Thank you for the support. I've been using windows since it needed to be installed with 20 floppy disks and although windows overall for me was very good. With the exception of windows me/vista/8. I hope I can make a full change into OS X as my main system and still have full control of my files and not have to give that up. I'll try the methods in this thread and come back if I have any problems.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 7 guy goes to OSX and is now LOST
- Thread starter Miltz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank you for the support. I've been using windows since it needed to be installed with 20 floppy disks and although windows overall for me was very good. With the exception of windows me/vista/8. I hope I can make a full change into OS X as my main system and still have full control of my files and not have to give that up. I'll try the methods in this thread and come back if I have any problems.
Hmmm....
It really sounds more like you want a Mac that works like a Windows machine.
You are in for a long, frustrating road.
If absolute control over your files is essential, why not try Linux?
It really sounds more like you want a Mac that works like a Windows machine.
You are in for a long, frustrating road.
If absolute control over your files is essential, why not try Linux?
LMAO... Linux? no no. I really like OS X, I just never used it as my main system before. I always had a Windows 7 64Bit monster ready for my "serious" work. It's a little nerve-racking that some people said I have to give up control of my files. I never realized that before. But, as I said before I'll try the tips and see how it is. I've never heard and pros using linux. I wonder who would it.
If that works for you... Great. But it's not the future of computing. Filing system hierarchies are a legacy of the nuts & bolts of how computers were put together. As a way of organising users' information, it's not great. Far more useful is the means to apply and search for metadata in whatever manner you choose. You want to find those Japanese cat photos you took in 2012? What's the best way to organise that in a hierarchy, YYYY/COUNTRY or CATS/YYYY/MM/DD or JAPAN/YYYY/ANIMALS/CATS ? Or something else.
For most people, the notion of an abstract database of items (let's call them photos) that can be searched is what counts. Searching for 2012 and Japan and Cats should give me what I want to find, regardless of how the photos are stored and maintained by the computer.
If Mac OS was only as smart as Windows 7 image importer then there would be no reason to buy a Mac. You bought the Mac because it is a lot smarter. It keeps your photos in a library. Folders are "so 1990's"
Think of iPhotos, or now Photos are like being a reference librarian where you go up to the dest and ask for what you want and they bring it to you. The old way that Windows used was to sort the books in the library by the date they were purchased by the library and make you find the book yourself
So you need to find that photo you took in 2003 of Mary in San Fransisco. Which folder do you look in? Do you hunt through the 15 years of photos of mary to find the one you took in 2004. Do you look in the 2004 folders or maybe you have folders for each City you have ever been to. This gets really bad when you have 15,000 photos over a ten year span and REALLY bad if you forget both the year and the city and only remember Mary's name. and REALLY REALLY bad if you only remember what she looked like because you did not get the name of the person you shot a street portrait of at that open air market 8 or 11 years ago on the West Coast.
With no data base or search based on keywords you are stuck depending on your own memory.
Then you have the OTHER problem which might be EVEN WORSE...
Let's say you EDIT the image and keep the edited copy for 5 or 8 years then one day you decide you's like to re-crop the image. Can you find the original un-edited camera file? Maybe. But can you simply make a small adjustment or must you start all over? The bestir system are "non-destructive" in that you can "re-do" or "un-do" any change you ever made even 10 years later. I cn make multiple changes and keep many versions and they all trace back to the original camera file.
Apple does all of the above and so do others like lightroom.
Last edited:
Why bother to buy Mac OS? What does it get you that you did not have in the 1990's.
You need to think about better methods that can scale up to tens of thousands of images. The best analogy is to think about a public library. The stack books based on a rather arbitrary number or the authors last name. But you always use the card catalog to find the book. You would rarely know to just go to the 503.112b shelf first. This is how modern system work. They make catalogs for you based on many different things, time, location, face recognition, your notes and then you hunt using this. It is not hard to learn or understand.
One other question: Do you care what physical disk sector or track a file is stored on. Or what if the file is split over several noncontiguous tracks on the disk. I assume you don't care. But WHY don't you care? Because you'd never hunt for photos that way. But why care about folders? What maters is that you can find what you want later.
I make a living from photography.
I personally use Lightroom to import and manage my stuff. I have photoshop set up as an external editor. You can very simply flick between the two programmes. This is a flawless system, fast, efficient and easy to manage. Lightroom also puts your photos in a more widows like structure, as aposed to a hidden package like in OS X.
If I were you I would investigate this option rather than dismissing Lightroom.
You can use iPhoto or photos in a similar way to this, but right clicking on the library package to access the photos instead.
The best way for you, in my opinion, would be to use image capture (built in to OS X). This way you can set up your own folder structure exactly how and where you want to.
I personally use Lightroom to import and manage my stuff. I have photoshop set up as an external editor. You can very simply flick between the two programmes. This is a flawless system, fast, efficient and easy to manage. Lightroom also puts your photos in a more widows like structure, as aposed to a hidden package like in OS X.
If I were you I would investigate this option rather than dismissing Lightroom.
You can use iPhoto or photos in a similar way to this, but right clicking on the library package to access the photos instead.
The best way for you, in my opinion, would be to use image capture (built in to OS X). This way you can set up your own folder structure exactly how and where you want to.
Maybe someone in this thread can help with with this issue too... I asked in the OS X forum but no one responded yet.
"I have a new rMBP 13" and I have it connected to a Dell 27" monitor with a Default resolution of 2560x1440. The problem is when I use only the external it defaults to 2560x1440 and everything is too small, especially in photoshop and other programs. Now when I used mirrored mode it actually scales the display very nicely and the 27" monitor is usable again(without any loss of image quality), but when I close the lid, it goes back to native 2560x1440. So since I don't know OS X like the back of my hand yet, how can I get OS X to use it's scaled features on my external dell display without having to leave my lid open on my laptop and use both displays. I'm sure it's a easy fix."
"I have a new rMBP 13" and I have it connected to a Dell 27" monitor with a Default resolution of 2560x1440. The problem is when I use only the external it defaults to 2560x1440 and everything is too small, especially in photoshop and other programs. Now when I used mirrored mode it actually scales the display very nicely and the 27" monitor is usable again(without any loss of image quality), but when I close the lid, it goes back to native 2560x1440. So since I don't know OS X like the back of my hand yet, how can I get OS X to use it's scaled features on my external dell display without having to leave my lid open on my laptop and use both displays. I'm sure it's a easy fix."
I'll repeat what others have said, you need to think differently when using a Mac. Like you I used Windows for too many years. Left it when I retired 3 years ago and haven't missed it one bit. If you try to do things the Windows way you will miss out on a lot.
David Pogue's book "Switching to the Mac" was the most useful reference for me making the transition. It takes common Windows tasks and shows the Mac way.
Let me ask a question about your other tasks: when downloading emails do you put each email into a folder structure or do you just let the email client handle it? I suspect you let the email client handle it. Why should pictures be any different than emails? Why care exactly where they are stored as long as you can get to them. If you use Microsoft Office are you aware that the docx and xlsx files are packages with various folders and files inside them?
If that's the case, then why -- if I right-click on a .docx or .xlsx file -- is there no option "Show Package Contents?"
OS X doesn't know about the package format, only MS Office. It's actually a zip file. If you rename it to .zip and then extract it you will see all the stuff in there. Here's a spreadsheet with lots of charts in it:
Attachments
I have used a few OS's in my time and I find absolutely nothing wrong with the directory/file format AND using search tools that might be based on meta information. There is no reason that an app on Mac can't do this. As someone else pointed out, Lightroom (and some other apps) somewhat continues this structure and it certainly isn't a Windows only way of doing business.
As for me, I prefer to know the "location" of files and also enjoy doing meta searches when the need arises. When many use iTunes, it too uses a folder/file structure and you can orient it the way you want or let iTunes create the structure. Photos for some are no different as are any other type of end user files where direct(folder)/file structure has its perks.
Last - often I find that people who are more oriented towards structure and location are more likely to fix problems as they arise as opposed to let the OS or app do everything and hope for the best when a problem occurs.
As for me, I prefer to know the "location" of files and also enjoy doing meta searches when the need arises. When many use iTunes, it too uses a folder/file structure and you can orient it the way you want or let iTunes create the structure. Photos for some are no different as are any other type of end user files where direct(folder)/file structure has its perks.
Last - often I find that people who are more oriented towards structure and location are more likely to fix problems as they arise as opposed to let the OS or app do everything and hope for the best when a problem occurs.
Or screw things up by inadvertently moving or deleting something
A reasonable point but not as likely as those that have no idea what really is going on beneath the surface of apps at this level (grin).