Best alternative File Manager to Finder? Recommendations please....

[pax-eterna]

I am really missing (and I never thought I'd say that) the operation of the Windows File Manger - a few little things it does easily seems to be a bit of a pain in Finder. So I am asking for recommendations for the best File Manager app for MacOS.

Thanks

PS: I really don't want to go into the why's and wherefores as I really could not be bothered to list out the many little things I find more laborious in MacOS, just app recommendations

 

[Diskutant]

you might want to check this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/best-finder-alternative.2258057/

 

[Bigwaff]

Don't know about the best, but I like and use Path Finder

Cocoatech | Path Finder

www.cocoatech.io

$30/yr is cheap for an application I use all day long, every day. It occasionally goes on sale.

 

[MacGizmo]

@Diskutant Provided the link in his response to the thread that discusses this topic fairly extensively.

The short of it is this:

• Forklift for the every-day type of Mac user
• QSpace for the "pro" user who wants a ton of configuration options
• Almost everyone agrees that Path Finder, while nice looking and a decent feature list is slow, cumbersome, buggy and the developers are non-responsive. They don't appear to be too terribly happy about the pricing, either.
• There are dozens of other apps listed in that thread, but most people consider them short on features, or niche apps at best.

 

[MikeDr206]

I’ve used Path Finder for years and haven’t find it slow, cumbersome, or buggy fwiw.

 

[gilby101]

I am really missing (and I never thought I'd say that) the operation of the Windows File Manger - a few little things it does easily seems to be a bit of a pain in Finder. So I am asking for recommendations for the best File Manager app for MacOS.

Sound like you are really asking for the best file manager that behaves like Windows Explorer? If so, that is the wrong way to look at using a Mac. Look forward to what macOS enables, rather than looking back at what you are used to. In other words, go with the Mac way of doing things.

you might want to check this thread: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/best-finder-alternative.2258057/

There are good posts in this thread, but the problem I have is that it starts with the premise that "Finder is bad", so something else must be better. I think that premise needs to be questioned.

My own position is that once you customise Finder, you can do things that are not available in the any of the alternatives. I am thinking of:

• Adding Quick Actions, either provided by an app (e.g. OwlOCR) or created with a simple Automator action.
• Using Context Menu to create custom actions tailored to specific file types.

And for side-by-side windows I use Keyboard Maestro (but Automator could do it) to create layouts with multiple Finder windows.

So, I am in the "Finder is good, make it better" camp. But I may be a lone voice.

 

[H_D]

Forklift. Maybe because I used Norton Commander and Servant Salamander on Dos and Win way back, but it really is a great tool with allllmost nothing lacking

 

[MacGizmo]

There are good posts in this thread, but the problem I have is that it starts with the premise that "Finder is bad", so something else must be better. I think that premise needs to be questioned.

That's a great point. For me, I would prefer to use the Finder – but the primary reason I don't is that Apple's implementation of (SMB) file sharing with external servers is god-awful.

Just clicking on a file icon that is located on a server (when I'm connected via a VPN) can sometimes take 10 seconds before I'm able to do anything at all in the Finder. Copying and opening files suffer from a few seconds to a full minute delay depending on the file type and size. Opening folders is intolerably slow. This problem ONLY exists when using a VPN to connect to external servers. And it renders my entire Mac virtually useless to me. File access in general to external servers via VPN is just garbage.

When I first started exploring these Finder alternatives, I found that ALL of them resolve the problem almost completely. So my use-case for Finder Alternatives is simply to use something that is as close to using the Finder as possible. For me, that's Forklift, for others QSpace, and for some PathFinder. For a few people, it's just installing a small utility that adds the Folder Tree feature from Windows to the Mac sidebar.

 

[dhershberger]

I use Commander One when I need more functionality than Finder provides.

 

[subzento]

+ 1 Vote For The Commander One. Various file management features and many others like FTP client or Archiver.

 

[solouki]

Hi all,

A couple years back I found that Finder, Apple's GUI's Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, AirDrop, Universal Control, and even Apple's Terminal commands "tar" and "cp" miss certain files, i.e., they don't copy or transfer all files, in other words. Because of this, I never use any of these utilities to copy/transfer files, and mostly just rely on GNU/Linux/Homebrew shell commands in the Apple Terminal to perform almost all file tasks that I require (through use of shell scripts, mostly).

I was wondering if anyone has found that any of these third party "Finder" replacements also "miss" some files -- I suspect that they do, since Apple's own underlying utilities like "tar" and "cp" miss some files?

Solouki

 

[svenmany]

This is really just going to be a repeat of the thread that @Diskutant mentioned. That thread is still active and often on the front page of MacRumors. I guess a clean slate can be refreshing.

Finder is inadequate for my needs. Mainly it's the inadequate sidebar and the lack of dual panes. Regarding the sidebar...

- Mounted network shares don't appear there (though the computer that offers the shares does). Perhaps I'm missing some setting somewhere. Generally I have to count on the desktop icon of the share to convenient access it. There are some workarounds, like keeping /Volumes in the sidebar. But, it's a simple thing that Finder doesn't bother to offer.

- Favorites can't be renamed. I've had situations that I wanted two identically named files as favorites: /a/b/c/name and /x/y/z/name. Both favorites showed up as "name" and couldn't be distinguished.

- You can't add new groups of favorites to the sidebar so that you can better organize things.

Honestly, both Forklift and QSpace have sidebars that demonstrate all that Finder's is missing.

I think QSpace is the bee's knees. But honestly, without the OP explaining what features they are missing (which they've said they don't want to do), it's hard to recommend a particular Finder replacement.

 

[Diskutant]

A couple years back I found that Finder, Apple's GUI's Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, AirDrop, Universal Control, and even Apple's Terminal commands "tar" and "cp" miss certain files, i.e., they don't copy or transfer all files, in other words.

What files are missing when using Finder to copy something?

 

[solouki]

What files are missing when using Finder to copy something?

Hi Diskutant,

The Finder not only does not show any file whose name begins with "._", but any file beginning with these two characters is not tar-ed by Apple's tar command (they are just left out), nor are they copied/transferred by Drag-n-Drop, AirDrop, Universal Control, Cut-n-Paste, nor cp, even when these "._*" files are inside a directory whose name does not begin with "._" and it is this outer directory that you are copying/transferring.

Personally, I would call this a bug.

Fortunately, it turns out the the GNU/Linux/Homebrew version "gtar" does archive such "._*" files (and Apple's "tar" used to do so also, but this changed a few years ago). Also, "rsync" does properly transfer "._*" files, so I always use "gtar" and "rsync" to copy/transfer any directory/file under macOS. Since these files are not recognized by the Finder, I suspect that Time Machine also doesn't back them up, but I haven't tested this as I don't use Time Machine.

A couple years back I tested most all of the utilities for copying/transferring files, such as ditto, dd, cp of an SMB mounted volume, rsync, pax, shar, zip, scp, sftp, tar, gtar, Finder Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, AirDrop, Universal Control Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, etc. and found inconsistent results with the Finder utilities never working and the other utilities being inconsistent --- thus I settled on using only Homebrew's gtar and rsync which always copied/transferred all files and directories.

Most likely you probably don't care about such files beginning with "._", but they are used in the Windows OS and I have found that some databases and their apps also use these filenames.

Solouki

 

[svenmany]

Hi Diskutant,

The Finder not only does not show any file whose name begins with "._", but any file beginning with these two characters is not tar-ed by Apple's tar command (they are just left out), nor are they copied/transferred by Drag-n-Drop, AirDrop, Universal Control, Cut-n-Paste, nor cp, even when these "._*" files are inside a directory whose name does not begin with "._" and it is this outer directory that you are copying/transferring.

Personally, I would call this a bug.

Fortunately, it turns out the the GNU/Linux/Homebrew version "gtar" does archive such "._*" files (and Apple's "tar" used to do so also, but this changed a few years ago). Also, "rsync" does properly transfer "._*" files, so I always use "gtar" and "rsync" to copy/transfer any directory/file under macOS. Since these files are not recognized by the Finder, I suspect that Time Machine also doesn't back them up, but I haven't tested this as I don't use Time Machine.

A couple years back I tested most all of the utilities for copying/transferring files, such as ditto, dd, cp of an SMB mounted volume, rsync, pax, shar, zip, scp, sftp, tar, gtar, Finder Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, AirDrop, Universal Control Drag-n-Drop, Cut-n-Paste, etc. and found inconsistent results with the Finder utilities never working and the other utilities being inconsistent --- thus I settled on using only Homebrew's gtar and rsync which always copied/transferred all files and directories.

Most likely you probably don't care about such files beginning with "._", but they are used in the Windows OS and I have found that some databases and their apps also use these filenames.

Solouki

I use QSpace Pro. I created a folder named "f1", containing a file named "._hello". I then tested drag-and-drop, copy/paste, and cut/paste of that folder. In all cases the file was preserved.

 

[solouki]

I use QSpace Pro. I created a folder named "f1", containing a file named "._hello". I then tested drag-and-drop, copy/paste, and cut/paste of that folder. In all cases the file was preserved.

Cool! Thanks. Glad to hear that other GUI "Finder" replacements do the right thing.

I sent this view/copy/transfer issue to Apple as a bug report years ago, but never heard back from them.

 

[svenmany]

Cool! Thanks. Glad to hear that other GUI "Finder" replacements do the right thing.

I sent this view/copy/transfer issue to Apple as a bug report years ago, but never heard back from them.

You know, I just checked. Finder works fine too. Perhaps they fixed it or I didn't quite understand the problem.

-- edit --

But, I checked tar and I see the problem you describe.

 

[rin67630]

I am really missing (and I never thought I'd say that) the operation of the Windows File Manger

You will not find any replacement on macOS that works like Explorer.
Because every file manager has to build on Finder and use it under the hood.

The only way I know, is to use the explorer of Wine (which can access the files on macOS as well)
It looks a bit antiquated, but works exactly like Explorer:

 

[svenmany]

Because every file manager has to build on Finder and use it under the hood.

Could you provide a reference to back that up? I don't believe it's true.

Certainly Wine and its explorer can access the file system and render windows as you've shown. Other applications can do the same. Certainly Commander One looks nothing like Finder.

 

[jlc1978]

QSpace seems interesting but one feature I miss is Default FolderX opening folder in the existing window, not a new one. FL/PF do that and it makes file transfer easier.

 

[svenmany]

QSpace seems interesting but one feature I miss is Default FolderX opening folder in the existing window, not a new one. FL/PF do that and it makes file transfer easier.

What is that? I have ForkLift 4 trial; I'd like to check that out.

 

[rin67630]

Could you provide a reference to back that up? I don't believe it's true.

It is just the way every OS is working.
Their home file manager has rights and an interaction to the kernel that are specific to them.

 

[svenmany]

It is just the way every OS is working.
Their home file manager has rights and an interaction to the kernel that are specific to them.

There are lower level API's that Finder and other file manager programs use; ways to access the filesystem, for example. But Finder is working at a higher level. I don't think other file managers have to make use of Finder API's. I could write a really basic file manager without any knowledge of Finder. Simply ask yourself how the Wine Explorer you mentioned gets around the issue.

When I use Debian, I choose which file manager I want to use. They each give a completely different experience. These days I'm quite partial to Dolphin. None of them is depended on by the others. You can install just the file manager you want and not install any other.

 

[rin67630]

There are lower level API's that Finder and other file manager programs use; ways to access the filesystem, for example. But Finder is working at a higher level. I don't think other file managers have to make use of Finder API's. I could write a really basic file manager without any knowledge of Finder.

I was speaking about those APIs. They carry the very philosophy behind Finder: each column has a single level.

Simply ask yourself how the Wine Explorer you mentioned gets around the issue.

I suppose that Wine makes a "remote" access to the file system?

When I use Debian, I choose which file manager I want to use. They each give a completely different experience.

They have different presentations, but work pretty much all the same way than Explorer.
MacOS is fundamentally different.

 

[solouki]

You know, I just checked. Finder works fine too. Perhaps they fixed it or I didn't quite understand the problem.

-- edit --

But, I checked tar and I see the problem you describe.

Whoa! I'll check Finder to see if it works for me now or not. (I haven't used Finder for the last few years because of this issue.)

Well ... it's now even worse in my humble opinion because Finder is now inconsistent, let me explain.

I created a new directory named "Testing" and in this directory I created a new file named "._test-finder.txt".

If I use Finder to Copy-n-Paste the "Testing" directory to a new location, then the directory is copied but the copied directory does NOT contain the file named "._test-finder.txt". On the other hand, if I Drag-n-Drop the original "Testing" directory to a new location, then in the new location the "Testing" directory still does contain the "._test-finder.txt" file.

In summary, as of today under macOS 14.3.1 the Finder's Copy-n-Paste misses "._*" files while the Finder's Drag-n-Drop does not miss these files.

I still have the results of all of the tests that I performed a few years back, and when I checked these old results, both of the above tests failed to copy/transfer "._*" files, so it appears that Apple has fixed one problem but not the other problem --- thus the results using Finder are now inconsistent. It was bad enough that Apple's Finder missed these "._*" files before, now Finder is inconsistent in its behavior --- sometimes missing "._*" files and sometimes not. Makes me worry about how other utilities might be altered.

I'll have to repeat all of my earlier tests of all of the ways to view/copy/transfer files.

Again, as of today, both the Homebrew "gtar" and "rsync" do NOT miss files when copying/transferring. I thus recommend that one employ these utilities for now to copy/transfer directories/files and we'll see how Apple alters the behaviors of their other utilities in the future (of course, only if you use Windows files or certain databases that employ "._*" filenames).

Thanks,
Solouki