The Replace vs. Merge Debacle
From Mark McKenney
Dear Mr. Moore:
I was just reading your Ramblings from Oct
24, 2005. I admit to being primarily a Mac user who uses XP
only at his place of work (because that is all the hospital uses).
I am used to the Mac Finder 'replace' behaviour, but I can
sympathize with anyone who switches after having used what Mr.
Templeton has used for so long.
Unfortunately I believe he assumed that there are computer
'norms' that all software designers should follow. That I believe
is too much to expect in our cosmopolitan world. We 'try' to
standardize, but we still have PAL and NTSC video 'standards', and
I doubt that either will disappear too soon. We have electrical
devices that work fine in the US, but require 'adapters' to plug in
to European power outlets. The same could be said of European
electrical devices trying to plug into US outlets. There are cars
manufactured with steering wheels on both left and right side of
the car (and there are probably some with it in the middle).
We have 2 major measuring systems, metric and English. The
Hubble Space Telescope debacle was a good example of where the
metric/English systems caused a huge error, that cost millions to
correct - i.e. the different engineering parts that worked on the
lens not using the exact same units across all the companies
involved in the manufacturing process.
There are countless other examples where 'standards' would be
nice, but very few times have they had worldwide acceptance. One
example, though not completely accepting, is some of the basics of
the WWW, such as domain naming conventions (i.e. .edu, .gov, etc.),
but even those have undergone modification such that we now have
two domain naming conventions, that I am aware of.
The Mac OS, in my limited experience, has been one of fairly
rigid requirements for software developers to follow certain
conventions for menu displays, keyboard shortcuts, etc. That
certainly hampers the creativity of some programmers, who may have
a 'better' way to do something and thus modify their code to break
some of Apple's rules. For good or bad, that often creates a
program that fails with the next 'update' in the OS, because it
failed to adhere to some Apple programming guideline.
That strictness has made my use of Apple software better,
because it forces programmers to create very similar dialog boxes,
routines, etc., which made each Mac application appear (and to a
certain extent behave) the same from one application to the next.
My lag time in learning a new Mac application is reduced because of
that interface similarity.
So, as unfortunate as Mr. Templeton's experience was, he
admitted to ignoring dialog boxes and assumed that Apple would
follow some 'standard' he designated as being across every other
computer operating system in existence (though some of the
responses showed that Windows has not always had that 'merge'
folder behaviour).
I try not to 'assume' that what I use in the Mac OS X is exactly
the same in XP, and I instead assume things will be different (i.e.
menu choices, dialog boxes, right click options). I have simply
learned to deal with how XP wants me to do things. When I am home,
I do the reverse and do not expect Mac OS X to behave like
XP.
I found a fascinating (and extremely long) discussion reaching
over 160 comments,
Braindead Finder Behaviour, which is full of comments (pro,
con, neutral, etc.) on just what Mr. Templeton dislikes about the
OS X Finder. The web site owner appears to be another 'Mac
Switcher' who was bitten by the 'replace' rather then 'merge'
scenario for his photos.
To be realistic, we have also encountered new Apple behaviour
[that ruffled quite a few 'I used a Mac since the Lisa but this new
X is...], when we went for 9 to X, and I read many a comment from
OS 9 users who had to learn a different way to do something
they had been doing back to the days of OS 7 (or earlier).
I had difficulties also in my transition, but I have persevered
and prefer (99.9% of the time) to be in OS X, rather then go
back to running OS 9 on my Mac.
Yours truly,
Mark McKenney
PS: Your column continues to be a fairly balanced (pro/con)
source of Apple information, and makes my visits to Low End Mac a
pleasure.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this
matter. There actually have been a few cars with the steering wheel
in the middle. One that comes to mind is a (very) limited
production McLaren sports car back in the 80s. I also have a vague
recollection of a Ferrari with a central steering wheel, but that
just may be my imagination.
Anyway, point well taken. Disparate terminological
standards, measurement protocols, and so forth can cause no end of
confusion. I live in Canada, where metric measure has been the
standard for about thirty years (sort of), but lumber and plywood
are still sold in feet and inches, certain foods by the pound, and
many people, at least of my generation, still calculate fuel
economy in miles per gallon. Personally, I can't tell you with any
accuracy my height in centimeters or my weight in kilograms. I
expect I will still be thinking in imperial measure till they carry
me out. However, one adapts where necessary.
Like you, I now prefer OS X. I never found the
learning curve particularly difficult, although there are still
aspects of the Classic user interface that prefer, and I still use
OS 9 regularly on my WallStreet PowerBook. I find switching
back and more than no more of a challenge than alternating between
cars with automatic transmissions and stick shifts.
Glad you enjoy Miscellaneous Ramblings.
Charles
Yes, Mac Finder Copying Is Flawed
From Liam Greenwood
Hi Charles
I have read the comments on Mac Finder Copy
Not Flawed, Just Different From Windows and have to strongly
disagree. I am sure that Finder does work as advertised and always
has - I am not going to put my data at risk by testing it, and I am
glad that you have published the warnings on how careless the
Finder is with data.
Interestingly, Mac OS X doesn't suffer this flaw. If you have 2
directories with data in them you do a recursive copy of one into
the other (cp -R directory1/ destination-directory/). This
copies all the data in directory1 and all it's subordinate
directories into destination-directory. It will overwrite files in
the destination-directory which have the same name as files in
directory1, but it will leave any other files and directories in
destination-directory unchanged.
So in my experience every OS has the same behavior when copying
a directory into an existing directory, including Mac OS X.
The only odd-man out is the Finder. Therefore I would class it as
at least unhelpful, and certainly inconsistent and dangerous
behavior. Nothing should play fast and loose with a user's data,
even if it has done so historically.
Cheers,
Liam
Good point Liam,
One learns something new all the time.
Having been an exclusive Mac user for more than a
dozen years, this issue never registered on me before.
Charles
'Replace' and 'Merge' Have Different
Meanings
From Daniel A. Shockley
Charles,
Here's what I see as the problem for Robert Templeton:
Yes, Mac OS X should have an OS-level option to "merge" two
folders. However, the real problem Robert is dealing with is
that, as is often the case in my experience, Microsoft decided to
add 'useful' side-effects without explicitly stating what they are
doing. Replace means replace. If you are replacing one
folder with another, then the original one should be gone. If you
are offering to instead "merge" the two folders, then the dialog
should say so.
I have often found that Windows users have come to expect to
have memorized what something means, since the dialogs are often
poorly worded, confusing, or just plain wrong (as in this
case).
Robert, the Mac OS will generally tell you what it is going to
do. Believe it. Then you won't have to memorize what does what.
Replacing means the original is gone - look up the word. If
Microsoft doesn't know the English language, and they've taught
Windows users a nonstandard meaning, you can hardly blame
Apple.
That said, I wish Apple would put a built-in merge option for
folders. There are utilities that will do this for you, but it
should be OS-level.
Thank you,
Dan
Apple Should Adopt the Least Destructive
Behavior
From Phil Robberson
Robert is right, of course. Whether dragging one [folder] onto
another of the same name should replace the underlying [folder] or
just merge with it is purely arbitrary, but given that 95% of the
world is accustomed to merging, that should at least be a choice -
if not the default behavior.
I'm a Mac user for 15 years and am used to Mac behavior, but
someone rational and objective would make the least destructive
setting the default. Merge can be undone (though Finder now does
have some undo capability) much more easily than replace.
My 2¢ worth.
Phillip in Japan
Outside Looking
In
Outside
Looking In Podcast
Hi Phillip,
User choice and non-destructiveness are certainly
desirable where one's data are concerned. A built-in file merge
function in the Finder would be cool. in the meantime, I find a
ChronoSync does a good job.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
