Folder/Directories First in Finders
jessed...@hotmail.com
Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
TaliesinSoft
(in article
<c5ff2e49-5a2c-4eea...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
> Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
With a Finder window open select "View " in the menu and then select "Keep
Arranged by Kind". The folders will then appear first, followed by the other
icons.
By selecting the "Show View Options" from the "View" menu the folder first
arrangement can be made to apply to every Finder window.
--
James Leo Ryan ..... Austin, Texas ..... talies...@mac.com
Gregory Weston
TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.coom> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:22:21 -0500, jessed...@hotmail.com wrote
> (in article
> <c5ff2e49-5a2c-4eea...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
> > Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
No.
> With a Finder window open select "View " in the menu and then select "Keep
> Arranged by Kind". The folders will then appear first, followed by the other
> icons.
In list view, there's no such option. Just clicking in the Kind header.
In columns view, there's no analogous behavior at all.
Whether you use a sorted list view, or the keep arranged option in icon
view, there's no guarantee that folders will come first. They're sorted
according to the lexical ordering of their "kind" string (or whichever
other key you've chosen). So, for example, in my Documents folder I've
got a few free-floating "BBEdit text document" files and one
"com.apple.appleworks.document" that come before any folders when I sort
by kind.
G
--
"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?"
- Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix
TaliesinSoft
(in article <uce-0B368A.1...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>):
> In article <0001HW.C49F74D7...@News.Individual.NET>,
> TaliesinSoft <talies...@mac.coom> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:22:21 -0500, jessed...@hotmail.com wrote
>> (in article
>> <c5ff2e49-5a2c-4eea...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>> Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
>
> No.
>
>> With a Finder window open select "View " in the menu and then select "Keep
>> Arranged by Kind". The folders will then appear first, followed by the
>> other
>> icons.
>
> In list view, there's no such option. Just clicking in the Kind header.
> In columns view, there's no analogous behavior at all.
>
> Whether you use a sorted list view, or the keep arranged option in icon
> view, there's no guarantee that folders will come first. They're sorted
> according to the lexical ordering of their "kind" string (or whichever
> other key you've chosen). So, for example, in my Documents folder I've
> got a few free-floating "BBEdit text document" files and one
> "com.apple.appleworks.document" that come before any folders when I sort
> by kind.
Oops, I stand corrected. Interestingly I've always had the folder icons
precede the other icons when I've chosen "Keep Arranged by Kind". Also, I
made the mistake of thinking icon view, as I very, very, rarely use the other
views.
Live and learn! :-)
Jesse Dorland
> In article <0001HW.C49F74D700252A35B01AD...@News.Individual.NET>,
>
> TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.coom> wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:22:21 -0500, jessedorl...@hotmail.com wrote
> > (in article
> > <c5ff2e49-5a2c-4eea-aa30-f9f255143...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > > Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
>
> No.
>
> > With a Finder window open select "View " in the menu and then select "Keep
> > Arranged by Kind". The folders will then appear first, followed by the other
> > icons.
>
> In list view, there's no such option. Just clicking in the Kind header.
> In columns view, there's no analogous behavior at all.
>
> Whether you use a sorted list view, or the keep arranged option in icon
> view, there's no guarantee that folders will come first. They're sorted
> according to the lexical ordering of their "kind" string (or whichever
> other key you've chosen). So, for example, in my Documents folder I've
> got a few free-floating "BBEdit text document" files and one
> "com.apple.appleworks.document" that come before any folders when I sort
> by kind.
Thanks for the head up :) I hope our Boy Steve Jobs will add this
feature in the next update.
Jesse Dorland
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:39:01 -0500, Gregory Weston wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <0001HW.C49F74D700252A35B01AD...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > TaliesinSoft <taliesins...@mac.coom> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 08:22:21 -0500, jessedorl...@hotmail.com wrote
> >> (in article
>
> >>> Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
>
> > No.
>
> >> With a Finder window open select "View " in the menu and then select "Keep
> >> Arranged by Kind". The folders will then appear first, followed by the
> >> other
> >> icons.
>
> > In list view, there's no such option. Just clicking in the Kind header.
> > In columns view, there's no analogous behavior at all.
>
> > Whether you use a sorted list view, or the keep arranged option in icon
> > view, there's no guarantee that folders will come first. They're sorted
> > according to the lexical ordering of their "kind" string (or whichever
> > other key you've chosen). So, for example, in my Documents folder I've
> > got a few free-floating "BBEdit text document" files and one
> > "com.apple.appleworks.document" that come before any folders when I sort
> > by kind.
>
> Oops, I stand corrected. Interestingly I've always had the folder icons
> precede the other icons when I've chosen "Keep Arranged by Kind". Also, I
> made the mistake of thinking icon view, as I very, very, rarely use the other
> views.
>
> Live and learn! :-)
You are still ahead of me in the game. This is my first mini mac -- I
have a long way to go. I just install Linux on it -- very cool I must
say.
Gregory Weston
<89249860-d80a-455d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 11:39 am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > In article <0001HW.C49F74D700252A35B01AD...@News.Individual.NET>,
> >
> > > Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
> >
> > No.
> ...
> Thanks for the head up :) I hope our Boy Steve Jobs will add this
> feature in the next update.
Now, out of curiosity, why do you hope that? I'm not trying to be
hostile; it's a serious question. What real benefit do you see in
exempting one particular type of file system object from the ordering
imposed on everything else?
For what it's worth, I should point out that no serious developer crawls
usenet looking for bug reports and feature requests. The signal to noise
ratio sucks for that. If you want Apple to add that as an option, it
behooves you to write to Apple and request it. And maybe it'll come to
nothing, but if you want it and aren't willing to ask for it it seems
silly to assume that other people *are* willing. As Wayne Gretzky said,
100% of the shots you don't take don't go in.
Jim Gibson
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article
> <89249860-d80a-455d...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 11:39 am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > > In article <0001HW.C49F74D700252A35B01AD...@News.Individual.NET>,
> > >
> > > > Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
> > >
> > > No.
> > ...
> > Thanks for the head up :) I hope our Boy Steve Jobs will add this
> > feature in the next update.
>
> Now, out of curiosity, why do you hope that? I'm not trying to be
> hostile; it's a serious question. What real benefit do you see in
> exempting one particular type of file system object from the ordering
> imposed on everything else?
Probably because that is the way Windows does it. We see lots of "why
doesn't Mac OS do xxx the way Windows does?" here, unfortunately.
--
Jim Gibson
Gregory Weston
Jim Gibson <jimsg...@gmail.com> wrote:
That's what I expect, too, but I'm always curious to see if someone has
a measurable goal.
sdon...@gmail.com
problem:
http://blog.lipsiasoft.com/articles/2007/11/05/en-finder-order-directory-before-files
On Jul 14, 9:01 pm, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> In article <140720081702041207%jimsgib...@gmail.com>,
> Jim Gibson <jimsgib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <uce-4FBBA2.15135114072...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <89249860-d80a-455d-b5e2-ed941e3a1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
howiea...@yahoo.com
> hostile; it's a serious question. What real benefit do you see in
> exempting one particular type of file system object from the ordering
> imposed on everything else?
If I can take a crack at the answer --
It's because directories and files serve two fundamentally different
purposes. Directories are used to navigate and organize information,
while files do the actual work.
Try timing yourself sometime -- it's much faster to save something
three folders deep in a file system GUI that groups folders together
first, because you don't spend much time scrolling around for the
folder.
And it's not just Windows that groups folders together, as another
poster implied. It's Linux and Solaris distributions, too. Think
about it this way -- Apple is constantly pushing design barriers, and
invariably when you push boundaries, you make mistakes. This is one.
No big deal, but I'm +1 in hoping for a fix.
Andy
Gregory Weston
<1204f04e-7de4-4b6e...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
howiea...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Now, out of curiosity, why do you hope that? I'm not trying to be
> > hostile; it's a serious question. What real benefit do you see in
> > exempting one particular type of file system object from the ordering
> > imposed on everything else?
>
> If I can take a crack at the answer --
>
> It's because directories and files serve two fundamentally different
> purposes. Directories are used to navigate and organize information,
> while files do the actual work.
>
> Try timing yourself sometime -- it's much faster to save something
> three folders deep in a file system GUI that groups folders together
> first, because you don't spend much time scrolling around for the
> folder.
I use Windows and OS X daily. I can find things more quickly with
folders intermingled, largely because I don't have to keep two sets of
spatial relations in my head.
Perhaps a major contributor to this, though, is that I don't tend to
intermingle large groups of folders and files because they don't tend to
belong in such an organization. I don't have many leaves sprouting from
the trunk of my tree.
Tim Streater
No, Apple has done it the right way. Folders have a name like anything
else. If I sort alphabetically I expect it all to appear alphabetically.
The WIn way is a pain in e.g., our folder at work that contains
important docs. Some of these docs are a page or two of text (but
nonetheless important), whereas others may have images as well. So,
these images are stored in a folder containing the actual document as
well as the images.
This means that the document store is a mixture of files and folders,
but all following the same naming convention, such as:
DOC001 - How to do this.doc (a file)
DOC002 - How to do something else.doc (a file)
DOC003 - how to do something quite complex (a folder)
DOC004 - How to make the tea.doc (a file)
Because of Win's crap sorting method, the store is arranged like this:
DOC003 - how to do something quite complex (a folder)
DOC001 - How to do this.doc (a file)
DOC002 - How to do something else.doc (a file)
DOC004 - How to make the tea.doc (a file)
which is a pain when you have 97 documents, and are looking for number
83. Oh, it's not there, did someone delete it? Then you waste 10 mins
before you remember it's a folder, so it's at the top.
This is nothing to do with theoretical considerations about what a file
is for vs. what a directory is for. This is just that Apple is better
than the others at human interface implementation.
patrick j
> t's because directories and files serve two fundamentally different
> purposes. Directories are used to navigate and organize information,
> while files do the actual work.
Hi
Well I think that's a perfectly good reason for a distinction.
I think that there isn't a right or wrong way to do this.
As you point out 'grouping' folders together at top or bottom of the
listing is a very established practice.
Personally I like to have that capability but it's not something I get
very excited about :)
Some people wouldn't like it, well that's as it always is in these things.
--
Patrick
isw
Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
Just prepend a "space" character to each name you want to be at the top
of a list (or use the "apple" character to drop something to the bottom).
There are bulk renamer apps that will make the process easy.
Isaac
John Varela
(in article
<1204f04e-7de4-4b6e...@r35g2000prm.googlegroups.com>):
> And it's not just Windows that groups folders together, as another
> poster implied. It's Linux and Solaris distributions, too.
And OS/2.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
John Varela
(in article <tim.streater-E270...@news.individual.net>):
> The WIn way is a pain in e.g., our folder at work that contains
> important docs. Some of these docs are a page or two of text (but
> nonetheless important), whereas others may have images as well. So,
> these images are stored in a folder containing the actual document as
> well as the images.
OS/2 lets you sort each folder whatever way is appropriate for that
folder.
Jesse Dorland
Sorry for the late reply. I believe howieanda have provided an
excellent answer to your question. All, I can say in my defense that I
have been used that type of system. I mostly use Linux, BSD, and
Windows. All major os list directories first and then files. I have
seen one interesting thing with OSX. When browsing directory from
another computer -- OSX lists directories first, and then files. This
is what I am going to do. Safe them in other computer, and partition
mini-mac hard-drive to vfat and see how mini-mac list them :)
Gregory Weston
<101a2a01-9b2b-4d58...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 14, 3:13 pm, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <89249860-d80a-455d-b5e2-ed941e3a1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jesse Dorland <jessedorl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Jul 13, 11:39 am, Gregory Weston <u...@splook.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <0001HW.C49F74D700252A35B01AD...@News.Individual.NET>,
> >
> > > > > Is there a way to make finder list all the folders first?
> >
> > > > No.
> > > ...
> > > Thanks for the head up :) I hope our Boy Steve Jobs will add this
> > > feature in the next update.
> >
> > Now, out of curiosity, why do you hope that? I'm not trying to be
> > hostile; it's a serious question. What real benefit do you see in
> > exempting one particular type of file system object from the ordering
> > imposed on everything else?
>
> Sorry for the late reply. I believe howieanda have provided an
> excellent answer to your question. All, I can say in my defense that I
> have been used that type of system.
Fair enough. Comfort is certainly a valid criterion, which many people
overlook. That said, there are many subtle and unaddressable differences
between Windows and Mac OS. Some of them are just chance, but there are
some things that Mac OS simply does better. I wonder if you've given the
system a fair chance to see if this is one of those situations where
it's worth revisiting the distinction between "I'm used to it" and "it's
better."
> I mostly use Linux, BSD, and
> Windows. All major os list directories first and then files.
An odd claim, considering that Mac OS X is certainly a major OS and
doesn't do so. Ditto for the standard (i.e. command-line) file system
interface on Linux, BSD and all other UNIX(-ey) systems.
> I have
> seen one interesting thing with OSX. When browsing directory from
> another computer -- OSX lists directories first, and then files. This
> is what I am going to do. Safe them in other computer, and partition
> mini-mac hard-drive to vfat and see how mini-mac list them :)
OS X does no such thing. The presentation of files is completely under
the control of the local file system interface. In OS X, files will
always be presented in the order specified in the relevant Finder window
(or for the command line sorted as per options sent to ls) regardless of
the locality of the directory being browsed or the OS serving remote
files. Similarly, when you're using a file system interface that shows
directories out of order, it will do so regardless of the location of
those files. It's all sorted in the UI at the moment of presentation,
not by the file system.
Jesse Dorland
Gregory Weston wrote:
> Fair enough. Comfort is certainly a valid criterion, which many people
> overlook. That said, there are many subtle and unaddressable differences
> between Windows and Mac OS. Some of them are just chance, but there are
> some things that Mac OS simply does better. I wonder if you've given the
> system a fair chance to see if this is one of those situations where
> it's worth revisiting the distinction between "I'm used to it" and "it's
> better."
It's not big deal for right now. I am getting used to the way Mac
lists them :)
> > I mostly use Linux, BSD, and
> > Windows. All major os list directories first and then files.
>
> An odd claim, considering that Mac OS X is certainly a major OS and
> doesn't do so. Ditto for the standard (i.e. command-line) file system
> interface on Linux, BSD and all other UNIX(-ey) systems.
I didn't mean to apply that OSX is not a major OS, I meant to say
"with the expection of OSX" :)
>
> > I have
> > seen one interesting thing with OSX. When browsing directory from
> > another computer -- OSX lists directories first, and then files. This
> > is what I am going to do. Safe them in other computer, and partition
> > mini-mac hard-drive to vfat and see how mini-mac list them :)
>
> OS X does no such thing. The presentation of files is completely under
> the control of the local file system interface. I
You are wrong, I took a screen shot of my finder, and you can see this
yourself. Folders are listed first and then files. One pic is of my
windows partition, second is linux partition, in both cases folders
are listed first then files.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760257847/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760274317/sizes/o/
Gregory Weston
<f71f97d8-5517-40a7...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I have
> > > seen one interesting thing with OSX. When browsing directory from
> > > another computer -- OSX lists directories first, and then files. This
> > > is what I am going to do. Safe them in other computer, and partition
> > > mini-mac hard-drive to vfat and see how mini-mac list them :)
> >
> > OS X does no such thing. The presentation of files is completely under
> > the control of the local file system interface. I
>
> You are wrong, I took a screen shot of my finder, and you can see this
> yourself. Folders are listed first and then files. One pic is of my
> windows partition, second is linux partition, in both cases folders
> are listed first then files.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760257847/sizes/o/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760274317/sizes/o/
And yet here, when I browse a network share, I see the directories
intermingled. Know why? Because on my machine I've got columns view set
to sort by name. I'd wager on your machine it's set to sort by "kind"
and in the directories you've looked at you haven't seen a kind that
sorts lexically before 'Folder'. As I said, and you snipped:
| In OS X, files will always be presented in the order specified in the
| relevant Finder window (or for the command line sorted as per options
| sent to ls) regardless of the locality of the directory being browsed
| or the OS serving remote files.
Until you can show me a Finder window *not* respecting the specified
sort order, you can't declare me wrong.
william mitchell
>
> You are wrong, I took a screen shot of my finder, and you can see this
> yourself. Folders are listed first and then files. One pic is of my
> windows partition, second is linux partition, in both cases folders
> are listed first then files.
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760257847/sizes/o/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760274317/sizes/o/
I assume you have them listed by kind. Did you check what kind OS X
thinks each of the files is, to see whether any of them come before
"Folder"?
Try setting the view options to use a different order. You'll see
that they get sorted differently --- regardless of what the filesystem
is.
Jesse Dorland
Gregory Weston wrote:
> In article
> <f71f97d8-5517-40a7...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I have
> > > > seen one interesting thing with OSX. When browsing directory from
> > > > another computer -- OSX lists directories first, and then files. This
> > > > is what I am going to do. Safe them in other computer, and partition
> > > > mini-mac hard-drive to vfat and see how mini-mac list them :)
> > >
> > > OS X does no such thing. The presentation of files is completely under
> > > the control of the local file system interface. I
> >
> > You are wrong, I took a screen shot of my finder, and you can see this
> > yourself. Folders are listed first and then files. One pic is of my
> > windows partition, second is linux partition, in both cases folders
> > are listed first then files.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760257847/sizes/o/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760274317/sizes/o/
>
> And yet here, when I browse a network share, I see the directories
> intermingled. Know why? Because on my machine I've got columns view set
> to sort by name. I'd wager on your machine it's set to sort by "kind"
> and in the directories you've looked at you haven't seen a kind that
> sorts lexically before 'Folder'. As I said, and you snipped:
You're right I have set them by kind. It's kinda cool that I get this
type of listing :)
> | In OS X, files will always be presented in the order specified in the
> | relevant Finder window (or for the command line sorted as per options
> | sent to ls) regardless of the locality of the directory being browsed
> | or the OS serving remote files.
>
> Until you can show me a Finder window *not* respecting the specified
> sort order, you can't declare me wrong.
I take it back, you are right.
Jesse Dorland
william mitchell wrote:
> Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> writes:
> >
> > You are wrong, I took a screen shot of my finder, and you can see this
> > yourself. Folders are listed first and then files. One pic is of my
> > windows partition, second is linux partition, in both cases folders
> > are listed first then files.
> >
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760257847/sizes/o/
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/29607356@N08/2760274317/sizes/o/
>
> I assume you have them listed by kind. Did you check what kind OS X
> thinks each of the files is, to see whether any of them come before
> "Folder"?
Yes, I just looked into it. They are listed by kind.
>
> Try setting the view options to use a different order. You'll see
> that they get sorted differently --- regardless of what the filesystem
> is.
I played around with them just now, then I set it back to the way it
was cause this is the way I like it.
Gregory Weston
<00d2d1d4-c91c-4866...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Jesse Dorland <jessed...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Try setting the view options to use a different order. You'll see
> > that they get sorted differently --- regardless of what the filesystem
> > is.
>
> I played around with them just now, then I set it back to the way it
> was cause this is the way I like it.
Just be aware that while they're a relative rarity there *are* kind
strings that sort before 'Folder' so this isn't guaranteed to remain the
way you like it.
Jeffrey Goldberg
> Just be aware that while they're a relative rarity there *are* kind
> strings that sort before 'Folder' so this isn't guaranteed to remain the
> way you like it.
Back in the old days, I would try to name directories with Intial
Capitals, and would never (well, hardly ever) do that for ordinary files.
Then I learned about the -F option for ls. And later there were even
colors for different types.
Cheers,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
http://improve-usenet.org/
Gregory Weston
Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
> In <uce-CB52BF.0...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>, Gregory
> Weston...:
>
> > Just be aware that while they're a relative rarity there *are* kind
> > strings that sort before 'Folder' so this isn't guaranteed to remain the
> > way you like it.
>
> Back in the old days, I would try to name directories with Intial
> Capitals, and would never (well, hardly ever) do that for ordinary files.
> Then I learned about the -F option for ls. And later there were even
> colors for different types.
That works fine as long as you're using a UI that presents a
case-sensitive sort (as, for example, the default behavior of ls on a
UNIX-ey system). Not so much for any graphical front end on Mac OS or
Windows.