Folders on top in El Capitan

@Rippedisc If you have been using Total Finder, then I dont know why you are complaining... it still works, look up on the posts with SCREENSHOTS.

it is Xtra Finder that has the problem.

@The AlikA Need to turn SIP off which I decided wasnt the best decision at this point. If it's unnecessary than sure. I'll go for it.

@Rippedisc Can I ask you how SIP is working for you?
I mean it's not like it was implemented in Yosemite... so if you upgrade to El Capitan, and disable SIP its the same as running an older OSX.

@The

Fair. I'm usually one not to care about these things. If it's not a big deal Ill kill it. Have you run in to any issues?

@Rippeddisc I had no problems...
I think Apple made SIP because they saw a potential problem, not because a problem already existed.
Programs like Total Finder have the ability to change the root files, and mess with core pieces of OSX, but if the same power was given to miscellaneous apps with bad intent, it could be harmful to your system.
As long as you can trust what apps you are installing you should be good 😀

Folders on top makes logical sense. With folders on top, when you need to browse to a path that is a couple of folders deep you can quickly drill down to that location. Without folders on top you need to scroll up, scroll down to find your folder before you can drill down.

This design is perfectly logical which is why it's adopted on other operating systems. The fact that you've gotten used to this for 30 years is completely irrelevant.

A very simple workaround. Put all files into a folder. I promise if you do all folders will be at the top. With one exception, /Applications

heligo9 wrote:

Folders on top makes logical sense. With folders on top, when you need to browse to a path that is a couple of folders deep you can quickly drill down to that location. Without folders on top you need to scroll up, scroll down to find your folder before you can drill down.

I don't. I just type a couple of letters of the name of the thing I am looking for and it gets selected. Then I hit cmd-down arrow and "drill" down into the folder or file.

I never have to start "looking" by deciding whether I am looking for a file or a folder.

When I do that in other operating systems, I get stuck at the folders when I am "looking" for a file. It is a completely useless paradigm.

Folders on top makes logical sense.

To you.

The fact that you've gotten used to this for 30 years is completely irrelevant.

No, it rather demonstrates that not everyone uses the same logic as you. As has been pointed out exhaustively in the thread already, there are multiple ways to achieve what you want. Why not use one of those.

Won't work for all scenarios. The Downloads folder for example. I keep many downloaded files there and organise them in folders. But new downloads obviously always end up in the root (Downloads).

The same applies to every single file structure not created by the user, but by the system. Now you could argue that one shouldn't be there...well, the forum is likely to 99% about problems where you need exactly to visit these file system structures you have no control over.

flexier wrote:

Won't work for all scenarios. The Downloads folder for example. I keep many downloaded files there and organise them in folders. But new downloads obviously always end up in the root (Downloads).

I was being somewhat facetious but of course, when you have a new download you can move it into one of your preexisting folders you made to organize downloads or create a new folder.to move it into.

No, it rather demonstrates that not everyone uses the same logic as you. As has been pointed out exhaustively in the thread already, there are multiple ways to achieve what you want. Why not use one of those.

Correct, but...

In general, I'm not sure why you are defending the current situation? First of all I do not believe that if you are used to search folders typing in the names, that anything will change for you if the sorting would change. Secondly,if this would be a preference setting (like all the other sorting methods already available) no one will be hurt who doesn't like the idea, but a lot of users would be quite happy to use it.

So if no one looses, but many win, it should be a no-brainer. Particular as this isn't hard to implement. In matter of fact for older OS X versions there was a way playing with .plist files (if memory serves well) to get the desired behavior. So the functionality is there, just made purposely unavailable. And that really doesn't make any sense at all.

I was being somewhat facetious but of course, when you have a new download you can move it into one of your preexisting folders you made to organize downloads or create a new folder.to move it into.

Yes, you can of course create for every single download a sub-folder and maybe even structure it to a certain extend.

Having said this you did not get the point. All workaround solutions provided by those defending the status quo are all workarounds and as such require extra typing, extra clicking extra drag and drop, etc.

Yes, we (who desire the folder first option) have many ways to go around the deficit of the finder. Is that a solution, well, yes, but definitely not a desired one nor a good one.

I somewhat repeat myself: what is the problem of enabling a feature that is apparently somehow there, but hidden and by making it a preference leave it to the user to decide whats best for them?

I didn't miss any point. This is what you said…

Won't work for all scenarios. The Downloads folder for example. I keep many downloaded files there and organise them in folders. But new downloads obviously always end up in the root (Downloads).

I assume the way you organize them is to move the downloads into your folder structure.

In the overall context of this discussion where arguments are going back and forward why we don't need a folder first option, yes, you missed my point. This as I merely pointed out why your previous argument doesn't hold waters. But fine, if you strictly look at the posting of mine as such (ignoring all the rest), then yes, you did not miss the point. Happy?