Windows Explorer vs Mac OS X Finder
- Status
goobimama
Macboy
Hmm.... anyway, my movies don't play with dreamscene anyway. But whatever works for you guys. It is subjective after all...
Also, for "cut" option within finder
- if one is dragging within the drive, it automatically moves it.
- If one wants to move the file from one drive to another (say external to internal), Command + Shift + drag moves the file...
Also, for "cut" option within finder
- if one is dragging within the drive, it automatically moves it.
- If one wants to move the file from one drive to another (say external to internal), Command + Shift + drag moves the file...
Last edited:
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
Stacks, you mean the ability to make a virtual or real folder which holds files of a specific criteria or all files inside a folder & then shows them either as a menu or grid? Oh. I guess you mean something like this which is there in Windows XP & Vista too.....goobimama said:
*img475.imageshack.us/img475/356/stacksef5.jpg
I m working on some sort of registry hack by which we can add our own custom folders to start menu & show them in a menu like above. If it works, some developer can make it an application too
Even command is not required. In Vista just drag will move anywhere whether it is same drive or different drive
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
Yup, the only thing good about Mac, it looks got. Apple just copied a function from Vista & slapped flashing looks on it.
Oh, so you see some other functionality too? let us all know
aryayush said:[sarcasm]WOW! That is exactly what stacks does. Superb, man!
Oh, so you see some other functionality too? let us all know
Last edited:
blackleopard92
In the zone
and if i want to copy within a drive ( a backup) and move betweem drives??? so much for defaults.iMav said:vista: 2 mouse buttons = move, copy, create short cut (consistent for every where)
mac: 2 mouse buttons just 1 function = copy between drives, move within drivewhat a genius
aryayush said:
I havent yet got your reply yet... Not sure why?
Possibility 1: You forgot about it... In which case, this is a reminder...
Possibility 2: You have somehow gotten the silly notion that I am going to pull another gx on you... Fact is, I am a Windows user now, and all I am planning to do now is read your statements, clarify any misconceptions I have about Mac, and also clarify any misconceptions YOU may have about Windows...
Possibility 3: You have figured that I was right about Explorer being faster to use than Finder when it comes to move through tree and move through spring-loaded folders and want to avoid further comments on your side...
Possibilities 4,5,6,...: I have run out of ideas on what other reasons might have caused you to skip answering my post, so if it is none of the above, please let me know...
If you feel that I am wrong about Explorer being faster with drag-drop, please give detailed steps on how you do it with Finder, because the way I have visualized it (as detailed in my earlier post), I would consider Explorer to be faster...
If you are not interested in posting your reply on the thread, please PM me also... Though I would prefer that you post it in the thread because this information will benefit all...
Arun
Zeeshan Quireshi
C# Be Sharp !
lolzgx_saurav said:Or....he is out of articles on the net to copy paste
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
The first one was the reason and thanks for the gentle reminder, unlike the posts that followed.sakumar79 said:
This is the sort of thing that would ideally require a video to explain but I am on an EDGE connection and uploading a video is completely out of the question. So I'll try to do my best with simple, old-fashioned text.
This is the best view of the Finder, the column view:
*img519.imageshack.us/img519/4531/findercolumnviewkn9.png
The Finder is better than Windows Explorer because the latter has got nothing exactly similar to the column view in the Finder, at least for me. Yes, it has got a whole lot of options and views that combined can sorta-kinda do what the column view basically does, but it does not have the column view. I know it sounds very dogmatic, but this is what works for me and I prefer it. It might not work for you and you might prefer Explorer. No big deal. But if a person can use Mac OS X after having used Windows and still prefer the former, there is something fundamentally wrong with that person!
About spring loaded folders (and it is not just limited to folders, it is everywhere in the operating system) - it would never really work in Windows because you have a single window concept in Windows. Windows users generally prefer to just maximise the whole window (even on a thirty-inch monster) and work in it. They need something like that tree navigation thing in Vista. Mac users like to have many windows of various sizes all over the screen. It helps you multi-task better and Exposé is brilliant at handling hundreds of Windows, quite literally. Just imagine what the taskbar in Windows would look like if you had thirty windows open.
About what you were asking - when I connect my external HDD to transfer the files from my downloads folder to the various folders in it, I just select my files, drag them to the icon in the sidebar and hit space bar. The HDD opens and I drag them to the appropriate folder. Hit 'Delete', back to the downloads folder. After that it is basically rinse and repeat. Another way is to hit 'Command + N' and then drag and drop between the two windows.
I know what you are thinking, "but how is this better than Windows?" It isn't. For you, it isn't. For me, it is. Vista's Explorer is a huge improvement over XP's so I haven't got much to say against it, but I do prefer spring loaded folders to the tiny targets in that tree view on the side in Vista. Plus, it gels in with the rest of the OS which supports drag and drop completely and encourages you to use the mouse more often.
I hope I've been able to get my message across. Even if I haven't, I am so not interested in discussing this any more. These things are really difficult to explain unless someone is sitting near you. I can assure you this, however, that I do not know any human being who has used Mac OS X and disliked it or preferred Windows to it.
OP
gxsaurav
You gave been GXified
lolz...arya is still trying to spread misconseption about Explorer. I will post some eye openers for him & other members tomorrow, right now I m not even at home :yawn:
Column view goes back one folder at a time, this means you cannot jump 5 folder back directly. However in tree view you can go from anywhere to anywhere using the tree navigation. You don't even need to open the multiple windows.
Now this is true fanboy statement. Is it required for me to like it if you like? Am I an idiot just cos I like tree navigation better?
Spring Loaded folders cannot be used in Windows because Apple holds a patent for it.
Windows users can either maximise a window to full screen or set the size from any side on such a big monitor. Mac users cannot Maximise a Window
Windows users have this ability to open as many Windows as they like. Taskbar will simply group them together. FlipTab will show all of them together. Example & eye opener you can see here. We have been multitasking from years & Mac does not mean thats the only way to multitask.
*img391.imageshack.us/img391/3995/windowszj8.th.jpg
On a big monitor, you can simply select to hide the taskbar automatically & double the size of Taskbar so that you can see all Windows open at once. In Mac, dock doesn't groups windows of similar apps together when minimised.
No, you are saying it wrong. When using spring loaded folder, when u make a drag pile & drag it over a folder & then spring load it, you cannot put individual files in individual folders. You either put them all together in the same folder & then you sort as required. Let me know if there is something like Windows JumpTab in Mac
Windows can work the drag & drop way as well as the tree view way. Mac can only work as drag & drop way, which proves that Explorer gives more flexibility then Finder
Then either you mean that all the Windows/Linux users who did not like Mac are not human beings, or u are just like your Boss, acting like a smug.
I forgot to mention. Finder is very inefficient when it comes to Icon Management.
Mac OS X uses .icns file format for Icons which are in Tiger up to 128X128 pixel size. On Windows Vista we have up to 256X256 pixel icons which are quite big & if you have a 30 Inch Display (Example) they even suit it. Vista is very much resolution independent.
The ICO format used in Windows Vista, even at full size has lower file size then anything on Finder. MacOS X saves each state & size of an Icon as an individual bitmap & groups them together in the .icns container. It requires 16pix, 24pix,32,pix,48pix, 128pix, 256pix & 512pix (for Leopard only) This results in huge file size.
Windows Vista & Explorer on the other hand just require the 16pix, 24pix,32pix,48pix & 256X256 pix compressed PNG, all grouped together in .ico container. Due to using a Compressed PNG for size above 48 pix, the icons size in Vista is very low compared to Mac OS X.
What does this mean? When you see something on screen, & there are many big icons, then that particular state of bitmap is loaded in memory of the GPU. Mac OS X isn't that efficient cos it loads a bit .icns, while Vista simply loads the PNG in .ico & discards the rest of the icon sizes when showing on screen cos those are there only for backward compatibility with Windows XP.
You can see yourself, this is a custom made notepad icon which I use in my Computer.
*img216.imageshack.us/img216/36/notesgg9.png
Download the Windows Icon
Download the Mac Icon
PNG is 74 kb
.ico for Windows Vista is 95 kb
.icns for Mac OS X is 354 kb even when I did not include the 512X512 state.
aryayush said:
Column view goes back one folder at a time, this means you cannot jump 5 folder back directly. However in tree view you can go from anywhere to anywhere using the tree navigation. You don't even need to open the multiple windows.
Now this is true fanboy statement. Is it required for me to like it if you like? Am I an idiot just cos I like tree navigation better?Spring Loaded folders cannot be used in Windows because Apple holds a patent for it.
Windows users can either maximise a window to full screen or set the size from any side on such a big monitor. Mac users cannot Maximise a Window
Windows users have this ability to open as many Windows as they like. Taskbar will simply group them together. FlipTab will show all of them together. Example & eye opener you can see here. We have been multitasking from years & Mac does not mean thats the only way to multitask.
*img391.imageshack.us/img391/3995/windowszj8.th.jpg
On a big monitor, you can simply select to hide the taskbar automatically & double the size of Taskbar so that you can see all Windows open at once. In Mac, dock doesn't groups windows of similar apps together when minimised.
No, you are saying it wrong. When using spring loaded folder, when u make a drag pile & drag it over a folder & then spring load it, you cannot put individual files in individual folders. You either put them all together in the same folder & then you sort as required. Let me know if there is something like Windows JumpTab in Mac
Plus, it gels in with the rest of the OS which supports drag and drop completely and encourages you to use the mouse more often.
Windows can work the drag & drop way as well as the tree view way. Mac can only work as drag & drop way, which proves that Explorer gives more flexibility then Finder
I do not know any human being who has used Mac OS X and disliked it or preferred Windows to it.
Then either you mean that all the Windows/Linux users who did not like Mac are not human beings, or u are just like your Boss, acting like a smug.
I forgot to mention. Finder is very inefficient when it comes to Icon Management.
Mac OS X uses .icns file format for Icons which are in Tiger up to 128X128 pixel size. On Windows Vista we have up to 256X256 pixel icons which are quite big & if you have a 30 Inch Display (Example) they even suit it. Vista is very much resolution independent.
The ICO format used in Windows Vista, even at full size has lower file size then anything on Finder. MacOS X saves each state & size of an Icon as an individual bitmap & groups them together in the .icns container. It requires 16pix, 24pix,32,pix,48pix, 128pix, 256pix & 512pix (for Leopard only) This results in huge file size.
Windows Vista & Explorer on the other hand just require the 16pix, 24pix,32pix,48pix & 256X256 pix compressed PNG, all grouped together in .ico container. Due to using a Compressed PNG for size above 48 pix, the icons size in Vista is very low compared to Mac OS X.
What does this mean? When you see something on screen, & there are many big icons, then that particular state of bitmap is loaded in memory of the GPU. Mac OS X isn't that efficient cos it loads a bit .icns, while Vista simply loads the PNG in .ico & discards the rest of the icon sizes when showing on screen cos those are there only for backward compatibility with Windows XP.
You can see yourself, this is a custom made notepad icon which I use in my Computer.
*img216.imageshack.us/img216/36/notesgg9.png
Download the Windows Icon
Download the Mac Icon
PNG is 74 kb
.ico for Windows Vista is 95 kb
.icns for Mac OS X is 354 kb even when I did not include the 512X512 state.
Last edited:
- Status