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.
OS X: how to merge folder contents, not replace
- Thread starter Oats
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
...lol...
You Mac purists make me laugh so hard! I hate to bring up a dead discussion but this is a lot less stupid of a feature that OS X needs!
sure, iTunes is fine for music and sync software is great for backups
but what if all you want to do is update a folder, with a large number of folders inside, each with large numbers of folders inside, with files strewn between them?
I like the idea of a button+move function, like, when you drag and hold option, move becomes merge. That'd be sweet.
But all of you saying 'organizing with Finder is sooooooooooo 1999/Windows' are ignorant to the fact that being able to merge folders quickly and easily by hand is infinitely more efficient than only being able to merge using a console, automated backup utilities, or music/video on iTunes...
You guys are all lame to think that this is not something you would want to do.
It's ok to say Mac is better than windows, I happen to agree.
But to dislike something that's /more efficient/ just because 'all the other mainstream OS'es have it and Mac OS X has always been different, and should remain different' is just non-conformist-ignorant-immature-spite.
Go put on black clothes, get pierced, get a crazy hairdo, and continue non-conforming, children, just be sure to make it back home by midnight or you're all grounded!
Back to the topic... is there any easier way to merge folders than using the stupid terminal? I have to reorganize my stuff way too often to waste time in the terminal.
You Mac purists make me laugh so hard! I hate to bring up a dead discussion but this is a lot less stupid of a feature that OS X needs!
sure, iTunes is fine for music and sync software is great for backups
but what if all you want to do is update a folder, with a large number of folders inside, each with large numbers of folders inside, with files strewn between them?
I like the idea of a button+move function, like, when you drag and hold option, move becomes merge. That'd be sweet.
But all of you saying 'organizing with Finder is sooooooooooo 1999/Windows' are ignorant to the fact that being able to merge folders quickly and easily by hand is infinitely more efficient than only being able to merge using a console, automated backup utilities, or music/video on iTunes...
You guys are all lame to think that this is not something you would want to do.
It's ok to say Mac is better than windows, I happen to agree.
But to dislike something that's /more efficient/ just because 'all the other mainstream OS'es have it and Mac OS X has always been different, and should remain different' is just non-conformist-ignorant-immature-spite.
Go put on black clothes, get pierced, get a crazy hairdo, and continue non-conforming, children, just be sure to make it back home by midnight or you're all grounded!
Back to the topic... is there any easier way to merge folders than using the stupid terminal? I have to reorganize my stuff way too often to waste time in the terminal.
I did, and the only solutions that were listed were command-line or backup utility / sync utility. That's not what I'm looking for.
Reason #33 that the Finder is crappy - merge behavior of directory copies is borked.
Windows and Nix both do this better than Finder. I really don't think that even as hardcore fanboys, we should invoke the Terminal to atone for the sins of Finder; they are completely different animals, and using the terminal is a workaround, not a fix. Also, please, don't pretend that directory copy ought to be handed out to a 3rd party app or extension.
In reply to those who say that copying at a deeper level is more intuitive if you want to merge, you're missing the biggest problem, which is merging two file hierarchies that are several levels deep. If it's just two top level folders with no children that you want to merge, then a deeper level copy is roughly equivalent to a top level merge. But if you want to merge a folder that contains five folders, each of which contains another five, you're looking at manually recursing into 25 different folders to accomplish the merge, at a huge time waste. The multi-level merge comes up frequently in directory merge usage cases. (Case in point - last week I wanted to merge two iTunes libraries, each of which had some duplicate files and some unique files. In windows, simply dragging one onto the other would have merged these hierarchies intelligently. In OS X, the "preferred" method would been have to use the library manipulation functions of iTunes to get this done - which is orders of magnitude slower than the simple C API that does file comparison and merging in a Nix system. I tried it the itunes way and it was going to take an hour or more (shudder!). I canceled that operation and pulled down the terminal and merged them in 15 minutes. Also, the operation was running at a lower process priority so I could actually continue working while it was happening in the background. And there are plenty of situations where no workaround in the form of a non-finder app is even possible).
Windows and Nix both do this better than Finder. I really don't think that even as hardcore fanboys, we should invoke the Terminal to atone for the sins of Finder; they are completely different animals, and using the terminal is a workaround, not a fix. Also, please, don't pretend that directory copy ought to be handed out to a 3rd party app or extension.
In reply to those who say that copying at a deeper level is more intuitive if you want to merge, you're missing the biggest problem, which is merging two file hierarchies that are several levels deep. If it's just two top level folders with no children that you want to merge, then a deeper level copy is roughly equivalent to a top level merge. But if you want to merge a folder that contains five folders, each of which contains another five, you're looking at manually recursing into 25 different folders to accomplish the merge, at a huge time waste. The multi-level merge comes up frequently in directory merge usage cases. (Case in point - last week I wanted to merge two iTunes libraries, each of which had some duplicate files and some unique files. In windows, simply dragging one onto the other would have merged these hierarchies intelligently. In OS X, the "preferred" method would been have to use the library manipulation functions of iTunes to get this done - which is orders of magnitude slower than the simple C API that does file comparison and merging in a Nix system. I tried it the itunes way and it was going to take an hour or more (shudder!). I canceled that operation and pulled down the terminal and merged them in 15 minutes. Also, the operation was running at a lower process priority so I could actually continue working while it was happening in the background. And there are plenty of situations where no workaround in the form of a non-finder app is even possible).
Nice to hear a purist with a good sense of non-retardation.
I do love mac, and I /do/ find it a much better OS than windows.
But Finder, honestly, is a very disorganized way to view and organize your files.
Apple's done everything else right, now they just need to get their heads out of their asses and fix finder. It's had 24 years of development, you'd think that something like this, and a few other things, would not have been overlooked.
And he also has a very good point, even if I /was/ trying to merge two music folders, I've got over 900GB of music (I'm a DJ), and in iTunes that'd take well over a day, but if I could just flat out merge it in finder it'd be as simple as a few hours.
Just because it's what's avaliable to use and was made partly for that use, doesn't mean it's /any/ good /at all/.
Wow. I just found this thread, wondering if I was crazy. I'd been down this road MANY times on the Mac, and I'm shocked Apple hasn't "fixed" this issue. I'd already got to "cp"-ing through the Terminal but unless I'm missing something, there was a lot of goofy answers in this thread. Now, in hopes for getting a nice Finder enhancement, I went and downloaded Pathfinder to NO avail. How is THAT supposed to work "like we expect"? I organized a test, and Pathfinder copied the exact same way. Copy one folder into a different folder containg a folder of the same name, and it asks if you want to REPLACE... and if you REPLACE, then files are lost when not merged. Worse, I'm working off of a shared Mac Mini, and also encounter authentication permissions problems that don't resolve well (not even as well as the Finder).
Right now, "CP" is the best route. I'm even thinking about creating an Applescript/Quicksilver solution for myself, though I don't do much with either system right now. Ug. I need GUI relief (Gee You Aye, that is).
~ CB
Right now, "CP" is the best route. I'm even thinking about creating an Applescript/Quicksilver solution for myself, though I don't do much with either system right now. Ug. I need GUI relief (Gee You Aye, that is).
~ CB
Automator?
Is there a way to do a "merge" with Automator, perhaps? I don't know, haven't tried it as I don't program. But perhaps someone with some experience could work up a script.
Is there a way to do a "merge" with Automator, perhaps? I don't know, haven't tried it as I don't program. But perhaps someone with some experience could work up a script.
OMG - osx still cannot do this????
Astonishing. I downloaded Pathfinder to try make this work but alas, it does not do it either. I far more often need to merge folders than to replace one with another, and MUCH prefer the windows method which defaults to a merge of folders. There should at least be the option to do that since it would be very easy to replace if you want, just delete the destination folder first!
Thanks
Mark.
PathFinder works like we expect. The Finder is soooo 1984...
Astonishing. I downloaded Pathfinder to try make this work but alas, it does not do it either. I far more often need to merge folders than to replace one with another, and MUCH prefer the windows method which defaults to a merge of folders. There should at least be the option to do that since it would be very easy to replace if you want, just delete the destination folder first!Thanks
Mark.
there is an entry in Aqua Taskforce (a site where you can Find, publish and rate user experience quirks) for it to voterubber gun on Aqua Taskforce said:
id like the idea of a merge and skip file option.
Well the replace dialogue box does explain what's going to happen. In Windows it will ask you if you want to merge, in OS X it asks you if you want to replace. I would like them to add merge functionality, though.
I've never missed the "merge" feature -- maybe because I never used it on Windows either. I always assumed copying a folder over a folder with the same name would replace it.
If I intended to do a "merge" instead of a replace, I think I'd worry that the wrong items would be deleted. Suppose Folder A has items 1,2,3, and 4 in it. Folder A' has items 2',4',and 8' in it. Now merge A with A'. (The real files don't have the ' -- that's just a marker to indicate which folder they were in.)
What does the new folder have in it? 1,2,3,4, and 8'? Or 1,2',3,4', and 8'?
What if 4 is a folder with other items in it? How is that handled?
If I intended to do a "merge" instead of a replace, I think I'd worry that the wrong items would be deleted. Suppose Folder A has items 1,2,3, and 4 in it. Folder A' has items 2',4',and 8' in it. Now merge A with A'. (The real files don't have the ' -- that's just a marker to indicate which folder they were in.)
What does the new folder have in it? 1,2,3,4, and 8'? Or 1,2',3,4', and 8'?
What if 4 is a folder with other items in it? How is that handled?
Assuming 2 and 2' have the same file name, merging would leave the target folder with the file with the most recent file modification, correct? I think the issue is what if folder A has 1,2,3,4 and folder A' has 5,6,7,8. The resulting folder should have 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Or at least I think so.
Having spent so much time in front of Mac for 20-plus years, I've never missed not having a folder merge feature. I just wish Apple would provide one in a hurry-up OS update just so MacRumors can reclaim some bandwidth. It seems to be the No. 1 complaint from Windows switchers on this board. I'm surprised someone hasn't complained that the beachball ought to be an hourglass.
BTW, this is the kind of thing AppleScript could solve.
mt
mt
The answer is, that depends on who is being merged onto who. There are numerous methods of merging, and the one used in Windows is, I believe, called a Subscribe. If you drop A onto A', that would result in 1,2,3,4, and 8'. If you were to drop A' onto A, however, you would wind up with 1,2',3,4', and 8'. In both cases the dropped versions will supersede the target versions, but no files will be deleted.
If 4 is a folder with other items in it, then the whole thing recurses, with items in the dropped 4 overwriting those in the target 4.
OMG I HATE THIS MAC "FEATURE". I lost a 34 gigabyte source repository to it. I saw the warning, but it's similar enough to Window's warning "files with the same name will be replaced, do it anyway?" (and, no, the word "merge" isn't used) that I thought that no OS as user-savy as OS X could POSSIBLY be so retarded as to delete a huge directory structure like that. Oh, silly me.
Unfortunately I regularly have to merge large directory structures in order to get the most recent updates, but without losing older stuff. I'm a little peved that I have to hunt down a third party piece of functionality in order to do something so simple.
Ehhhhh...barf. Sounds like you are doing version control by hand, without backups. Try SVN. Also, be more careful with your data. But I do agree, that none of this mitigates the glaring problem with mac OS x.
Personally I think the replace dialog box would be the place to implement this feature actually. Just make it so that the warning has 3 buttons instead of 2 for a directory replace.
Stop, Replace, Merge
Yep. This is how it should be. This is seriously like a weekly annoyance for me.
Let's hope so, I am wishing that since X.0, and haven't seen it yet
Please let it be the default behavior and an alt, cmd and/or ctrl key combo for replace.
Path Finder can do it, but I'm not a big fan of it.
Let's hope so, I am wishing that since X.0, and haven't seen it yet
Please let it be the default behavior and an alt, cmd and/or ctrl key combo for replace.
Path Finder can do it, but I'm not a big fan of it.
I doubt it. I think this is one of the features that's simply a (bad) design decision they made, not something they have any intention of fixing because they don't think it's broken.
Extremely annoying.
mac os x's kernal is unix, not windows, so it different, terminal command can do it ,but it not easy.
- Status