How come no drives are shown on Lion/Mac OS X 10.7.x's desktops anymore?

[Ant]

Hi!

I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
change this design? :(

Thank you in advance. :)
--
"I don't know how good ants are at swimmin', but I'd be willing to bet
that a good fire'd get their attention." --MacGyver in Trumbo's World
episode
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <eIWdnU89g9gWo0PS...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Hi!
>
> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
> change this design? :(
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

Display of these items on the desktop has been optional through multiple
Mac OS X releases, for some time now. Have a look at Finder preferences.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[PhillipJones]

Ant wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
> change this design? :(
>
> Thank you in advance. :)

You can go to Finder Preferences. and reset so that hard drives show.
They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
also what shows in the sidebar.

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<eIWdnU89g9gWo0PS...@earthlink.com>

> Ant<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> Hi!
>
>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>> desktop.
>

> Yes it does.

>
>> I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>> change this design? :(
>

> They didn't. Finder -> Preferences -> General.
>
The difference is up to Snow Leopard the showing of Hard Drives even
though could be turned off or on. What's Different is That Hard drive
display was not preset on.

[Ant]

On 6/17/2012 3:36 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:

>>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>>> desktop.
>>
>> Yes it does.
>>
>>> I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>>> change this design? :(
>>
>> They didn't. Finder -> Preferences -> General.
>>
> The difference is up to Snow Leopard the showing of Hard Drives even
> though could be turned off or on. What's Different is That Hard drive
> display was not preset on.

Ah thanks, but why did Apple change the default to hide them? That seems
to mess up usability IMO.
--
"... Something wrong with the gun," he said. "But what if there is?
They'll get it right again. And even if there's a delay, how can it
alter the end? It's just men and ants. There's the ants builds their
cities, live their lives, have wars, revolutions, until the men want
them out of the way, and then they go out of the way. That's what we are
now -- just ants. Only --" "Yes," "We're eatable ants..." --H.G. Wells'
The War of the Worlds

[Ant]

On 6/17/2012 3:34 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:

>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>> change this design? :(
>

> You can go to Finder Preferences. and reset so that hard drives show.
> They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
> also what shows in the sidebar.

[sighs] :(
--
"The evaluator counts the ants at the picnic of progress." --Mohan Singh

[Andy Hewitt]

FWIW, in my experience of helping the old fogies with their various
computer problems, this is actually a good thing. The amount of times I
have to fix stuff because they've been fiddling with things they're not
meant to, and haven't got a clue what they do. The more things you can
hide away from them, the better, IMHO.

The great thing is, they have left the options there to turn make things
visble again. Or if not, there are usually some third party solutions
that'll do it easily enough.

Either way, the safest options are being set by default. If you have a
clue, then it's no big deal to reactivate things.

--
Andy Hewitt
<www.andy-hewitt.me.uk>

[Warren Oates]

In article <1kluzkg.1uijm9a1ksfcuwN%use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk>,

use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

> Either way, the safest options are being set by default. If you have a
> clue, then it's no big deal to reactivate things.

I've been doing this a long time, and I'm used to seeing my prefs
persist across upgrades. So when Lion booted the first time and no
drives showed up on the Desktop, I immediately thought that something
had "gone wrong" with the upgrade. An empty Desktop?

My next thought was that they (Apple) had just set those prefs back to
zero. Which was the case. Lion works. The scroll bars are just silly.
It's almost like some practical joke.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[Andy Hewitt]

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1kluzkg.1uijm9a1ksfcuwN%use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk>,
> use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > Either way, the safest options are being set by default. If you have a
> > clue, then it's no big deal to reactivate things.
>
> I've been doing this a long time, and I'm used to seeing my prefs
> persist across upgrades. So when Lion booted the first time and no
> drives showed up on the Desktop, I immediately thought that something
> had "gone wrong" with the upgrade. An empty Desktop?
>
> My next thought was that they (Apple) had just set those prefs back to
> zero. Which was the case. Lion works. The scroll bars are just silly.
> It's almost like some practical joke.

I'm with you on the scroll bars. And what's happened to the one-click
arrow buttons?

--
Andy Hewitt
<www.andy-hewitt.me.uk>

[Tom Stiller]

In article <4fde68d9$0$1722$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>,

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The scroll bars are just silly.
> It's almost like some practical joke.

Ant I felt the same way about the old method. What could be sillier than
moving my reading material down to move down. Now I read my screens the
same way I read my newspaper.

--
PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf
of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. -- Ambrose Bierce

[dorayme]

In article <4fde68d9$0$1722$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>,
Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been doing this a long time, and I'm used to seeing my prefs
> persist across upgrades.

Lucky you. Shutting down and sometimes even restarting, can change
some prefs on my machine. Back to defaults. But I know what to watch
for now and it is rarely a problem.

--
dorayme

[Jolly Roger]

In article <luidnT4G7PYW_EPS...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 6/17/2012 3:36 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
>
> >>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> >>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
> >>> desktop.
> >>
> >> Yes it does.
> >>
> >>> I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
> >>> change this design? :(
> >>
> >> They didn't. Finder -> Preferences -> General.
> >>
> > The difference is up to Snow Leopard the showing of Hard Drives even
> > though could be turned off or on. What's Different is That Hard drive
> > display was not preset on.
>
> Ah thanks, but why did Apple change the default to hide them? That seems
> to mess up usability IMO.

Then tell Apple.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2012 18:34, PhillipJones wrote:
> They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
> also what shows in the sidebar.

You know as well as I do that Apple is completely cognizant that the
users of computers ARE looking inside their hard drive whenever they do
anything.

Far more likely the default was changed because they discovered more
people liked it that way than not. I know _I_ for one always turned off
those icons as soon as the machine came my way.

--
Wes Groleau

Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2012 19:23, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> FWIW, in my experience of helping the old fogies with their various
> computer problems, this is actually a good thing. The amount of times I
> have to fix stuff because they've been fiddling with things they're not
> meant to, and haven't got a clue what they do. The more things you can
> hide away from them, the better, IMHO.

That has little if anything to do with it. Turning off those icons
does NOT prevent anyone from clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock.

[PhillipJones]

Ant wrote:
> On 6/17/2012 3:34 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
>
>>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>>> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>>> change this design? :(
>>
>> You can go to Finder Preferences. and reset so that hard drives show.
>> They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
>> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
>> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
>> also what shows in the sidebar.
>
> [sighs] :(

I agree :(

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<luidnT4G7PYW_EPS...@earthlink.com>

> Ant<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>> On 6/17/2012 3:36 PM PT, PhillipJones typed:
>
>>>>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>>>>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>>>>> desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Yes it does.
>>>>
>>>>> I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>>>>> change this design? :(
>>>>
>>>> They didn't. Finder -> Preferences -> General.
>>>>
>>> The difference is up to Snow Leopard the showing of Hard Drives even
>>> though could be turned off or on. What's Different is That Hard drive
>>> display was not preset on.
>
>> Ah thanks, but why did Apple change the default to hide them? That seems
>> to mess up usability IMO.
>

> Not really. Most people either have nothing on their desktop at all, or
> have EVERYTHING on their desktops. having the drive there doesn't help
> in either case.
>
unlike most people. I don't use the documents folder for anything. There
are some applications that write items to documents Folder. But
otherwise its not used. ( too many eggs in one basket).I use the Hard
drive as File cabinet and have many folders so I open the hard drive I
am presented with various directories (Folders) I have created. with in
those are files. here is a small sample:

https://skitch.com/pjonescet/ebm8a/macbook-pro

think of the mess you would have if you just saved files to document
unsorted What a mess. So I need the Hard Drive on.

[nospam]

In article <slrnjtt9fi...@krismbp.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >> FWIW, in my experience of helping the old fogies with their various
> >> computer problems, this is actually a good thing. The amount of times I
> >> have to fix stuff because they've been fiddling with things they're not
> >> meant to, and haven't got a clue what they do. The more things you can
> >> hide away from them, the better, IMHO.
>
> > That has little if anything to do with it. Turning off those icons
> > does NOT prevent anyone from clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock.
>

> That doesn't open the root of the hard drive. It opens the home folder.

depends how it's configured.

[dorayme]

In article <tom_stiller-EEA4...@news.individual.net>,

Tom Stiller <tom_s...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <4fde68d9$0$1722$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>,
> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The scroll bars are just silly.
> > It's almost like some practical joke.
>
> Ant I felt the same way about the old method. What could be sillier than
> moving my reading material down to move down. Now I read my screens the
> same way I read my newspaper.

Actually, the old way *is* moving the material up, look again.

There are all sorts of models, not particularly logically compelling,
for thinking about scrolling. Much is a matter of what people get used
to. There are no really good arguments on either side about what is
more natural. There is nothing natural about scrolling, your hunter
gatherer ancestors never indulged in such geekery.

Some common window roller blind is weighted on its bottom so it
naturally opens full. The cord that pulls it up is often pulled down.
As on the ones I have made. If there was writing on the blind that
started at the top and the blind was very long and the writing much,
and if there was a short viewport through which one had to look to
read, it would not be unnatural to pull the cord down to pull the
blind up or, what is the same thing here, to read more and more, down
and down.

If you could operate the material of the blind directly, of course,
you would push it up to read down. This is a different causal model.
In the iWorld, of course, we can go any which way, there is nothing in
electronic behaviour that can serve as any sort of familiar model.
Whatever we are used to or can easily get used to. It is wrong to
think there is some one model that is right or natural.

--
dorayme

[John Young]

In article <slrnjtt9fi...@krismbp.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <jrm5vq$jrt$2...@dont-email.me>

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 06-17-2012 19:23, Andy Hewitt wrote:
> >> FWIW, in my experience of helping the old fogies with their various
> >> computer problems, this is actually a good thing. The amount of times I
> >> have to fix stuff because they've been fiddling with things they're not
> >> meant to, and haven't got a clue what they do. The more things you can
> >> hide away from them, the better, IMHO.
>
> > That has little if anything to do with it. Turning off those icons
> > does NOT prevent anyone from clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock.
>

> That doesn't open the root of the hard drive. It opens the home folder.

Then just put the hard drive in the dock. It works fine. On a mac pro
you could have all four internal drives in the dock.

[John Young]

In article <michelle-23219D...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <jrm5t2$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
> > Far more likely the default was changed because they discovered more
> > people liked it that way than not. I know _I_ for one always turned off
> > those icons as soon as the machine came my way.
>

> Me too; the only ones I show on the desktop are CDs, DVDs, and iPods.

Me too..but I do keep my main hard drive, Home folder, Downloads and
Misc. other folders in the dock.

I don't think its wrong to do it what ever way one wants.

[Paul Sture]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:25:48 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

> Scroll bars are hardly necessary these days (except as an indicator that
> content is taller/wider then the window). If you have a proper mouse,
> such as a Might Mouse, then you can scroll the content with the mouse
> pea - even if the window is in the background and the scroll bars are
> hidden.

I still find that size indicator useful. Maybe time will change that. I
have noticed quite recently that I get frustrated when I come across a
mouse without a scroll wheel. It never used to bother me.

One problem I still run across in various apps is that I have to click on
the desired window pane to focus it before the scroll wheel will work in
that pane. Using the traditional scroll bar arrows gives you that focus
straight away.

[Mr. Strat]

In article <eIWdnU89g9gWo0PS...@earthlink.com>, Ant
<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Hi!

>
> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on

> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
> change this design? :(

Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop? I've always thought
it to be useless clutter. But you can get it back through Finder
Preferences.

[Andy Hewitt]

Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <4fde68d9$0$1722$c3e8da3$b135...@news.astraweb.com>

> Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My next thought was that they (Apple) had just set those prefs back to
> > zero. Which was the case. Lion works. The scroll bars are just silly.
> > It's almost like some practical joke.
>

> The scroll bars are silly if you are using a mouse or scroll wheel, they
> make perfect sense if you are using a trackpad. I really wish that Apple
> would treat a scroll wheel differently than a trackpad, because I always
> scroll the 'wrong' way on the Trackman, but the 'right' way on the Magic
> Trackpad.

I use both here, trying to share the load to prevent RSI.

I disagree, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have no trouble with
using a scroll action for either device in the traditional fashion.

I guess I see it as wanting to look further down the page, rather than
moving the page up.

However, I also naturally find it OK on an iPod Touch too.

I suppose I automatically expect a particular device to act in a certain
manner, and simply operate it accordingly.

--
Andy Hewitt
<www.andy-hewitt.me.uk>

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

On 12-06-17 5:34 PM, PhillipJones wrote:

> They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
> also what shows in the sidebar.

I'm sure you are aware of Folder Bundles. These are things that are
folders at the Unix level, but appear as single files in the Finder and
in file browsers. The most common example are folders with the name
".app". It is possible to explore these in the Finder by right-clicking
on them and selection "View Package Contents".

What does that have to do with your point? Well, I'd like to ask you
whether you think Apple is treating people like "bunch of dumbasses and
will screw up their computers if they look inside" the apps?

What about hiding /etc and /var in the Finder? What about hiding file
names that begin with "." in the Finder?

Computer systems have concealed stuff from users for a long time. (For
example, the file names beginning with "." is a Unix tradition that goes
back nearly 40 years). There have always been options that more
advanced users can use to see these things, but by default they are
hidden from view. One reason is to discourage people from messing about
with those things; but another, more important, reason is to reduce
clutter of things that most people rarely use.

I think that the reaction that you have with this particular one is that
things have changed. For people who've been using this sorts of systems
for a while, we are extremely comfortable with what we know. But we
should expect that "power users" will have to set specific options to
see things that are ordinary concealed.

Cheers,

-j


--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[John Young]

In article <180620120558395757%r...@nospam.techline.com>,

Don't have to be a need! Most of the things I do are wants.

[Warren Oates]

In article <1klw2kr.udzfflx3xdfN%use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk>,

use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

> I use both here, trying to share the load to prevent RSI.
>
> I disagree, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have no trouble with
> using a scroll action for either device in the traditional fashion.
>
> I guess I see it as wanting to look further down the page, rather than
> moving the page up.
>
> However, I also naturally find it OK on an iPod Touch too.
>
> I suppose I automatically expect a particular device to act in a certain
> manner, and simply operate it accordingly.

I got used to the new scroll-wheel direction very quickly; it's like
driving in England I guess.

Here in MTNW however, where one can use the scroll wheel to move through
the messages, "down" means "next message" to me, while "up" means
"previous message." The opposite is a bit counter-intuitive. But I'll
get over it.
--

... do not cover a warm kettle or your stock may sour. -- Julia Child

[Matthew Lybanon]

In article <slrnjtt9di...@krismbp.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <jrm5t2$jrt$1...@dont-email.me>

> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > On 06-17-2012 18:34, PhillipJones wrote:
> >> They are dumbing down computers. the new breed of Programmers at apple
> >> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
> >> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
> >> also what shows in the sidebar.
>
> > You know as well as I do that Apple is completely cognizant that the
> > users of computers ARE looking inside their hard drive whenever they do
> > anything.
>

> No, most users have absolutely no idea what a hard drive is or how their
> files are stored. Their documents get saved somewhere, and if they are
> lucky they are able to find them in the same app the next time they need
> it. If not, they use spotlight. But trust me, most users are not opening
> up their hard drive, and if they do, they get very confused.

Is the Mac OS becoming more like Windows (in the way people use it)?

I have a friend who has a Ph. D. and taught computer science at the
university level. She frequently complained that Windows sometimes just
put files where it wanted, frequently in places where she had a hard
time finding the files. In her view it was a design philosophy:
Windows knows what to do, and you don't have to worry about it, honey.

A typical result of that philosophy: Another person I know (who uses a
Windows box) has a vague idea that, for example, an image is "in" the
program that saved it on her computer, so of course that program (though
she would never use a high-tech word like "program") can find it. As
for trying to find it independently of that program (which I sometimes
needed to do when this person asked me to perform some processing she
didn't know how to do), that's different.

I'm sorry to see that Apple is starting to adopt that same philosophy.
I used to have the idea that the Mac OS, while containing many features
that made life easy for users, didn't actively try to discourage users
from knowing what was going on. I'm not sure that's still true.

[Andy Hewitt]

Warren Oates <warren...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1klw2kr.udzfflx3xdfN%use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk>,
> use...@andy-hewitt.me.uk (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
> > I use both here, trying to share the load to prevent RSI.
> >
> > I disagree, at least as far as I'm concerned. I have no trouble with
> > using a scroll action for either device in the traditional fashion.
> >
> > I guess I see it as wanting to look further down the page, rather than
> > moving the page up.
> >
> > However, I also naturally find it OK on an iPod Touch too.
> >
> > I suppose I automatically expect a particular device to act in a certain
> > manner, and simply operate it accordingly.
>
> I got used to the new scroll-wheel direction very quickly; it's like
> driving in England I guess.

Oh yes, I'm very used to that ;-)

> Here in MTNW however, where one can use the scroll wheel to move through
> the messages, "down" means "next message" to me, while "up" means
> "previous message." The opposite is a bit counter-intuitive. But I'll
> get over it.

You don't have to stick with it of course, you can change the scroll
direction.

--
Andy Hewitt
<www.andy-hewitt.me.uk>

[Jolly Roger]

In article <michelle-880137...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <a48ov6...@mid.individual.net>,

> Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>
> > Computer systems have concealed stuff from users for a long time. (For
> > example, the file names beginning with "." is a Unix tradition that goes
> > back nearly 40 years). There have always been options that more
> > advanced users can use to see these things, but by default they are
> > hidden from view. One reason is to discourage people from messing about
> > with those things; but another, more important, reason is to reduce
> > clutter of things that most people rarely use.
>

> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?

Perhaps Apple feels ~/Library is likely more exposed to the majority of
users.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[nospam]

In article <michelle-880137...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?

that's where app sandboxes live, but you're right, there's less of a
need to poke in the main library or system folders than there is the
user's library, so they should hide all of them if they're going to
hide stuff.

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<jrm76g$mno$1...@news.albasani.net>
> PhillipJones<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>> unlike most people. I don't use the documents folder for anything. There
>> are some applications that write items to documents Folder. But
>> otherwise its not used. ( too many eggs in one basket).I use the Hard
>> drive as File cabinet and have many folders so I open the hard drive I
>> am presented with various directories (Folders) I have created. with in
>> those are files. here is a small sample:
>
>> https://skitch.com/pjonescet/ebm8a/macbook-pro
>
> Why can't you do the same thing with your Documents folder? Or any
> folder? What advantage do you get from putting all those files at the
> root of the desktop?
>
> Jeez, I didn't even do that back in the System 7 days.
>

I've always done that since System 6. Just more logical that way.
Folders and Files are much easier find. And items such as my local
copies of Web site files go through one less layer directories(folders)
when uploading files to Web site.

Instead of Hard Drive/Public_HTML/ .... /....

Hard Drive/Documents/Public_HTML/ .... /....

You'll remove one layer of Directories that could cause problems You
want to use as small of layers that can issues.

Putting things in Documents just add a layer of complications.

[JF Mezei]

John Young wrote:

> I don't think its wrong to do it what ever way one wants.

Exactly. So why is Apple not preserving one's settings and trying to
impose a new way to work ?

[PhillipJones]

I to am sorry to see Apple adopting MS way. One thing that drew me to
Apple other than reliability; was the ability to set up everything exact
the way *you* want it. Now there is little control left. Sad, very sad. :-(

[PhillipJones]

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article<a48ov6...@mid.individual.net>,
> Jeffrey Goldberg<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>

>> Computer systems have concealed stuff from users for a long time. (For
>> example, the file names beginning with "." is a Unix tradition that goes
>> back nearly 40 years). There have always been options that more
>> advanced users can use to see these things, but by default they are
>> hidden from view. One reason is to discourage people from messing about
>> with those things; but another, more important, reason is to reduce
>> clutter of things that most people rarely use.
>

> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?
>

I've wondered about that. messing around in the Main Library is far more
dangerous. and leaving system Directory unhidden is even more Dangerous.

Screw up items in the Home Library Screws up applications not
necessarily the system.

[JF Mezei]

Michelle Steiner wrote:

> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?

I believe (but haven't tested) that any user can change his ~/library
without management password, but to make changes to /library, you need a
password.

So /library can remain visible because odinary users can't damage it.

This is security by obscurity, of course. It will take years to undoe
some of Steve Jobs quirks and weird decisions.

[Lloyd]

In article <4fdf6783$0$49764$c3e8da3$66d3...@news.astraweb.com>,

That's a fair question. Only Lion took the drive icon away by default.

[Bread]

On 2012-06-18 13:07:44 +0000, Tim Streater said:

> In article <llf3b9-...@mint-hp.chingola.ch>,
> Paul Sture <paul....@sture.ch> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:25:48 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>>> Scroll bars are hardly necessary these days (except as an indicator that
>>> content is taller/wider then the window).

>> I still find that size indicator useful. Maybe time will change that.
>> I have noticed quite recently that I get frustrated when I come across
>> a mouse without a scroll wheel. It never used to bother me.
>
> Er yes it's useful to that extent. But I barely use it for actual scrolling.

They're also very useful if you want to scroll a lot - a big distance.
Swiping repeatedly is just silly when you can just drag and be done.

Swiping to scroll *incrementally* makes perfect sense. But it's not
enough. First thing I do with Lion is turn on display of scrollbars.

Frankly, I wish I could turn them on full-time on the iPad, too.

[John Varela]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:05:15 UTC, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> I have a few things on my desktop, but by the time I
> get to a second column of stuff I file everything away (or delete it).
> Usually there's 2-8 items over there, arranged by modification dates. No
> drives because I almost never need to access the top level of any drive,
> and if I do, I do that via a Finder window anyway.

That's very close to what I do. I don't show any hard drives on the
desktop but I do show CDs and DVDs as a reminder that there's
something in the drive.

I keep one folder in the Dock: spreadsheets. When I open a new
Finder window it opens to the Documents folder.

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:34:43 UTC, PhillipJones
<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:

> the new breed of Programmers at apple
> are assuming the people using Computers are a bunch of dumbasses and
> will screw up their computers if they look inside the hard drive. And
> also what shows in the sidebar.

And they are correct. My wife has been running a Mac for seven years
(and before that she had a Winbox) and she still has no idea what
the Finder is or what one would do with it. That's because there is
nothing she does on a Mac that couldn't be done on an iPad.

--
John Varela

[John Varela]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:25:48 UTC, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> Scroll bars are hardly necessary these days (except as an indicator that

> content is taller/wider then the window). If you have a proper mouse,
> such as a Might Mouse, then you can scroll the content with the mouse
> pea - even if the window is in the background and the scroll bars are
> hidden.

Sometimes. If the document is large, it's a lot faster to grab the
slider and move it than to go turn, turn, turn, turn with a wheel.

--
John Varela

[PhillipJones]

Actually only the System Libraray is that way.

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<jrnoji$t23$1...@news.albasani.net>

> PhillipJones<pjo...@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>> You'll remove one layer of Directories that could cause problems You
>> want to use as small of layers that can issues.
>

> Why? I've never heard this. In fact, on my webserver the path for user's
> web site content is
>
> /www/public/j/s/jsmith/html/
> /www/public/j/d/jdoe/html/
> /www/public/g/w/gwashington/html/
>
> (This is the path system that was first set up back in 1995-1997)

>
>> Putting things in Documents just add a layer of complications.
>

> How?
>
The path to Upload Hard Drive then Public_HTML the what ever Directories
are with Public_html Directory

IF you use Documenets would be home/Documents/Public_html and so on.

[PhillipJones]

Here's a snapshot of my desktop :
https://skitch.com/pjonescet/eb19d/fullscreen

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

On 12-06-18 1:16 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <michelle-880137...@news.eternal-september.org>

> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?
>

> Because /Library and /System are protected with permission. You
> necessarily own the files in your Library, so those files are not
> protected from you mucking them up.

I think it's because an ordinary user is more likely to stumble upon
~/Library than upon /System or /Library. Because the user has to leave
their HOME to get to the latter two, that is already an implicit "don't
fuck with this stuff" warning.

In a sense /System and /Library are already "hidden" by the fact that
the disk icons for /. are no longer on the Desktop or in the Finder
sidebar by default.

I really find it odd that people are complaining because some "power
features" are off by default. If you want to mess with /. then you
should be able to tinker with a few preferences to make it visible.

I've put /. in my Finder sidebar, and I've unhidden ~/Library and I
expect that most people in this group have done the same. But we are the
exceptions. There's nothing wrong with asking the exceptional users to
set things away from the default.

As I said, the systems have been hiding things from users for a long
time, and I don't hear complaints about that. Does anyone think that
apps shouldn't be presented as bundles by default or that file names
beginning with "." should be displayed by default?

If you don't object to those "hidden by default" settings then
complaints about ~/Library or disk icons seem not to be based on
principles about how users are being treated, but instead it's just
about what we've grown accustomed to.

Cheers,

-j


--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read HTML or poorly quoting posts
Reply-To address is valid

[dorayme]

In article <180620120558395757%r...@nospam.techline.com>,
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop?

Perhaps there are other ways of working but having them there is handy
for bringing up their directories when you are working with no
directories open.

--
dorayme

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

On 12-06-18 7:47 PM, Lewis wrote:

> I've left ~/Library hidden. I realized I nearly never go to it directly
> anyway. I either open a folder in it from the terminal, or I use the
> Goto option to open a folder in it.

I have good reason to poke around in ~/Library as I routinely need to
look at what is happening inside containers and what is set in
Preferences files.

But, as I said, I'm atypical. Hiding ~/Library was a minor annoyance to
me that I was able to "fix" more quickly than it takes to complain about
it on Usenet. I think Apple made the right move here.

[Jeffrey Goldberg]

I just use Cmd-N to open a new Finder window. But if you prefer your
way, having some folder or disk on the Desktop or Dock should be good.

[dorayme]

In article <a4a222...@mid.individual.net>,

Jeffrey Goldberg <nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:

> On 12-06-18 5:29 PM, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <180620120558395757%r...@nospam.techline.com>,
> > "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop?
> >
> > Perhaps there are other ways of working but having them there is handy
> > for bringing up their directories when you are working with no
> > directories open.
>
> I just use Cmd-N to open a new Finder window. But if you prefer your
> way, having some folder or disk on the Desktop or Dock should be good.

It is nice when one has a few HDs mounted. For example, one plugs in
various ones for various purposes. They being there on the desktop
reminds one to unmount them when not needed (like when the backup is
done, or the files one needs to load are loaded).

Anyway, what is best is when Mac owners can configure how they like
and not be imposed upon by 19 year old post-modernist developers. When
I become ruler of the world, it will be illegal to be under 40, period.

--
dorayme

[PhillipJones]

Lewis wrote:
> In message<jro7mf$uhc$1...@news.albasani.net>

> I don't understand who this is adding any layer of complication.
>
>> IF you use Documents would be home/Documents/Public_html and so on.
>
> I'm afraid I have completely lost the thread of what you are trying to say.
>

You add the additional directory layer of *Documents* to the upload
string. at some point you hit the file/directory naming length.

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2012 23:52, Lewis wrote:
> In message <jrm5vq$jrt$2...@dont-email.me>
> Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>> On 06-17-2012 19:23, Andy Hewitt wrote:
>>> FWIW, in my experience of helping the old fogies with their various
>>> computer problems, this is actually a good thing. The amount of times I
>>> have to fix stuff because they've been fiddling with things they're not
>>> meant to, and haven't got a clue what they do. The more things you can
>>> hide away from them, the better, IMHO.
>
>> That has little if anything to do with it. Turning off those icons
>> does NOT prevent anyone from clicking on the Finder icon in the Dock.
>
> That doesn't open the root of the hard drive. It opens the home folder.

By default. Also by default, what icons are in the sidebar?


--
Wes Groleau

Can we afford to be relevant?
http://www.cetesol.org/stevick.html

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-17-2012 23:51, Lewis wrote:
>> >You know as well as I do that Apple is completely cognizant that the
>> >users of computers ARE looking inside their hard drive whenever they do
>> >anything.
> No, most users have absolutely no idea what a hard drive is or how their
> files are stored. Their documents get saved somewhere, and if they are
> lucky they are able to find them in the same app the next time they need
> it. If not, they use spotlight. But trust me, most users are not opening
> up their hard drive, and if they do, they get very confused.

Reading error.

--
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
— Clarence Darrow

[Wes Groleau]

On 06-18-2012 13:51, JF Mezei wrote:

> Michelle Steiner wrote:
>> But why hide ~/library, but not /library and /system?
>

> I believe (but haven't tested) that any user can change his ~/library
> without management password, but to make changes to /library, you need a
> password.
>
> So /library can remain visible because odinary users can't damage it.

Well, actually, many users never create a non-admin account. These
users are the ones most likely to change /Library AND the ones least
likely to know what they are doing.

--
Wes Groleau

“In the field of language teaching, Method A is the logical
contradiction of Method B: if the assumptions from which
A claims to be derived are correct, then B cannot work,
and vice versa. Yet one colleague is getting excellent
results with A and another is getting comparable results
with B. How is this possible?”
— Earl W. Stevick

[nospam]

In article <slrnju034k....@krismbp.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > You add the additional directory layer of *Documents* to the upload
> > string. at some point you hit the file/directory naming length.
>

> Do you know what the file/directory naming length is?
>
> I'm guessing that's a big fat "No".
>
> For the record, the maximum filename length is 255 UTF-8 characters in
> OS X and there is *NO* maximum path length.

it looks like the big fat 'no' applies to you.

you are correct that the maximum filename length is 255 characters,
however, you are *completely* wrong about maximum path length.

the maximum path length is 1024 characters and exceeding it can cause
unexpected results, including crashes.

> Easy to test. (sorry about the long lines)

yes it is easy to test, and yet you didn't do it properly.

[nospam]

In article <slrnju04uv....@krismbp.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > the maximum path length is 1024 characters and exceeding it can cause
> > unexpected results, including crashes.
>

> Cite?

look in /usr/include/sys/syslimits.h

% grep PATH_MAX /usr/include/sys/syslimits.h
#define PATH_MAX 1024 /* max bytes in pathname */

% grep NAME_MAX /usr/include/sys/syslimits.h
#define NAME_MAX 255 /* max bytes in a file name */

> There is no limit on path lengths in the HFS+ spec, there is a very old
> TN (from 2004) referenced on some sites, but no longer available at
> Apple, that stated:
>
> "The pathname stored in a symbolic link is assumed to be a POSIX
> pathname, as used by the Mac OS X BSD and Cocoa programming interfaces.
> It is not a traditional Mac OS, or Carbon, pathname. The path is encoded
> in UTF-8. It must be a valid UTF-8 sequence, with no null (zero) bytes.
> The path may refer to another volume. The path need not refer to any
> existing file or directory. The path may be full or partial (with or
> without a leading forward slash). For maximum compatibility, the length
> of the path should be 1024 bytes or less."

it's always helpful when people cite their own proof that they're
wrong. thanks!

> Note the use of *should*.

what about it? that doesn't mean it's unlimited or they would have said
it's unlimited. why cite a number at all?

the 1024 number is obviously PATH_MAX and exceeding it is going to
cause problems.

> Again, there is not maximum path length in HFS+

again, there very definitely is on os x.

> Here's a path well over 1024 characters.
>
> $ pwd
>
> /Users/lewis/1234567...

..snip..

now try to do something with a file or folder that has a path name that
long. it will not work properly and you may or may not get an error.

perform the following test:
in finder, create a folder with a *really* long name. duplicate it and
copy the duplicate into the original folder. open that folder and
repeat, nesting the folders. the closer you get to 255 characters per
folder, the fewer nestings you'll need.

at some point, when the total path length exceeds 1024 characters, the
copy will fail without warning (snow leopard) or generate an error
(lion). in older versions of os x, finder would just crash.

next, put a file with a short name into the deepest folder above
(before the copy fail) and try to rename it to something longer so that
the total path exceeds 1024 (but the file itself is <255). you'll get
an error that the name is too long.

that can only happen if there's a limit, which there is.

[nospam]

In article <slrnju0aom....@krismbp.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > next, put a file with a short name into the deepest folder above
> > (before the copy fail) and try to rename it to something longer so that
> > the total path exceeds 1024 (but the file itself is <255). you'll get
> > an error that the name is too long.
>
> > that can only happen if there's a limit, which there is.
>

> So you're saying that the FINDER has a maximum path length? OK. That was
> not the discussion at all.

nope. i'm saying that os x apps have a limit. finder was just the one i
used to test it.

having a path name that exceeds 1024 in an app that uses cocoa or
carbon will have 'undefined results.'

pick whatever apps you want. you *will* have problems.

> There is still no documented maximum to path length in HFS+ and you can
> still exceed 1024 total characters in a path using Terminal.app.

it's possible that some shell commands might work, but that is their
own doing. if you talk to the filesystem at a low enough level, you can
maintain longer path names yourself. shell commands are also irrelevant
to the vast majority of os x users.

the maximum path length in os x is 1024. exceeding it is not going to
end well.

[Paul Sture]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:28:57 +1000, dorayme wrote:

> There is nothing natural about scrolling, your hunter gatherer
> ancestors never indulged in such geekery.

Er. What do you think they did when sewing animal skins together?

[Paul Sture]

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:27:12 -0400, PhillipJones wrote:

> unlike most people. I don't use the documents folder for anything. There
> are some applications that write items to documents Folder. But
> otherwise its not used. ( too many eggs in one basket).I use the Hard
> drive as File cabinet and have many folders so I open the hard drive I
> am presented with various directories (Folders) I have created. with in
> those are files. here is a small sample:
>
> https://skitch.com/pjonescet/ebm8a/macbook-pro
>
> think of the mess you would have if you just saved files to document
> unsorted What a mess. So I need the Hard Drive on.

I use sub folders in my home directory and create shortcuts to them in
the left hand Finder pane. I can adjust the order of these shortcuts to
suit my current projects.

[Ant]

On 6/18/2012 5:58 AM PT, Mr. Strat typed:

>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>> change this design? :(
>
> Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop? I've always thought
> it to be useless clutter. But you can get it back through Finder
> Preferences.

How do you find and access programs and files then that aren't on/in
dock, desktops, documents, etc.?
--
"Doubts are the ants in the pants of faith, keeping it awake and
moving." --Fredrick Beuchner
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) If e-mailing, then axe ANT from its address if needed.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

[Jolly Roger]

In article <GuSdnZz0hJDP433S...@earthlink.com>,

Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> On 6/18/2012 5:58 AM PT, Mr. Strat typed:
>
> >> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> >> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
> >> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
> >> change this design? :(
> >
> > Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop? I've always thought
> > it to be useless clutter. But you can get it back through Finder
> > Preferences.
>
> How do you find and access programs and files then that aren't on/in
> dock, desktops, documents, etc.?

Spotlight? Launchbar? Finder icon on the Dock? There are lots of ways to
skin a cat.

--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[Jolly Roger]

In article <timstreater-4CBB...@news.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

> In article <jollyroger-80249...@news.individual.net>,

> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <GuSdnZz0hJDP433S...@earthlink.com>,
> > Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/18/2012 5:58 AM PT, Mr. Strat typed:
> > >
> > > >> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
> > > >> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
> > > >> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did
> > > >> Apple
> > > >> change this design? :(
> > > >
> > > > Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop? I've always thought
> > > > it to be useless clutter. But you can get it back through Finder
> > > > Preferences.
> > >
> > > How do you find and access programs and files then that aren't on/in
> > > dock, desktops, documents, etc.?
> >
> > Spotlight? Launchbar? Finder icon on the Dock? There are lots of ways to
> > skin a cat.
>

> And if I know I have an app/utility but can't remember what the little
> bastard is called? If I wanted to type the names of applications I'd use
> DOS. And if I click on the Finder icon in the Duck I don't always get a
> new window opened. Much easier just to double-click the disk icon.

I'm not advocating a specific way over any other. I'm simply answering
the question of alternative methods. There are many, some of which I
obviously didn't mention. One should explore.

[dorayme]

In article <a3f3b9-...@mint-hp.chingola.ch>,

Of course, the point is that they never did all that much through an
indirect causal chain, it was more like touch screen stuff, things
went with the direction of their hands. Besides, I was talking to
before clothes.

But even on unmediated causal activities like clambering up a vine, to
go up, they would put force downwards with their arms. So, even here,
an argument could be made that there is nothing unnatural about doing
down to do up. Which, note, is not the same as an argument to say the
opposite, in general, is not as natural. Pick any model you like,
there are others that give a different result.

The moral of all this is that OS and App Developers should leave it to
the user, and especially if there has been a tradition..., they don't
have the great arguments they might think they have.

--
dorayme

[Bread]

On 2012-06-19 13:27:46 +0000, Ant said:

> On 6/18/2012 5:58 AM PT, Mr. Strat typed:
>
>>> I have been using old Mac OS X 10.5.x and 10.2.x for many years, but
>>> noticed 10.7.x/Lion do not show connected/mounted drives anymore on
>>> desktop. I do see them in Finder, but that's annoying now. Why did Apple
>>> change this design? :(
>>
>> Why do you need the hard drive icon on the desktop? I've always thought
>> it to be useless clutter. But you can get it back through Finder
>> Preferences.
>
> How do you find and access programs and files then that aren't on/in
> dock, desktops, documents, etc.?

I keep an alias to /Applications in the Dock. I keep a few
almost-always-used apps in the Dock. And more often than not, I start
up an application through Spotlight: cmd-space and type a letter or two
of the application's name.

But the first thing I do on a Mac, and have for many years, was make
sure there's an alias to Applications in the Dock, and make sure it's
set to view content as "list" (for the life of me, I can't imagine ever
wanting it to be "grid" or "fan", and since it's been an option, also
to display the folder's icon as a folder rather than a stack. I just
don't get why you'd ever want any other settings for a folder in your
dock, but Apple kindly gives us several options including goofy default
ones).