Unfortunately, you're describing a large part of the computer-using population.
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
Unfortunately, you're describing a large part of the computer-using population.
rwilliams,
The Unix command paragraph was not directed at you. Winni was the person that suggested that the Unix command "mv" would do something it does not.
I think you guys are making a much bigger deal out this than it actually is. First of all, the Mac OS X way of doing this IS intuitive. The Windows way is not. Second, the vast majority of Windows using coming to the Mac most likely either never copied a folder into a folder containing a folder of the same name or don't recall ever doing it. So they will not know the difference.
Yes, it would be nice if the Mac OS had this feature. But it is not a major issue. People have to expect differences when moving from one OS to another. No OS has all the best features of all the other OS's.
If your server farms were running Unix, you'd have the same issues you are experiencing on the Mac when moving directories around. I help run a large data center full of servers and I can tell that I am VERY HAPPY that 99% of the systems are not Windows-based.
S-
I can dig it. It's just the ex-Windows side of me coming out, and I've made a point of letting ex-Windows users know ahead of time these days that this feature behaves in a way different from what they may have been accustomed to. That has greatly reduced the "WTF?!?!?" calls.
try this
Merge Folders 1.0.1 worked for me - uses the Finder UI.
Find it here: http://scriptbuilders.net/files/mergefolders1.0.1.html
I had 450 cd's ripped into three file formats (Apple Lossless, FLAC and MP3). The guy who did it gave me 5 batches, each with duplicate folders for the file types for the 300+ artists in my collection.
Soooo...managing the 35,000 files involved by hand didn't make too much sense.
That's why Apple should remedy this issue.
Merge Folders 1.0.1 worked for me - uses the Finder UI.
Find it here: http://scriptbuilders.net/files/mergefolders1.0.1.html
I had 450 cd's ripped into three file formats (Apple Lossless, FLAC and MP3). The guy who did it gave me 5 batches, each with duplicate folders for the file types for the 300+ artists in my collection.
Soooo...managing the 35,000 files involved by hand didn't make too much sense.
That's why Apple should remedy this issue.
Still confuses the hell out of me. I've used it on three folders with identical names. It did something, then quit. Now I've still got three folders with identical names. Have they merged? Who can tell. Am I confident enough to delete two of them and keep the third? Hell no.
And for the record, after all these years and countless requests, Path Finder *still* does not allow folders to be merged:
http://forum.cocoatech.com/showthread.php?t=1705
Maybe someone will finally listen to us at some point, and then I can finally get round to sorting the huge archive of files I have on my computer!
I found a script !
Hi everyone, I found a script that does the merging of folders just as in Windows.
Now my mac is complete !
http://scriptbuilders.net/files/mergefolders1.0.1.html
cheers,
Hi everyone, I found a script that does the merging of folders just as in Windows.
Now my mac is complete
!http://scriptbuilders.net/files/mergefolders1.0.1.html
cheers,
You think? That script scares the hell out of me. There's no visual feedback as to whether it succeeded or not, then you're left with two folders and no way of checking to see if they are the same.Hi everyone, I found a script that does the merging of folders just as in Windows.
Now my mac is complete
http://scriptbuilders.net/files/mergefolders1.0.1.html
cheers,
It's a start, but it's still not Windows!
Seriously, what the hell is this? I've started switching my external drives over to HFS+, and this almost has me reconsidering getting a mac (I could just wait for Windows 7). I don't want to download a separate program to do something that Windows, horrible as it is, has as one of its most basic ui functions.
Agreed...
Bizarre as it may seem, in the past I have taken a whole bunch of files, burned them to DVD, loaded them onto my Windows XP machine at work, done all the merging, burned them back onto DVD (or CD if it fitted) and took it back home to my Mac.
Bizarre as it may seem, in the past I have taken a whole bunch of files, burned them to DVD, loaded them onto my Windows XP machine at work, done all the merging, burned them back onto DVD (or CD if it fitted) and took it back home to my Mac.
Started with Big Iron back in the 70's. I have always preferred to replace an existing folder's contents with the new folder's contents. Keeps it simple for me.
Therefore, Apple's methodology works well for me.
Merging via copying one folder onto another folder creates issues. When duplicates exist, which one do you keep? Which is the most current version -- not always the most recent date. That's why I prefer 3rd Party software to do merges as it makes it easy to manage the merge.
As for music files, as some have mentioned, I let iTunes manage my music. So easy.
Therefore, Apple's methodology works well for me.
Merging via copying one folder onto another folder creates issues. When duplicates exist, which one do you keep? Which is the most current version -- not always the most recent date. That's why I prefer 3rd Party software to do merges as it makes it easy to manage the merge.
As for music files, as some have mentioned, I let iTunes manage my music. So easy.
But that's the problem... There isn't even one single piece of third party software (I can find) that solves the problem in the same way as Windows.
In Windows, it asks you:
The buttons underneath are confusing in typical Windows fashion, but I just click "Yes to All" and that works a treat. It does what it says on the tin.
Yes you are right though, how do you choose which files you wish to keep? Well, FTP can do this okay, and isn't FTP some kind of Unix-based system anyway? In FTP I can choose to copy a local folder to a remote server and choose to overwrite older files... Which is almost always what I want. So if I could find an FTP client that allows me to browse local folders on both sides then I think that would work for me.
I think I tried SyncTwoFolders... Do you get any feedback or any proof that it's actually done its job without having to go through and check all the files yourself?
I want something that will take one folder, merge it with the other leaving just one folder... And give me some kind of log or feedback that it has done its job.
I want something that will take one folder, merge it with the other leaving just one folder... And give me some kind of log or feedback that it has done its job.
OSX is not Windows. It's UNIX. UNIX has always used folders to organize itself. Consider the device hierarchy, how many folders it operates with. It certainly uses folders to set permissions, which are absolutely essential when dealing in security. I like my new MacBook. It's superbly built and I can tell the software is thoroughly tested and often updated. I hope OSX doesn't get "crufty" over time, but I do indeed think that the options should be there for those of us who want to use them. Instead of making usability mutually exclusive of features, why not work a little bit to put in a simple feature? The fact is that the GUI should always be able to access functionality that is SAFER for the user. I can see the logic of limiting certain functions in the GUI to keep an end user from doing damage without proper admin rights, but making it outright impossible to get more functionality and do a file operation that is safer makes no sense. If you're willing to use an expensive machine and exhaust all the infrastructure needed to create it, have a little respect for how it works and where it comes from. You might even look into its history. Things can stay as user-friendly as ever, even if you give yourself a little OS history lesson.
Look here. It's pretty cool:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X
Now, firstly, although I'm a newbie here I've only ever used Macs at home. Work has entailed use of Windows, sadly, and it almost never fails to make blood gush from my nose with frustration.
This qualification made to allay the more... zealous posters that I am not some brainwashed Microsoft carpetbagger, as some seem to assume everyone who doesn't think OS X is the best thing since sliced kittens must be.
So, the merge-thing. Never really missed it. 'Til now. Updating iTunes 9 (now there really is an indefensible update...) to 9.0.2 has left the contents of my '...iTunes Music' folder split between '...iTunes Music' and '...iTunes Music>Music'. Apparently at random - albums split between both. That's hundreds and hundreds of folders and sub-folders, and more exclamation marks than a comic-book fight sequence. Way to consolidate, iTunes.
With a 'merge' function I could glue them all back together with one mighty drag. Without, it'll take hours. Apple broke it, I think the least they could do is make fixing it easier (and shoot whoever worked on iTunes 9, but that's another discussion).
And if thinking that an extra button on a dialogue box, to provide an entirely optional feature that may occasionally be of use, might be both painless and welcome makes me some kind of traitor to OS X, then so be it.
Right, I'm off to start copying thousands of folders the efficient and sensible way - individually*...
This qualification made to allay the more... zealous posters that I am not some brainwashed Microsoft carpetbagger, as some seem to assume everyone who doesn't think OS X is the best thing since sliced kittens must be.
So, the merge-thing. Never really missed it. 'Til now. Updating iTunes 9 (now there really is an indefensible update...) to 9.0.2 has left the contents of my '...iTunes Music' folder split between '...iTunes Music' and '...iTunes Music>Music'. Apparently at random - albums split between both. That's hundreds and hundreds of folders and sub-folders, and more exclamation marks than a comic-book fight sequence. Way to consolidate, iTunes.
With a 'merge' function I could glue them all back together with one mighty drag. Without, it'll take hours. Apple broke it, I think the least they could do is make fixing it easier (and shoot whoever worked on iTunes 9, but that's another discussion).
And if thinking that an extra button on a dialogue box, to provide an entirely optional feature that may occasionally be of use, might be both painless and welcome makes me some kind of traitor to OS X, then so be it.
Right, I'm off to start copying thousands of folders the efficient and sensible way - individually*...
*Unless anyone knows a quick 'n' easy fix?
You shouldn't mess with the iTunes folder structure in Finder. That can cause a bunch of your media files to get "lost" and you get the dreaded gray ! icon. Instead, I would take a look at this iLounge article. It covers more topics than you need but should help.
Transferring your iTunes Library
iTunes has already done that for me when 'consolidating'. I just want to put the albums 'back together' again, if you see what I mean.
Will do, cheers.
PS - I apologise for any crossness inherent in my post. To find I'd waited a whole day for the update to finish, only to find my library scattered to the four sectors of my hard-drive was, I'm sure you can all understand, more than a tad frustrating...
I just stumbled over this Finder "feature" today. Fortunately I moved a directory that had nothing vital in it.
Yes, Finder does give you a warning that you are about to replace the directory. But Windows does the same, but means a completely different thing!
When you are coming from a Windows world then replacing the directory means that just that:
The directory entry itself is replaced (new date, new account control right etc), but not that everything *within* the directory is deleted.
Now that I know about this mostly useless behavior of Finder I will use other tools to merge directories.
Yes, Finder does give you a warning that you are about to replace the directory. But Windows does the same, but means a completely different thing!
When you are coming from a Windows world then replacing the directory means that just that:
The directory entry itself is replaced (new date, new account control right etc), but not that everything *within* the directory is deleted.
Now that I know about this mostly useless behavior of Finder I will use other tools to merge directories.
Just my two cents here. I just ran into this with a friend when we were trying to merge some iTunes stuff as well.
I, too, come from the Linux/Windows world, and I even read the dialog. However, let's look at this case.
You have a bunch of music. Your old collection has some albums, and your new collection has others. There are no file overlaps, only folder names. Say you've got about 50 albums you're merging into a collection of hundreds, maybe thousands. Some of them have the same bands (so the subfolders exist) and some don't.
You drag the music folder over, but you see the following popup warning:
"An item named [foo] already exists in this location. Do you want to replace it with the one you're moving? Don't Replace/Stop/Replace"
Now, you definitely don't want to replace it, so you say "Don't Replace," which doesn't stop the process. It will go along. There's even a checkbox for "Apply this to all." I definitely don't want it to blow away existing folders, so "Don't Replace" makes sense.
Then move starts, and you see files merrily going over. When it's done, you then delete the old files on the other drive, thinking the move/copy happened. When you check later, oh no!, many of the files aren't there! What happened?
So, how exactly was it clear that "Don't Replace" means "Don't Move at All?" It said [foo] not [foo and all things contained]. I mean, I didn't expect it to replace the folder, I expected it to copy the stuff to the folder. Plus, when it's asking about replacing a directory, I also would figure that if you say "Don't Replace," it won't replace the folder (which I don't want), but it will recurse into it and put stuff there that wasn't (which is exactly what someone would be trying to do copying/moving files with identical folder names), yes?
And as far as the mv/move command, at least under linux if you do that, it just bails, no choice of overwriting, and it's impossible to blow away a folder that way. It stops dead in its tracks. You know that there's a problem, and you're forced to use 'cp -r' or something.
BTW, this could equally apply to photos, video, or other file types, so there are plenty of cases I could think of where this would come up and you wouldn't use another app to manage the files.
I, too, come from the Linux/Windows world, and I even read the dialog. However, let's look at this case.
You have a bunch of music. Your old collection has some albums, and your new collection has others. There are no file overlaps, only folder names. Say you've got about 50 albums you're merging into a collection of hundreds, maybe thousands. Some of them have the same bands (so the subfolders exist) and some don't.
You drag the music folder over, but you see the following popup warning:
"An item named [foo] already exists in this location. Do you want to replace it with the one you're moving? Don't Replace/Stop/Replace"
Now, you definitely don't want to replace it, so you say "Don't Replace," which doesn't stop the process. It will go along. There's even a checkbox for "Apply this to all." I definitely don't want it to blow away existing folders, so "Don't Replace" makes sense.
Then move starts, and you see files merrily going over. When it's done, you then delete the old files on the other drive, thinking the move/copy happened. When you check later, oh no!, many of the files aren't there! What happened?
So, how exactly was it clear that "Don't Replace" means "Don't Move at All?" It said [foo] not [foo and all things contained]. I mean, I didn't expect it to replace the folder, I expected it to copy the stuff to the folder. Plus, when it's asking about replacing a directory, I also would figure that if you say "Don't Replace," it won't replace the folder (which I don't want), but it will recurse into it and put stuff there that wasn't (which is exactly what someone would be trying to do copying/moving files with identical folder names), yes?
And as far as the mv/move command, at least under linux if you do that, it just bails, no choice of overwriting, and it's impossible to blow away a folder that way. It stops dead in its tracks. You know that there's a problem, and you're forced to use 'cp -r' or something.
BTW, this could equally apply to photos, video, or other file types, so there are plenty of cases I could think of where this would come up and you wouldn't use another app to manage the files.
madopal,
If you are used the Unix command line, what Mac OS X does makes perfect sense.
There is no "cp -r" command. You mean "cp -R". The "cp" command copies....it does not move like the "mv" command.
Again, the Mac OS has always worked this way. The Mac OS is not Windows and Windows is not the Mac OS. Thank God!!!
S-
If you are used the Unix command line, what Mac OS X does makes perfect sense.
There is no "cp -r" command. You mean "cp -R". The "cp" command copies....it does not move like the "mv" command.
Again, the Mac OS has always worked this way. The Mac OS is not Windows and Windows is not the Mac OS. Thank God!!!
S-
- Status