OS X: how to merge folder contents, not replace

[pommesgabel]

Because although folders might be the same as files from the filesystem point of view (I don't completely agree to that, but that's not the point here), they're something utterly different from a user perspective.

Anyway, I think it should be an option you can switch on or off. If it's a different command or not, I don't care if I can make it the default action when drag/drop is concerned.

It'd saved me a lot of work (until I discovered SyncTwoFolders) and a lot of data I acccidentally lost...

I think it's quite funny that some diehard Mac OS users have argued that Windows-style cut/paste is dangerous and should not be implemented because data loss can occur and that the same arguments do not hold true for the finder's copy/paste behavior...

 

[adamfishercox]

Data loss can only occur if you willfully ignore the warning the the finder pops up, clearly explaining that it will *replace* the folder if you click OK.

 

[pommesgabel]

The same warning occurs in Windows systems, but it means an entirely different thing. So, yes, it only occurs if you click "ok" but hey, you know what "gift" means in Geman? Poison.

 

[sidewinder]

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.

What command line OS has a "move" command that behaves like Windows Explorer?

No Unix command line program behaves like the Windows Explorer. The Unix "cp" command does not behave like Windows Explorer.

S-

 

[TwoBytes]

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.

Can i just agree here?

I don't care about where we've come from, UNIX this, windows that... all i want is a little dialogue box to tell me i'm going to 'blitz some files, are you ok with this?'


The way we use computers has changed over time and we use lots of TB worth of space with some same name folders....a long way from having a few MB worth of space! If apple want to attract more of a PC market today, they need to address these issues so lots of people who jump ship from PC to MAC don't loose out and spread horror story's. OK, you have to bear this 'issue' of replacing the folder in mind, but i don't want to. I bought a mac and the philosophy that i don't have to think about these things.

All i'm asking for is one dialogue box.

 

[pommesgabel]

We're not talking about a move command, we're talking about drag&drop. This can mean files are moved, but - depending on the circumstances - it can also mean copy (in the end it's the same with the addition of a source delete after the copy).

The specific situation that causes the problem (to me and some people complaining about that behavior) is a copy/move op which causes the complete target path to be deleted before being replaced by the source files.
Which command works like that? I know of situations where same-named target files are replaced, but I'm not aware of whole paths being replaced.

Granted, I usually would make a backup in a production environment anyway before replacing anything, but that's not what you usually do when moving files around in your personal computing environment.

 

[sidewinder]

Can i just agree here?

I don't care about where we've come from, UNIX this, windows that... all i want is a little dialogue box to tell me i'm going to 'blitz some files, are you ok with this?'


The way we use computers has changed over time and we use lots of TB worth of space with some same name folders....a long way from having a few MB worth of space! If apple want to attract more of a PC market today, they need to address these issues so lots of people who jump ship from PC to MAC don't loose out and spread horror story's. OK, you have to bear this 'issue' of replacing the folder in mind, but i don't want to. I bought a mac and the philosophy that i don't have to think about these things.

All i'm asking for is one dialogue box.

You get that dialog box now.......

Frankly, I think this is an issue for a small percentage of Windows users moving to the Mac. I think most people understand that Mac OS X is not Windows and that they will be doing many things differently.

S-

 

[pommesgabel]

Can I just ask one question: would it hurt you in any way to get that dialogue if it's optional?

 

[sidewinder]

We're not talking about a move command, we're talking about drag&drop. This can mean files are moved, but - depending on the circumstances - it can also mean copy (in the end it's the same with the addition of a source delete after the copy).

The specific situation that causes the problem (to me and some people complaining about that behavior) is a copy/move op which causes the complete target path to be deleted before being replaced by the source files.
Which command works like that? I know of situations where same-named target files are replaced, but I'm not aware of whole paths being replaced.

Granted, I usually would make a backup in a production environment anyway before replacing anything, but that's not what you usually do when moving files around in your personal computing environment.

Whether we are talking "move" or "copy", no "move" or "copy" command works likes Windows Explorer. Windows Explorer is unique in how it behaves.

If you used the Unix "cp" command, the files with the same name would either be replaced or not copied at all, depending on command options. No merging would take place unless all the files in both directories had unique names. Only Windows Explorer gives you the option to merge directories when file names are not unique.

The Mac effectively uses the Unix "mv" command but allows you the option of completing the command even if the destination directory is not empty. It also tells you what it is going to do.

This is all so easy to deal with if you have not been exposed to the unique behavior of Windows.

S-

 

[sidewinder]

Can I just ask one question: would it hurt you in any way to get that dialogue if it's optional?

I guess you didn't read this from a post of mine above:

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]

This is all so easy to deal with if you have not been exposed to the unique behavior of Windows.

S-

Like 91.79 % of computer users today.

 

[sidewinder]

Like 91.79 % of computer users today.

You don't really believe that all Windows users have actually tried to move a folder into directory with a folder of the same name, do you? And do you really think most of them really understood what happened when they did?

If you do, you haven't done any Tier 1 Windows tech support lately...

S-

 

[adamfishercox]

Can I just ask one question: would it hurt you in any way to get that dialogue if it's optional?

YOU DO. Unless "Replace" somehow means "merge" to you, OS X clearly tells you that you will be replacing the folder.

 

[pommesgabel]

Please don't scream at me.

Besides, this is not what we were discussing.

One other point: if content and wrapping mean the same to you, maybe replace and merge mean the same to me.

Anyway, I don't care how it's called, I'm missing a function here. And that's merging folders. As I said some postings before, I found a way to do it, I'd just prefer if the OSs preferred file browser would give me that function. If it doesn't, I'll survive. If it does, I'm happy, 'cause it makes my work with this MAChine a lot easier. To me that's what it's all about.

 

[adamfishercox]

...what.

 

[pommesgabel]

I'm sorry, I don't get your meaning.

 

[grumpypodant]

merging folders

I'm sorry, I don't get your meaning.

http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/mad.gif

This and duplicate files have always been a issue, IN IBM-VM/CMS on DOS, on Windows on Linux or even in my filing cabinet, there is always going to be the need to merge two folders or directories which have duplicate files.

Finally with vista we don't get the brain dead response from the retarded OS that this folder exists would you like to overwrite it (losing your last 3 years work) but rather vista simply merges the two into on and renames duplicate file names.

If OSX out of the box cant do that thru the GUI it is a big disadvantage, and what I would like to see here is a whole lot less ponderous babble and some useful suggestions.

I have one --run up a Vista VM and do it from there. Very inelegant but it works.

 

[sidewinder]

http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/smilies/mad.gif

This and duplicate files have always been a issue, IN IBM-VM/CMS on DOS, on Windows on Linux or even in my filing cabinet, there is always going to be the need to merge two folders or directories which have duplicate files.

Finally with vista we don't get the brain dead response from the retarded OS that this folder exists would you like to overwrite it (losing your last 3 years work) but rather vista simply merges the two into on and renames duplicate file names.

If OSX out of the box cant do that thru the GUI it is a big disadvantage, and what I would like to see here is a whole lot less ponderous babble and some useful suggestions.

I have one --run up a Vista VM and do it from there. Very inelegant but it works.

What did you do, sign up just to post this drivel? Or are you afraid to use your real login?

In either case, if Mac OS X is so retarded, please do us all a favor and stop using it. I just don't see why some people make this out to be a big issue. It isn't and never will be.

S-

 

[Kludge420]

Apple's Wrong, End of Discussion

I'm learning that often Apple is correct in its design decisions but on this one I must respectfully disagree.

Macs, and Apple products in general, work the way you expect them to, that's their real strength I'd say, so it's antithetical to say, "It's been unintuitive since the beginning so we're not going to change it." That's a lot like saying, "Well, my daddy was a racist so I have to be one too." Or, "All these other lemmings are jumping off the cliff so I guess that's the way it's done... weeeeeeeee {splat}"

The most useful, logical process would be to merge folders, not erase them so thoroughly they are unrecoverable.

If you wish to believe manually copying millions of directories is a wise choice you are certainly free to do that but just keep in mind that every level of folder increases the number of items to move exponentially. Do YOU want to come over to my server farm and deal with hand merging millions of files in hundreds of thousands of directories? Yeah, I didn't think so.

Apple may not be the people that made it wrong in the first place but they left it that way to the detriment of anyone with even a few thousand files to deal with; which is anyone with a server now days.

 

[rwilliams]

What did you do, sign up just to post this drivel? Or are you afraid to use your real login?

In either case, if Mac OS X is so retarded, please do us all a favor and stop using it. I just don't see why some people make this out to be a big issue. It isn't and never will be.

S-

It's a big deal because not only is it counterintuitive, but many people find this out the hard way, by losing files after performing what under any other operating system is a merge job, not a destroy and replace. It stinks, plain and simple, and it would take Apple relatively little work to make it work in a way that's intuitive, which is what they pride themselves on in the first place.

 

[adamfishercox]

Apple WAS the first place, and it's always been this way in the Mac OS. If anyone changed anything it's Windows.

 

[Winni]

What command line OS has a "move" command that behaves like Windows Explorer?

No Unix command line program behaves like the Windows Explorer. The Unix "cp" command does not behave like Windows Explorer.

S-

Try 'mv' instead of 'cp' in Unix and "move" instead of "copy" in Windows or DOS.

Turn it any way you want: The Mac's default behavior of deleting the original plain and simple sucks and is as user-hostile as it gets. And while we're at it, Apple's entire "synchronization" philosophy stinks for the very same reason.

Microsoft does this one right and Apple does it complete wrong. End of discussion.

Apple WAS the first place, and it's always been this way in the Mac OS. If anyone changed anything it's Windows.

No, Apple weren't the first. Their GUI concept is stolen from the Xerox Star and the underlying operating system is just a customized version of FreeBSD, which in turn is an implementation of BSD Unix. And Unix goes back to a time before Apple the company was even founded.

And, as I've said above, Microsoft has implemented this feature in the right and user friendly way, whereas Apple's implementation is completely idiotic.

 

[sidewinder]

Try 'mv' instead of 'cp' in Unix and "move" instead of "copy" in Windows or DOS.

Turn it any way you want: The Mac's default behavior of deleting the original plain and simple sucks and is as user-hostile as it gets. And while we're at it, Apple's entire "synchronization" philosophy stinks for the very same reason.

Microsoft does this one right and Apple does it complete wrong. End of discussion.

Winni and rwilliams,

The Unix "mv" command operates exactly how the Mac OS operates on files. It does not merge, it replaces. The "mv" command does even allow you to replace a non-empty directory with another. It does no merging of content. No single Unix command merges directories while moving from one location to another. Learn about the Unix commands BEFORE you spout off about how they work.

The Mac OS X way of doing things is completely intuitive. Drag a file or folder to another directory that has a file or folder of the same name and the Mac asks you if you want to replace the existing one with the one you have dragged over. This is not counter-intuitive. Only people that have experienced the Windows behavior think what the Mac OS does this completely wrong and counter-intuitive.

Would it be nice to have a folder merge capability? Sure. But it is not some major design flaw. Only someone that had used this feature in Windows and did not actually pay attention to the dialog presented would lose files.

S-

 

[rwilliams]

Would it be nice to have a folder merge capability? Sure. But it is not some major design flaw. Only someone that had used this feature in Windows and did not actually pay attention to the dialog presented would lose files.

S-

Oh, I understand. But with Apple's push to encourage Windows users to switch, that's a big feature that a lot of people wouldn't think about inquiring about until it's time to actually do a merge, and even then, a lot of them just assume that the "Replace" option will work the same as in Windows. I've seen it over and over again, and it angers a lot of switchers. That's why I think it would make a lot of sense to add the merge feature - to accommodate the many possible switchers from Windows to OS X. A third button on the "Stop/Replace" dialog would be really helpful.

Winni and rwilliams,

The Unix "mv" command operates exactly how the Mac OS operates on files. It does not merge, it replaces. The "mv" command does even allow you to replace a non-empty directory with another. It does no merging of content. No single Unix command merges directories while moving from one location to another. Learn about the Unix commands BEFORE you spout off about how they work.

S-

Please don't be so arrogant as to assume that you know what my Unix knowledge is and isn't. I'm approaching this from the standpoint of a former Windows user who also has to support many switchers from Windows to OS X. I've seen the frustration over this issue more times than I can count, and it's something that Apple could implement if they wanted. If they never choose to do so, then so be it, but they could do a lot worse than throwing this small bone to former Windows users.

 

[maxrobertson]

I'm just thankful I read thru this thread. I could see myself dropping a MP3 folder of a band like Pearl Jam with a couple of albums in it into an existing folder with a dozen albums in it and the two albums write over all of the other albums. I would have gone ape over that! I'm lovin my Mac but jeesh that one just seems so illogical.

I agree that it's stupid and illogical, but it's also stupid and illogical that people don't read the dialogue box that makes it extremely clear what is going to happen when you do it. I hope Apple changes that feature, but people should be more careful about reading computer information, especially in that kind of situation.