> everything in a folder.  It's bad enough that they are taking
>> away the "put back" feature of the Finder.
>> 
>> I know Apple listens to this net.  If enough people agree with
>> me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it.
>> On the other hand, I could get used to anything.  I even learned
>> VM/CMS once.
>> -- 
>> 
>> Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
>
>What?!  Oh dear.  This sounds like Apple is trying to turn all of us into
>neat little boys and girls.
>
>Taking a look at my desk (hell, my office) right now, it might not be a bad
>idea.  But I prefer having everything on the main window, thank you.  
>
>And, at least from what I understand, the original idea behind the Macintosh
>is that it is a computer that caters to us rather then us having to cater to
>it.  Sounds like a change in plans to me.
>--
>                                                    Peter Merchant


Personally, I prefer to be able to put files on the desktop, so I can move
them around windows that overlap easier.  Also, I like them to stay around
even when I close all windows (I don't like keeping the top window open
because all the "junk" files get put there and clutter it up).  While we're
on the subject of folders:  I would much rather allow two files of the same
name appear in separate windows (like sub-directories on UNIX).  To keep a
good standard with Mac, obviously, we must still be able to specify the file
by its name alone.  BUT, if a file name exists in two windows, how about
needing to specify the file by its full "path name" THEN?

Yet another preferable feature with folders:  the allowance of two diss
with the same name, which will have some "default" order for searching
a file of any particular name.  This is useful because so much of the
software on the Mac wants everything to be on a disk with the same name.
I have had the problem many times where, even though I have two disk drives,
I had to put everything on the same disk and not have enough room JUST
BECAUSE the stupid software insists on having it that way!

			Victor Romano

		"What's that sound?"
		"What sound?"
		"Is it the piper?"
		"Do you mean Syd?"
		"No, I mean Dave."

--------------------------------
""
		-The Screaming Abdabs

None of the Beta copies of the 3.x series of finders do any thing  of the kind
they work just like the current incarnations, just faster, and with a bunch
more options and true (honest to G-d) features.  I can't WAIT to see the ROM 
upgrade though.  Just think, a REAL file system!

					Dave Spector
					NYU/acf Systems Group

> > []
> > I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder,
> > Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders.
> > Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
> > the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.
> > 
> > Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick
> > everything in a folder.  It's bad enough that they are taking
> > away the "put back" feature of the Finder.
> > 
> > I know Apple listens to this net.  If enough people agree with
> > me that this is a bad change, who knows, they may not do it.
> > On the other hand, I could get used to anything.  I even learned
> > VM/CMS once.

     Another "BOO HISS" on that one.  I place the principal application(s) of
a disk directly on the desktop - where else do they logically go?  Gosh, just
imagine, the way they want to do it, if I insert my MacWrite disk I won't even
SEE MacWrite!  Until I double-click the mouse on their disk, anyway.  Do you
suppose they're getting a heavy kickback on replacement mouse switch replace-
ments? :-)

-Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc. (*** INSERT YOUR DISCLAIMER HERE ***)

> []
> I have been told by a reliable source that, in the new Finder,
> Apple is planning to force us to put all our files in folders.
> Apple figures that we don't need to be able to have files on
> the Desktop because nobody puts them there anyhow.

They wouldn't *really* do that, would they?  What about all of us
who have disks full of files not in folders?  How would they handle
the conversion?  Please say it isn't so!

> Well, I put them there, and I do not want to be forced to stick
> everything in a folder.  It's bad enough that they are taking
> away the "put back" feature of the Finder.

What is the "put back" feature?

-- 

E. Michael Smith  ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems

Tilapia Aurus is the way and the light.

This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.

> What is the "put back" feature?

It sits in the "File" menu of Finder 1.1g, and returns icons
that are scattered over the screen to wherever they came from.

This has already been removed from the prelease versions of the
finder that are floating around.

By the way, my reliable source says that "Apple" has indicated
that he probably won't force us to folders.  Did we have any
effect?... probably not.
-- 

Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD
UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward
ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley
BELL: 303-497-1252
USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO  80307

	It seems to me that having a hiearchial file system is *MUCH*
more important than having the ability to put non-system stuff directly
on the desktop - if this feature has to go away for a tree-like file system,
than I say so be it (of course, I can't stand having applications on my
desktop, anyway).  However, I hate to see such a (theoreticly) useful
feature go away, so I would like to make the following suggestion:
	How about allowing links of some sort that would allow stuff to
at least look like it was on the desktop (while actually being in a system-like
folder on a (mounted) device).  This would provide a nice implementation of
"/bin" type directories - important applications would all appear on the 
desktop, and the execution of double-clickable documents could be done by
looking for the "right" application to run in the current folder and on the
desktop.
	Along similar lines, it would be nice if DA-type programs could appear
as icons on the desktop (Oh, well - I think it would be neat).
	There are obviously some problems with this (i.e. what if you've got
a LARGE number of applications that you want on the desktop, and how do you
see those items if you've got lots of folders open?) but I think that the 
basic idea is sound.
				tnx,
					Mike Thome

"Hey, bomb????"
{allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-univax!mdth

	OK, so the writers of the finder insist that they won't put up
	with the reason "I put things on the desktop all the time".  Well,
	I know of another reason to take away this feature:

	I thought that one of the nice things about the mouse on the Mac is
	its ability to manipulate windows (for normal commands, I still
	prefer keys, guys.  The mouse is a terrible inconvenience on that.
	That's why I like to make sure that there is a key associated
	with almost everything on the menu bar, even if it is not a command
	key!)  Well, if they don't allow us to use the desktop, just think
	how hard it could be sometimes to move an item from one folder
	to another!  Suppose you have two overlapping folders, and they
	are both open, and one folder completely obscures the other.  Now,
	you want to move an item from the front window into the back
	window.  Simple now:  move the item to the desktop, close the
	front window, and finally put it in the back window, which is now
	exposed.  If you didn't have the features, you would have to move
	windows around!

	So there!

					Victor Romano

				What's that sound?
				What sound?
				Is it the piper?
				Do you mean Syd?
				No, I mean Dave.

--------------------------------
The game never ends when the whole world depends on the turn of a friendly
card.
			-AP

One good reason for being able to put files on the desktop is to select 
multiple files in diffent folders/volumes and force an application in a
different folder/volume to open the document(s).  I seem to be doing this all
the time with Edit/File/MacWrite and downloaded text files. Having to have
both the application and document in the same folder if the documents creater
is not the application is a major pain.  Equally important, why can't I select
multiple files in different folders/volumes?  This seems like a reasonable 
thing to have.  How many times have you had to do a painfully slow finder
file copy just to do something simple like open multiple files.


****FLAME ON****
If Apple really thinks that it is easier to convince 300,000 users that you
really don't need desktop files rather than spending a little extra coding
time doing it better, they are (I hope) sadly mistaken.
****FLAME OFF****



	Emil Rainero
	UUCP:	(..!{allegra, decvax, seismo}!rochester!emil)
	ARPA:	emil@rochester.arpa
	USmail:	Emil Rainero, Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627.