Why doesn't OSX Finder have a proper tree view?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4118378

by robomartin • 14 years ago

4 20 14 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

This is not about Mac vs. PC. In fact, tree views as a means for graphically navigating and exploring the file system have been around a long time and on a number of platforms (Windows, Linux, Irix, Solaris, Amiga, etc.).

Is there a fundamental philosophical reason for Finder not offering a tree view?

Yes, the definitions of "proper" is variable. That's not the point. I find that tree views are far more useful and easier to navigate than what Finder offers. I understand that if all you've known is Finder none of this will make sense. Please refrain from down-voting based on tribalism as you would be down-voting a dedicated iOS developer who's been using Mac and other platforms for a long time.

marssaxman4• 14 years ago

In what way is the hierarchical list display in the OS X finder not a "tree view"?

robomartin5• 14 years ago

Are you referring to the column view? That's not a tree, it's a bunch of columns. If you have to reach a directory that is, say, 10 levels down, you end-up with a mess of columns that you have no need for.

Here's random example: http://www.chapo.co.il/content/articles/snmp-fig5.gif

slater• 14 years ago

Something like this? http://i.imgur.com/WUDny.jpg

pwg2• 14 years ago

Would you please explain why you define your .gif image as "not a tree"? You have hierarchically nested directories (folders) with a clear indication of which parent a nested group is connected with, which to me exactly fits my definition of a "tree" (hierarchically nested elements, each element having a single parent node).

Also, could you post a link to an image showing what you define as a "proper tree view"?

marssaxman4• 14 years ago

I never use the column view. My Finder windows contain a hierarchical view of the contents of a directory; in Mac parlance this is a "list view," but I don't see any significant way it differs from what you are calling a "tree view".

http://www.redecho.org/2012/06/screenshot.png

icodestuff3• 14 years ago

Actually, it is about Mac vs. PC.

A bit of history:

The classic Mac OS Finder never had a tree view. 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. With HFS in System 4 (IIRC), that changed. 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. (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. Having a tree view would have been mostly unnecessary and very Windows-like, which was something to avoid back then. 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.

Come at it from the other side, NeXTStep Workspace's primary view was column view. So naturally that was left in the OS X Finder along with icon and list views from classic Mac OS. 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. 1995. 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. I actually got boos from the audience and a look of horror from most of the panel, and a straight up "No. We're not doing that, probably ever. No way." as an answer. (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.

Someone• 14 years ago

In my memory, MFS did not have directories at all. The illusion of directories was implemented in the API's on top of the file system. Also, I do not remember a limit of one level. The need for more than one level simply did not arise, given that the storage medium held 400kB, and a thoroughly minimized OS maybe 100kB (20kB or so more if you wanted a printer driver), and an app 50kB (all sizes from memory, so they can easily be by a factor of two)

Back to the original question: the Finder has a tree view, but it is different than what Windows offers; it includes the files in the tree view.

Next question probably will be why Windows doesn't properly sort directory items by name, but insists on sorting by 'is a directory' first :-)

marssaxman4• 14 years ago

Yes, this exactly: MFS was a flat file system, and folders were just a UI convention implemented by the Finder. Folders could be arbitrarily nested, but only one file could have a certain name per disk. Given that a disk contained at most 400K this was not much of a practical limitation.

robomartin5• 14 years ago

Thanks for the history lesson!

This thinking is, of course, unfortunate. Any UI can benefit from ideas borrowed from others. I remember when I was using Irix (Silicon Graphics) heavily many moons ago. It had some really compelling ideas. 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.

Yeah, only being able to resize a window from one corner is a pain in the ass.

Also, not having a border around a window makes for a fine mess. Overlap a few terminal windows full of text to see the effect.

The irony today is that the the OSX GUI sits on top of Unix. Which, of course, has supported deep and complex directory structures for a long time.

I can see Apple's point in keeping it simple for the typical non-tech user. No issues with that whatsoever. 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.

That said, I firmly believe that advanced users, which includes developers, could benefit from a much more advanced Finder. A tree structure is only one aspect of this. For example, in Windows I can very easily tell Explorer to show system files. You can do that in OSX, but it isn't as simple it becomes system-wide not directory-specific and it pollutes the desktop.

Another thing that I find missing is the ability to see your path in a Finder window, you know, one that you can copy and paste into the terminal window or another Finder window. Another useful feature would be "Open Terminal Here". I've implemented this through an add-on I found and it is fantastic. This should be standard. Directory and file sizes without having to use "Get Info". Preview pane. Create <insert application> file here (i.e: text files). And more.

It'd be nice if Apple offered a way to switch Finder to "Advanced" or "Developer" mode and offer a closer-to-the-metal experience.

icodestuff3• 14 years ago

> Another thing that I find missing is the ability to see your path in a Finder window, you know, one that you can copy and paste into the terminal window or another Finder window.

You can: View>Show Path Bar. You can click/drag any folder in the path to get a file: URL or file path depending on your drag destination. Alternatively, your current selection can be copied/pasted into Terminal.

> Directory and file sizes without having to use "Get Info".

Use list view, pick Size as a column (should be a default, you may need to rearrange to get it visible next to the names). View>Show View Options; check "Calculate all sizes" for directories.

> Preview pane.

Column view has it directly. Hit space in List view for QuickLook, move the QL panel off to the side, and continue browsing. In Icon view: View>Show View Options; check "Show icon previews"; resize them large enough (≥48x48, IIRC) and movies can even be played inline.

Though this may sound a bit snarky, I mean it as a serious inquiry: have you actually used the Finder for more than 5 minutes since 10.4?

No, DTerm is not built in, but that's okay - no one's stopping you from installing it, or writing a better one†. The Finder doesn't have Dropbox built in either, and that's okay too.

†for instance, one that does the opposite: keeps a Finder window for each tab and window in Terminal on the current working directory.

cientifico• 14 years ago

Only 2% of the people I meet in the last 10 years, weren't organised enough, to save the files in the proper folders. So why we need a complicated directory structure ?

robomartin5• 14 years ago

For the 2%

No, seriously, what's under the pretty GUI is Unix. Developers and advanced users make use of the available Unix features, including deep directory structures.

You can see this consumer focus on tools like Xcode. I recently completed work on an iOS game with about 1600 media files. If you left it up to Xcode it wants to place all 1600 files at the root level of the app code directory. In order to create and maintain a usable tree of folders you have to go out of your way and jump through some hoops.

Why doesn't OSX Finder have a proper tree view?

Related Stories