OS X: how to merge folder contents, not replace

[raygungirl]

So as a Windows user who is going to purchase her first Mac this week, let me see if I have this straight...

If I try to copy a "Photos" folder over another "Photos" folder, and they have different files in them, the folder I'm moving will overwrite the folder that I'm NOT moving. Right? Like, the actual folder I'm holding with my cursor will be the only folder that still exists. Is that correct?

So... What if I open the "Photos" folder, select all the files and then drag and drop those files onto the closed "Photos" folder. Would that merge the contents? Assuming no sub-folders, I mean.

Or would it still overwrite the non-moving folder? I think I get what you mean but I'm not entirely sure.

This might kill me, though. I'm totally anal about folders and I re-organize stuff all the time, and I'm bad about over-using sub-folders. Aaagghh!

Do you guys have any suggestions on how I can avoid accidentally losing an entire folder to the aether? :\ Should I try to keep folder hierarchies "shallow" rather than "deep"? (Like, one sub-folder max?)

I'm scared! Hold my hand!

 

[mongrol]

So as a Windows user who is going to purchase her first Mac this week, let me see if I have this straight...


So... What if I open the "Photos" folder, select all the files and then drag and drop those files onto the closed "Photos" folder. Would that merge the contents? Assuming no sub-folders, I mean.

Correct. You'd just be moving the files into the destination folder and as long as there's no files in there with the same name, you won't overwrite anything. That would be a merge.

 

[Matari]

Free app: SyncTwoFolders

I use SyncTwoFolders - free app here

http://mac.softpedia.com/get/Utilities/SyncTwoFolders.shtml

 

[contoursvt]

I've always found this feature in OSX to be idiotic. The worst that can happen with the way windows does it with its merge is that if you make a mistake and you end up with a bunch of files in a folder that you didnt want but if you're aware that you made the mistake right then, you can just go to edit, then undo.

With OSX, you make a mistake and its all gone. Hmmm I'd suspect there is a lot more routine data loss with OSX's built in feature than with Windows viruses and malware trying to trash the user's data

 

[Cinematographer]

I like the way it's done in Finder. But if you really need it the other way around, try this: http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/automator/mergefolders.html

 

[ajpl]

I like the way it's done in Finder.

I absolutely loathe it, as it means you can easily lose huge amounts of data, with no recovery or proper warning [like "everything in folder being replaced will be permanently deleted"] and it just underlines what an incredibly useless programme Finder is. And as evidenced above it catches people out a lot. OSX is modern OS, yet Finder seems like a 1980s bit of software in sooooo many ways. Moving/rearranging data around that takes me 10 mins on the PC can take, sadly with no exaggeration, several days with Finder or its equally stupid replacements.
I use Directory Opus on the PC which is the Photoshop of file browsers and when copying over folders with the same name, you get lots of useful and informative feedback about what to do, like ignore all identical files and when one is not identical it clearly shows you exactly why and even shows a thumbnail for image files and allows you to rename files when they are different files but identically named. http://nudel.dopus.com/opus9/page5.html#filereplace Incredibly useful and powerful and this feedback can save so much time. For example it means I can back up a 1TB disk with only the different files being copied over in minutes, without my having to look for altered files - which may sound like a job for a sync tool [which DOpus does too], but is much easier in fact.

Finder will be just as half baked in Snow Leopard. Apple even advertised the fact, as if it was a good thing! My view is that Apple are leaving Finder to rot away to force you to use the messy and then very hard to leave iPhoto/iTunes paradigm of not knowing where anything really is. Databases are great but also deeply flawed, so not much cop for file management in many circumstances. Just like File Browsers are poor in different areas.

 

[mysterytramp]

Moving/rearranging data around that takes me 10 mins on the PC can take, sadly with no exaggeration, several days with Finder or its equally stupid replacements.

(which emoticon do you use for: "God I wish this thread would die"?)

If indeed file moving can take several days -- and I'm not implying you're exaggerating, I'm sure there are web administrators who have days' worth of file movement they have to manage -- then I suggest you take one of those days to learn AppleScript. You'll be able to create a script to do exactly what you want, either using Finder's built-in file management commands or using "do shell script" to use the powerful tools Unix has to offer.

If you spend a second day, you'll be able to master so you have a true stand-alone app to rival Directory Opus. Maybe you'll need a third day posting questions and getting answers on the MacRumors Mac Programming board.

But when you're done, you'll have the tool you need ... and all those days free on your schedule.

mt

 

[jamesarm97]

SIf I try to copy a "Photos" folder over another "Photos" folder, and they have different files in them, the folder I'm moving will overwrite the folder that I'm NOT moving. Right? Like, the actual folder I'm holding with my cursor will be the only folder that still exists. Is that correct?

Yeah, this happened with me when I was running a program to organize my mp3 files. It ended up loosing a bunch when it was reorganizing the folders. The old files got removed when a new folder with the same name was copied to the same directory.

 

[ajpl]

If indeed file moving can take several days -- and I'm not implying you're exaggerating, I'm sure there are web administrators who have days' worth of file movement they have to manage -- then I suggest you take one of those days to learn AppleScript. You'll be able to create a script to do exactly what you want, either using Finder's built-in file management commands or using "do shell script" to use the powerful tools Unix has to offer.

I want to do work on my computer not waste time with tedious scripting nonsense. DOpus works, I use that instead. Plus if I wanted to be a programmer, I'd be a programmer.

If you spend a second day, you'll be able to master so you have a true stand-alone app to rival Directory Opus. Maybe you'll need a third day posting questions and getting answers on the MacRumors Mac Programming board.

Utter bollox! DOpus is an incredibly polished, very complex, very powerful, completely customisable and best of all very easy to use programme and you think I can transform Finder to rival it in two days. Maybe I'll turn Picassa into Photoshop, Bridge and LR on the third day!
The strong evidence to show easy it isn't, is the lack of any File Browser on the Mac that even comes near to DOpus in power and ease of use.

But when you're done, you'll have the tool you need ... and all those days free on your schedule.

We have an expression in the UK regarding turds and how they cannot be polished. Finder is excreta. Very smelly and rancid excreta. Though I have to admire your optimism about being able to improve such a sucky programme

 

[durija]

I work in Windows and OS X daily for my job. Once I discovered how OS X would overwrite the contents of folders, I adjusted my own workflow accordingly. No big deal. Just one of the many tiny adjustments going between platforms. I know it's heresy to say so in this thread, or even this forum, but I actually like maneuvering in Finder better.

 

[mysterytramp]

DOpus is an incredibly polished, very complex, very powerful, completely customisable and best of all very easy to use programme and you think I can transform Finder to rival it in two days. ... [snip] ... Finder is excreta. ...

So let me get this straight ... Windows doesn't do what you want, so you use a third-party application. Finder doesn't do what you want and it's excreta.

Yeah ... I'm thinking of all the kooky expressions we use here in the U.S. about trying to polish turds, too.

mt

 

[ajpl]

So let me get this straight ... Windows doesn't do what you want, so you use a third-party application. Finder doesn't do what you want and it's excreta.

No I use OSX and Windows as it's useful to able to use both platforms for my work, including software testing. As a result of using both OSs, it's very obvious that Finder sucks compared to other File Browsers I have used including Explorer. Finder is mind numbingly awful in so many ways, I do not understand why it even exists, other than as a way to force people to use Apple products like iPhoto which simply sidestep Finder. It's not just the worst FB, I've used, but possibly one of the worst pieces of software I've ever used.
Besides, the strength of an OS also includes any software unique to that OS. So a video editor may choose OSX for that single reason - the ability to use Final Cut, another editor may choose Windows for Vegas another excellent video editor which is also platform specific. They however, may both hate the OS their editor of choice runs on - which is not that a stretch as FC is not very Apple like, probably as it was developed elsewhere.
For me being able to use DOpus to easily manage my 100s of thousands of files as well as save huge amounts of time in ordinary usage makes Windows a superior platform in many ways, as DOPus only works on Windows. Windows is rubbish in other ways sadly, but OSX is sadly not good enough to replace it - for me, mainly due to Finder being like a 1980s programme on a 21st century OS.

If Pathfinder/Default Folder didn't exist to make Finder less painful. I simply would not bother with Macs - not worth the effort. In fact I may not buy another, as they are becoming increasingly less professional and aimed more at the level of iphone/ipod users. Don't blame Apple far more moeny than in chasing Pros.
Ads for Snow Leopard even boast how Finder hasn't changed, dear me.

 

[Consultant]

re: raygungirl
re: ajpl

OSX is not winodws. Sorting things by folders is very 1990s.

OSX has search function that is actually usable for over 20 years. Search in OSX actually find the search results, so users don't need to resort to their antiquated way of sorting by folder (forced by windows and other os with poorly implemented search).

OSX users use search and find what they need almost instantly. No need to drill down multiple folders because the search won't work timely which happens with MS windows.

 

[belvdr]

re: raygungirl
re: ajpl

OSX is not winodws. Sorting things by folders is very 1990s.

OSX has search function that is actually usable for over 20 years. Search in OSX actually find the search results, so users don't need to resort to their antiquated way of sorting by folder (forced by windows and other os with poorly implemented search).

OSX users use search and find what they need almost instantly. No need to drill down multiple folders because the search won't work timely which happens with MS windows.

So all of your data (including documents, music, etc) is all in one folder? Likely not. Folders allow you to keep the same file name in different places, for organization. Even Apple does this when iTunes organizes your music. It makes sense to do this.

I have never had issue with Windows Search 4.0 either.

 

[ajpl]

re: raygungirl
re: ajpl

OSX is not winodws.

So? That's not actually relevent to whether Finder is useless or not. Or how you organize data.

Sorting things by folders is very 1990s.

No it's a very good way of storing data in a clear defined way that is programme and platform agnostic. The chance of any of the programmes or OSs we currently use being around in 20 let alone 40 years is extrememly unlikely, but a good heirachically folder structure can be moved and easily trasferred and then readby any software/OS.
Besides, Spotlight often fails to find things I know are present and fundamentally Spotlight relies on you actually remembering the names of things - which is a serious gotcha. Particularly many years later. Whereas if you places things in places that make sense to you , you do not need to remember what they are called or exactly where they are for example as you simply look for the bit of software you use once a year in the place that it should logically be very quick and easy in fact. Plus the more content you have the less useful Spotlight is.

OSX has search function that is actually usable for over 20 years. Search in OSX actually find the search results, so users don't need to resort to their antiquated way of sorting by folder (forced by windows and other os with poorly implemented search).

OSX users use search and find what they need almost instantly. No need to drill down multiple folders because the search won't work timely which happens with MS windows.

Actually I can find some things easier with Windows 'antiquated' way more easily than I can using Spotlight, sometimes Spotlight is better. Besides Win has it's own variant of Spotlight as you obviously hadn't noticed.

File management in Apple programmes is frankly useless and is OK for people with little knowledge or don't mind being trapped into using certain software for the rest of their lives. Take the noddy programme iTunes, which dumps your data in all sorts of nonsensical and unnecessary folders, even when you tell it not to, which also means that other software cannot access it easily. I organise stuff the way that suits me and the software I use, not the way someone else dictates. Think Different as an ad slogan always struck me as being very ironic, considering Apple's one size fits all and simplistic programmes.

 

[Fry-man22]

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.

No one is asking for help with their work flow or data management - the point is that the end user should not have to adjust their workflow or data management processes to supplement what is essentially a deficiency in the file management of the OS as it relates to the end user expectation.

 

[cweaver]

What windows does is overwrite with confirm by default.
Nothing complicated.

If a file conflict occurs you get a dialog, do you want to overwrite, cancel copying this file, copy and rename with numerical extension. Then you get the check box for do this for all future if you don't want to answer for each one.

I don't really care if mac has all that functionality. BUT come on....
Give me a Replace existing and leave non duplicated files alone.

If all I wanted to do was wipe out the old dir, then why don't I just delete it myself?

ARGH.

And the fact that mac users have gotten used to this is no excuse!
Since OSX is UNIX based I should be able to do the equivilent of a cp -rp which will overwrite any conflicts but leave anything without a conflict in place.

 

[adamfishercox]

I don't understand why this doesn't make sense. If you have a document called "document.txt" and you put it into a folder where there is another document.txt, it will overwrite. Likewise, if you have a folder called "Docs" and you put it into a folder where there is another folder named Docs it will overwrite that "Docs." Why is that "stupid?"

 

[sidewinder]

I don't understand why this doesn't make sense. If you have a document called "document.txt" and you put it into a folder where there is another document.txt, it will overwrite. Likewise, if you have a folder called "Docs" and you put it into a folder where there is another folder named Docs it will overwrite that "Docs." Why is that "stupid?"

It's not....you just have people here that are used to the way Windows does it so it so they say the Mac way is stupid.

S-

 

[sidewinder]

Since OSX is UNIX based I should be able to do the equivilent of a cp -rp which will overwrite any conflicts but leave anything without a conflict in place.

Except that the metaphor of moving a folder from one location to another is not a copy but a move. So the Unix "mv" command is what makes sense to emulate. The fact is that the "mv" command would fail if the destination folder had any files in it. The Finder is nice enough to ask if you would like to replace the folder instead of having the command fail.

S-

 

[Schraiber]

I gotta agree; Finder handles this in a terrible way.

Also, I hate arguments that stem from "consistency" or "it violates the UI metaphor". Who the hell cares? If users want a simple feature that can REALLY help and it doesn't affect someone who doesn't use it, why not throw it in?

Things like this (and the lack of Finder cut/paste) are really severe weaknesses of OS X.

And, just to reiterate: "use the terminal" or "write an apple script" are NOT solutions---they are work arounds. The fact that people even suggest 3rd party applications for such a trivial task is ridiculous---OS X should have this kind of functionality built in, not because I'm used to it from windows but BECAUSE IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY BETTER.

 

[sidewinder]

OS X should have this kind of functionality built in, not because I'm used to it from windows but BECAUSE IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY BETTER.

But it is not intuitive unless you are Windows user that uses that feature of Windows.

If you typed this in a Unix shell (assume "images" is a directory in both paths):

mv ~/folder1/images/ ~/folder2/images/

What would you expect Unix to do? It would try to replace the second directory (folder) with the first. It would not try to merge. If the second directory was not empty, the command would fail.

What if you used this command?:

cp -Rp ~/folder1/images/ ~/folder2/images/

Well, it doesn't merge the contents of the directories either. It copies the contents of the first directory into the second directory replacing any file names present in both directories with the file in the first directory. And it doesn't tell you that it is going to replace any files. It just does it. Also, since it is a copy command, the original directory is still present.

The Windows behavior is quite different and I like it in some ways. But is not universal. In fact, it is unique.

The Mac OS X Finder way is not what you want to have happen, but it is intuitive. If you move a folder into directory with a folder of the same name, the Finder asks you if you want to replace the folder with the one being moved. That makes sense. With Windows, you can't replace a folder with another. You can only merge the contents. What if I actually want to replace the folder and not merge the contents?? Now I have to go and manually delete the folder and then move the other folder. Is that intuitive?

I have used Mac OS and Windows for years. Since both came out actually. I have never had a problem with how the Mac handles moving directories. I have never had a problem with the Mac not having cut/paste of files in the Finder. I have never had a problem with how the Mac handles the Trash. Nor has it affected my productivity one little bit. If Apple decided to add these features to the Mac OS I would not complain. But I am not the least bit worried if they do not.

S-

 

[pommesgabel]

I admit, I switched from Windows to Mac about a month ago and I absolutely love the Mac. But I also suffer from the typical switcher problems like cut/paste and the finder replace behavior.
One of the reasons I switched is that I'm an IT professional and I've never used a Mac before - pure and utter curiosity. I absolutely loathe Windows and I only ever used it because it's the "OS" you get on most company pcs.

But it is not intuitive unless you are Windows user that uses that feature of Windows.
[SNIP]
The Windows behavior is quite different and I like it in some ways. But is not universal. In fact, it is unique.

Actually, it's not. I work on various OSes all the time (including all the current Unix and Linux flavors, iSeries/AS400 and some more exotic stuff like OpenVMS, Tandem/HP-NonStop), but I actually learned my ways on a C=64, Amiga OS, Apple ][e and then MVS/OS390/z/OS.
z/OS is the modern version of one of the oldest OSes (slightly older than Unix), still uses a text-only interface for most uses and also includes the same copy/replace behavior as the Windows Explorer, DOS copy or the Unix cp command. Actually, I've never seen anything else than the Finder who behaves this way. Not even Mac OS X.

There's at least two good reasons, besides I'm used to it ;-), why I think adding this functionality would be a good idea:
1) With the current behavior you can accidentally, irrevokably destroy lots of data.
2) If the Merge is an option which you don't need, it doesn't hurt you in any way.

Besides, I tried Pathfinder and I really don't know how to use this to merge folders including subfolders. Is this some kind of option I didn't see? Because when I tested it, it did behave exactly like the Finder...

 

[opeter]

ForkLift has also the "Merge" button. And Finder could have it too, not a big thing.

And all these who say: use Terminal for merge. No, I don't want to. As 99% of average users don't want to. What do you think, where would we be today, if the computers would still work only with entering commands by hand in Terminal or Command promt?

Most of users is used, to use only the mouse (or any other pointing device). Using the keyboard is for users (especially the older generations) a big pain.

 

[adamfishercox]

I agree that perhaps there should be a separate command for this. But to have it as the default action when dropping a folder into a directory with an identically named folder is stupid. Why should folders behave differently than every. other. filetype?