Talk:Finder (software)

Untitled

Note: the interesting bits of this talk page are at the bottom, so scroll down... GaelicWizard 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Old Conversations

I figure since I did such an extensive rewrite of this page I might as well start a Talk page to keep track of what else should be changed here. I'd love to add some screenshots of current and older versions of the Finder here, highlighting some of the mentioned features. Is that possible? Legal?

Screenshots are definitely legal under "Fair Use" guidelines, as far as I know. I've just added a screenshot of the Finder in OS X 10.3. I'll go back and add one of OS 9, but it's a pain to reboot so I won't do it right now. ;-) -- Dan Carlson 01:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

I removed the paragraph that discussed the "spatial mode" of the 10.3 Finder. I can find no reference to this either within the 10.3 Finder itself, nor anywhere within Apple's documentation on their website. If it exists at all, maybe it's something that requires a command line or plist hack to enable, since there certainly isn't any obvious user interface to the feature. Or maybe it was a beta option that was removed from the final build? Also, column view has been available in the OS X Finder since the DP1 release, so that's not new in 10.3 either. Graham 04:21, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the "spatial mode" is referring to the ability to add "aliases" to the sidebar? That's sort of a spatial mode, in that it provides quick shortcuts to various areas of your hard drive. However, since Apple doesn't refer to it in that way, and there's no definitive way of referring to it in those terms, I agree that it doesn't really belong. -- Dan Carlson 23:04, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's a reference to the 10.3 Finder's behavior when you push the little white pill in the top-right corner of the window. Not only does the brushed-metal appearance go away, but the Finder's behavior changes to something that is consistent neither with the NeXT-file-browser behavior of the normal windows nor the classic Finder behavior. It's a total mess. Those who never liked or "got" the classic Mac finder claim that the OS X finder now has the best of both worlds. (These are the same people who seem to think that the classic "Label" feature has been "restored" in 10.3, or who think the Dock is the greatest thing since Microsoft Bob). One exposition of this is here in macobserver. I provide this only so you can understand what the people who talk about the "spatial mode" are talking about. Dpbsmith 23:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, according to the deleted text, "spatial mode" effectively emulates the OS 9.x Finder, using plain Aqua windows (not metal, and with no sidebar) and opening a new window for each opened folder. I know that you can open a new window for a folder by command-double-clicking it, but the resulting window is no different in appearance. From this description, I'd expect to see something in the Finder preferences, but there isn't anything there relating to this. A search of Apple's knowledge base turns up nothing, neither does any of the read-me's. I even have access to some of the beta versions, and they don't mention it either. Seems to be a figment of the poster's imagination! Graham 23:42, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The pill, Graham, the pill. That idiotic little white pill in the top right corner. When you see a little white pill, doesn't it make you think "Gee, I'll bet if I pressed this, it would change the window appearance away from brushed metal, and change all sorts of random window behavior?" Of course it does. Dpbsmith 00:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My god, you're right!!!! I never even noticed it, let alone tried to click it. In previous versions, this just hid the toolbar, and since I find the toolbar quite useful, I never had any desire to click it. OK, well, I stand humbly corrected and I learned something! To me though, this is terrible interface, simply because it's the ONLY method (it seems) to bring about this way of operation. As a shortcut, then fine, but it should be explicitly spelt out in the prefs or maybe the view options. I'll put something back in the article. Graham 10:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Now I come to play with it a little more, it still means "Show/Hide toolbar", since the similarly named menu command also has the same effect. However, the command is now completely misnamed, because not only does it hide the toolbar, it hides the sidebar, the search box and also completely changes the behaviour and appearance of the Finder! Seems to me like a rush job. I hope they will polish this somewhat in future versions - I still find weird bugs in 10.3 Finder (like the wrong icons suddenly attaching themselves to files), and glaring interface anomalies like this don't help either. Graham 11:04, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article is incorrect, spatial mode is not new in 10.3, the pill did the same thing in 10.2 Edward 21:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Fixed it now. Edward 12:18, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

The article still says that the mode is new in 10.3, but this is not backed up by the source. Also, as discussed by Dpbsmith above, the Finder has no such mode, only a per-window mode. I will remove this sentence if not challenged. Ahltorp (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

I am 99.8% certain that Finder 1.0 did, indeed, allow folders inside folders. It looked and felt like a hierarchical file system. The file system on the MFS diskette itself was flat, and consequently no two files could have duplicate names even if they were inside different folders. I'm frustrated to find no specific reference to this in my 1984 vintage Macintosh manual or MacWorld volume 1 number 1, so I don't think I'm prepared to say anything about it in the article... yet. The references to the hierarchy being "an illusion maintained by the Finder at great cost" referred to whatever it did to simulate a hierarchical view of a flat file system.

Another little historical tidbit. From the very first--or at least, from whatever version of the Finder and OS were current when CE Software's MockWrite desk accessory first appeared, which I believe was late 1984 or early 1985--files that were created by any application would appear automatically in the Finder view within a few seconds of creation, with no special effort needed on the part of the application. This is notable because it was ages and ages and ages before any Windows system did this--I you need to hit F5-refresh in Windows NT, don't know whether this has changed in Win2K or XP. It's also notable because OS X 10.0 through 10.2 did NOT do this; applications were required to send some special notification to the Finder when they created a file, if the appearance was to be updated. This seems to be fixed in 10.3. But for at least three years of OS X, it lacked a fundamental feature that the classic OS had possessed from 1985 or thereabouts. Dpbsmith 23:57, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I only used the MFS system for a short time, so you may be right. I'll see if I can dig up some old documentation, I think I have some somewhere that goes back that far. The Finder update did occur eventually under the older systems, it just would take forever, since the Finder polled for mod date changes once every 10 seconds or so, but would only look at one file at a time, in alphabetical order. So if your open window had 100 files and your file was named "zebedee", it would be over 16 minutes before it refreshed. The active notification (via Applescript) was there to make it hurry up. Bloody silly, and something that Copland (ahem!) promised would fix - there, each file system event was supposed to send messages that other processes (e.g Finder) could hook into to make the interface completely responsive and match the true state of the file system at all times. I still don't find 10.3 all that fast, but it is a lot better than it was before. Graham 10:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, well, don't get me started... On the whole, overall, on a one-to-five mouse scale, or whatever, I like OS X 10.3 about as well as OS 9, but for different reasons. And I very much mourn what I think are all the babies that were unnecessarily thrown out with the bathwater. The OS X Finder feels to me as if it was designed by someone who just didn't "get it," and was working from some marketer's feature list... it feels very left-brained, as if the person who did it really likes emacs. But it's better than Windows and I can live with it.

And extensions instead of type/creator. Don't get me started on that. They don't work. I knew they wouldn't, and despite the long and detailed explanation of how they were going to make it work, they don't. It's a mess. Plus, I've repeatedly asked extensions advocate to explain how they could associate proper file types with the various C++ header files which are required by the C++ standard to have names without any period in them--vector, etc.

Fortunately, the Mac heritage seems to me to live on in the increasing number of very-well-designed Apple applications, iTunes, etc. I see much less visual thinking in the Mac environment than when it was new. It's been a long time since I laughed out loud, as I did the first time I ran an early music-composition program--I think it might have been MusicWorks?--in which for some reason they disabled the volume control in the Control Panel (remember when there was only one Control Panel?) The way they chose to represent this was by (somehow) altering the Control Panel's screen picture so that the portion that had been the volume control was now replaced by a sort of photorealistic picture of a hole in a plaster wall containing an electrical junction box with a couple of bare wires hanging out. Dpbsmith 18:37, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Totally agree about extensions - we are supposed to be moving forwards, not backwards. Extensions are possibly one of the worst ideas ever perpetrated. Surely a mor elegant solution could have been found - in fact, I thought they already had one. Ho hum, you're right that somebody somewhere doesn't get it. MusicWorks was a cool program - there, I've added a potential link to an article about it ;-) It did however, play very fast and loose with the OS, so much so that while it would run on a Mac Plus most of the time, it was a dead duck on anything later, and didn't survive system revs beyond 4.1 or so. Pity, because otherwise I could run it under vMac and take some screen shots. Remember the about box, with the singing notes? This is getting seriously off-topic. Maybe we should take this discussion to one of our user talk pages? Graham 22:17, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For ease of finding, should the redirect to the McNeill comic be at the top (in italics) rather than at the bottom? Since it's all the way at the bottom, and doesn't appear on the table of contents, many people who are looking for the comic may not see it, and think that there is no entry. -FZ 21:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OS9 screenshot

Image:Mac_OS_9_screenshot_2.jpg seems to be downscaled, making the screenshot blurry and of lesser quality. Maybe someone could make a new screenshot for it? --Michiel Sikma 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Correct version number?

There seems to be some dispute over the correct Finder version for Mac OS X 10.4.6. I am on an Intel Mac, and mine says Finder version 10.4.3, not 10.4.4 like everyone else is saying. Is it because the Intel builds are slightly ahead or behind in their build numbers than the PPC builds? — Wackymacs 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Macintosh Finder - reference

Since this is just evidence that the users themselves are critical of the Finder would something like this work well?

Put Away was in System 6, and Eject is there since 1.0.

The Put Away command was in System 6, doing exactly what was described as a System 7 first feature. So I moved the paragraph to the System 6 section and changed another reference in the System 7 section so that it points out that using Put Away to eject/unmount a disk was a new thing in Finder 7.

The article was saying that Finder 5.0 introduced the Eject menu command. Considering that Mac floppy drives didn't have an eject button, how did you expect people in 1984 to eject their disk? With a paper clip? Now seriously, the Eject command was first found in System 1.0, not 5.0!

I removed something about the Finder ejecting the disk only by dragging to the trash which is not true. The whole dragging the disk to the trash should be explained here once and for all.

To eject disks in the original Finder users had to use the Eject command found in the File menu. Doing so would leave grayed out icons for the disk and its files. That enabled users to copy files between multiple disks using a single disk drive. The system software would eject the current disk and ask for another if needed.

To get rid of the grayed out disk icons you had to drag them to the trash can, or restart. Since Finder 1.x didn't let users drag currently inserted disks to the trash, a complete ejection was a two step process:

First select the Eject menu command. That will physically eject the disk, leaving a ghost image. Then, drag the ghost icon to the trash.

More recent versions of the Finder (System 4.1 and up?) combined both actions and enabled dragging a mounted disk to the trash directly to both eject the disk and its virtual representation. Command-shift-1 and command-shift-2 were added in early versions to directly eject disk in drive 1 or 2, but these would still leave a ghost volume.

It wasn't until System 7 with the modified Put Away command that you could do the equivalent of dragging a disk to the trash with a menu command or command key.

The ghosted icon feature doesn't exist in OS X, and completely ejecting and unmounting a disk doesn't require dragging to the trash or using a cryptic command (Put Away). You can either eject via contextual menus, an eject button at the right of the volume icon in the sidebar of a finder window, the eject menu command or the eject key on the keyboard.

There was a "Put back" menu command in System 1 that seems to have identical functionality to the "Put away" command in later systems. Theshibboleth 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Finder replacements and MiniFinder

What does everyone think about making a reference to shareware Finder replacements such as PathFinder and Macintosh Explorer ? Also I think the MiniFinder, being so totally different in user interface ought to have its own article. It was in fact possible to have a bootable floppy that only had the MiniFinder and no regular Finder. Connectionfailure 00:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves me, some of Infocom's larger games, like Trinity, were distributed like that. Probably so that the whole thing would still fit on a bootable 400 KB floppy. (The game itself would probably have been somewhere between 250 and 300 KB.) 62.181.255.64 13:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Simple Finder?

Could somebody with a a lot of experience add some details on the Simple Finder option? Peter S. 13:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Complete Rewrite?

The first paragraph of the article claims that the Finder was completely rewritten for Mac OS X. I seem to remember that Apple deliberately did NOT rewrite the finder specifically to show off that Carbon worked as advertised (almost, at least). GaelicWizard 00:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mac OS X Leopard free.png

Image:Mac OS X Leopard free.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leopard Finder.png

Image:Leopard Finder.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finder 1.1.png

Image:Finder 1.1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finder 10.0.4 screenshot.png

Image:Finder 10.0.4 screenshot.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finder 5.1.png

Image:Finder 5.1.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finder 7.0.png

Image:Finder 7.0.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ColumnBrowseInOSX10.2.8.jpg

The image Image:ColumnBrowseInOSX10.2.8.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Finder608.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use images on Finder (software)

Hi Werieth. A few days ago you made this edit, which removed 4 images and your edit comment was See WP:NFC. These 4 images have been on this article without controversy or debate for over 3 years, with the first image (finder 7) being added in 2006 and the most recent on 2011. On the top of the NFC policy page, it is summarized as: "Non-free content can be used in articles only if: ... #3: It has a valid rationale indicating why its usage would be considered fair use within Wikipedia policy and US law." I believe that the each of the 4 images in question all have good fair use rationale's. Could you provide for me what you would like to see further? Nasa-verve (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC) (PS. I already responded to the deletion templates here.)

WP:NFCC#3 requires minimal usage, we dont need a gallery of non-free screenshots. Werieth (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this. I did some research and the articles for Windows and Mac OS both have a screen shot of the first version of the software and one other intermediate version. How about we compromise and keep 2 out of the 4 historical screenshots? Nasa-verve (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isnt a valid reason. The non-free files are judged on an image by image basis. In that article they cannot be justified. Werieth (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFF shouldn't be the only justification, but I am using it a supporting argument. The core rationale here is that each image has appropriate fair use rationale given. I believe having 2 images of prior versions of the Finder (software) is appropriate to illustrate what is being discussed. So I've analyzed it a different way. In the finder article, 81% of the article (by character count) is dedicated to content about PAST versions of the Finder software. (17611 characters on past versions: V1.0-10.8; compared to 21647 characters for the entire article) If 81% of the article is about PAST versions, I believe it is completely appropriate to provide 2 screenshot fair-use jusitified images of those PAST versions. These rationales follow many WP policies/info pages, including WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE, WP:IMAGERES, WP:Software screenshots, & this section of the WP screenshots page. Nasa-verve (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, your citing non-relevant policies. In this case the only policy that is being applied is WP:NFCC. The article needs a LOT of work. Usage of non-free media isnt a matter of fair use, nor is it a numbers game. Our non-free content policy places the bar for inclusion of non-free media fairly high. The only file that comes anywhere close to meeting the inclusion requirements is File:Finder.png, however that file is almost identical to File:Finder Lion.png which means its not needed. Just because you place a non-free use rationale on a file page doesnt mean that the files usage actually meets WP:NFCC. In this case the files fall far far short of what is needed to meet WP:NFCC Werieth (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You have yet to directly address my main points (percentage of article content, keeping a couple of the images, what you would like to see further, etc.). At this point I believe you are in violation of WP:IAR. I don't usually quote that in debates, but in this case your sticking to a rule is keeping WP from being improved (or in this case, being degraded). You obviously have made up your mind and are unwilling to debate the common sense of all this. I understand you think the bar is set very high for WP:NFCC, but please do not tell me there is not a lot of room for interpretation on this. For instance, I believe minimal usage (WP:NFCC#3) is being met here and you do not. Are you willing to allow me to make my edit of adding back in 2 of the images? Nasa-verve (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To be specific, here are the two I am proposing on keeping: File:Finder10.png (earliest version) and File:Mac OS 9 screenshot 2.png (intermediate)

I won't add these image back in, so they will be deleted within 7 days: File:Finder.png (as you mentioned) and File:Finder 7.0.png Nasa-verve (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Ill address you main point. percentage of article content (means nothing, WP:NFCC is what controls the usage of non-free media). keeping a couple of the images (ignores policy, thus non-argument). As I said the files don't meet WP:NFCC and cannot be re-added. A file must meet all 10 parts of NFCC for inclusion, at this point the article cannot support the files. Im not sticking to a "rule", I'm enforcing a pillar of what wikipedia is based off and part of the Wikimedia Foundation m:Mission in regards to usage of non-free media. Yes the articles look prettier with the files, but prettiness isn't a criteria for usage of non-free media. Werieth (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

And if I really wanted I could gut most of the article for failing to meet the different wikipedia policies. realistically only about 20% of that article as it is, is viable. Werieth (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not personally care about the fact that only 20% of the article is viable (I do agree with you though). I believe users will be provided with a better article by illustrating how the software has progressed over time. I know you are going to cite WP:OTHERSTUFF, but there is normative style on WP, which is why we have style guides, right? Anyways there are many articles which show earlier versions of software and it does more than make it prettier as you state, it helps with the history and appreciation of the software. My opinion, which is why I am pushing on this hard. It seems your position is that WP should have no WP:NONFREE content at all. But let's both sit back a moment together and close our eyes and really contemplate why WP:FURG even exists if we are to not have any WP:NONFREE material on WP. Hmm. Basically, you see that these images do not meet all 10 parts. I believe they do. What more is left to discuss? Nasa-verve (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I propose to move this discussion to Finder (software). If you do not object I will move it after your next reply. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

If you take a look at my uploads you will know that I position isnt that Wikipedia should have zero non-free media, but rather uses need justified and used in a limited capacity. Finder (software) has zero critical commentary, that would justify the non-free media you want to re-add. If you really want to push this, Ill go over Finder (software) and give it a once over. I really doubt you would like the outcome of that, because there would be a lot of unsourced/trivial material removed, and quite a bit tagged for other issues. Give the article an overhaul and rewrite, when the article is in better shape we can revisit the issue. But as it currently stands the article comes no where close to meeting the inclusion requirements for additional non-free media. Werieth (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the WP:NFCR that you post often on: "The primary goal of this policy is to protect Wikipedia's mission to produce content that is perpetually free for unlimited distribution, modification and application by all users in all media. Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between this goal and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia." In that spirit, I am going to re-add the images and you can do your chop. Sounds like a compromise to me. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

That chop will include those files too, they dont meet policy. Werieth (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Here, let me make it easy for you. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: Just wanted to make sure that I came across as being WP:CIVIL this whole time. You can provide the feedback here or on my talk page. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nasa-verve: I was trying not to be a WP:DICK about it, and provide a possible route to a compromise, but you didnt take the hint. Ive gone ahead and pruned the article to comply with the different policies and guidelines, it still needs a good amount of work to improve the article, but I got it started. If at some time in the future the article you think the article is well enough developed to justify additional non-free media we can revisit the issue then. Werieth (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: I saw no route to compromise in your discussion at all. I could not see through the smokescreen of your policy quotes. Nasa-verve (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Nasa-verve: Basically the article needed a complete rewrite, better sources and a lot of help before non-free media should even be discussed. I suggested that we revisit the issue after that happens, but until that happens the files are not going into the article. Werieth (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: I requested a third opinion. Please do not remove the content until the process is complete. Thank you. Nasa-verve (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

leave the cruft out of the article and things will be good. Werieth (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to reference the old content reference and/or link to that specific version in the history. Werieth (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Finder (software) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

@Werieth: and @Nasa-verve: Reading the above discussion and comparing the two given versions, I feel that the main reason those Fair use images don't fulfil WP:NFCC, is because most of the content it originally was supported by, is unsourced in the first place; this is the main problem here. If this article can be expanded with good references, and if these images are relevant to it, then they can be uploaded again. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: Thanks! Okay, I'll carry this forward. Nasa-verve (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Finder (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://homepage.mac.com/chinesemac/earlymacs/#software

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Finder icon macOS Yosemite.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Finder icon macOS Yosemite.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

'Reception'

The section Reception is stupid:

It is no more than a handful of opinions from specific peoples,

OK, they write in magazines but that's not a `reception'.

Reception was just that Apple deliver this as a way to explore the content of your mac and this is what you have.

Should rename at least `Opinion' or `Praise' or whatnot, but rather removed IMO

( Can be condensed in `it's generally praised') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.68.159.242 (talk) 23:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

iPad

No mention of iPad. Maybe that explains why I can't find it on my new 8th generation iPad? What should I use instead? -- Valjean (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

To quote the first sentence of the article:

The Finder is the default file manager and graphical user interface shell used on all Macintosh operating systems.

Emphasis on "Macintosh". iPads aren't Macs, so they don't run a Macintosh operating system, they run an iPad operating system (iPadOS rather than macOS), and they don't have Finder, they have Files. Guy Harris (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that beautiful explanation. I'm new to the Apple world, and I assumed all Apple products use the same OS. -- Valjean (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Similar, but not the same.

The OSes are all based on a UNIX core, Darwin, which is pretty much the same for all of them. There may be some parts conditionally compiled in for some uses but not others, but it's built from the same source code. Some libraries above that layer are also common, such as Core Foundation and the Foundation and Core Data parts of Cocoa.

Other libraries differ; for example, the GUI layer in macOS is the Application Kit (AppKit) part of Cocoa, but in iOS and iPadOS, the GUI layer is UIKit in Cocoa Touch. tvOS and watchOS have some additional different libraries. Guy Harris (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Smart folders

Finder Smart folders are covered in Virtual folder, but should likely be covered here instead. DFlhb (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Smart Folders are, I think, a form of virtual folder, so the currently-small Virtual folder § macOS should remain there. However, Finder should probably also discuss it, in more detail, and Virtual folder § macOS should remain small, and should point to "Finder (software) § Smart Folders" as the main article. Guy Harris (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah; my concern was that Virtual Folder seems to be a Microsoft term (introduced in Vista), so I wasn't sure that article needed to exist (rather than being merged back into File Explorer, and our bits being merged back here). The fact that there were no OS-independent sources in that article for the "virtual folder" terminology was IMO a red flag. But I guess whatever we call it, it's likely notable on its own regardless, so we might as well do as you propose.

edit: looks like it's not a Microsoft term after all! [1] DFlhb (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Graphical user interface shell

graphical user interface shell used on all Macintosh operating systems.

Is in the lead, but my understanding is that this was only true for Classic Mac OS. I'll try to dig up some references and clarify this. DFlhb (talk) 12:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)