Finder and Windows Explorer Functionality to be 'Merged'

Question

Right, before I start what I expect will be an epic battle, this is not what I intend this thread to entail...
I have recently moved from being a purely windows user (Software Developer), to using OS X as well. My girlfriends study dictated that I recommended her buying a Mac. Consequently, her inexperience dictated that I should learn OS X in order to be her technical support. Everything until earlier this week was great, but I'm still a lover of the OS.
The aforementioned 'until earlier this week' has caused one major usability gripe with which I have now read up on exstensively; the way that finder handles copying folders.
Now to a certain extent I see why it was slightly naieve of me to think that copying a folder should ONLY replace the files within and not the whole folder, but thats because I have grown up basically Windows only.
So I copied the folder structure (containing organised subfolders) of ALL of my girlfriends university work to date across to the Mac and misinterpreted what the copy would do, it turns out that this replaces the whole folder, and does not move the original folder to trash.
AND NOW TO THE POINT OF THIS THREAD...
As I began, I do not intend this thread to be a Windows vs Mac rantfest. I would merely like to rally up who can see the benefits of merging the way that OS X replaces the whole folder with the Windows options to only replace files within (merge).
This would then allow the possibility of easily copying folders with nested sub-folders (a la windows), but also allow the original method of replacing the destined folder (keeping with the mac tradition).
I don't want to go down the route of 'but every other OS merges folders' because this isn't every other OS, its OS X, and it seems that everything else that they have done, they've done well!
If the proposed could be implemented, not only would it allow more options for existing Mac users, but also allow a smoother crossover for users from other OS's
Perhaps something like below could work.
'The folder <folder name> already exists, do you wish to replace this folder, or merge its contents with the current folder?'
|| Replace || || Merge || || Cancel ||
As I am no expert of usability, the wording above should probably be changed.
Given enough interest (and perhaps a little understanding from long term mac users ;o) ) I wish to inform Apple of this thread so we will all get the best of both worlds (and I won't have a nagging girlfriend with much lost work).
I look forward to your interest/comments (but please keep it nice).
Robsta
Message was edited by: Robsta83

Answer 1

A slightly different angle of approach here can be viewed by how I think Superduper operates. Superduper has a really smart update function in its cloning. It will when updating the clone look for files on a bit by bit basis and see if there are changes to any specific file. If it sees changes, it will ensure that the files that are changed on the original get updated on the clone. It will ensure the files that are deleted on the original get deleted on the clone, and it will ensure that the files that are added on the original get added to the clone when the update is performed.
Now here in is the problem. Some users actually want OLDER versions to be preserved on their backup but not the original when they copy to the archived backup. We've seen here people are complaining that their archived backup is not preserved by Time Machine:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?messageID=6107525#6107525
So the problem we are faced with here, is there are different needs for different people when copying files. While some are happy just to maintain a current copy of their files, others wish to manage archives when copying files. So a merge function would have to include the caveat of what does not get preserved when the merge happens. In the face of trying to be simple, you can't be all things for all people. As a freelance technician not working for Apple, I can just say, it probably is best for the user to see how an effort has been made to simplify the process, and work around it if necessary to achieve your needs.
I've used Windows 2000 and XP Pro and know it asks me whether or not to replace each file that is identical each time I copy from one folder to another when the names are the same. This is a laborious process, saying OK, cancel, ok, cancel if it is done indefinitely. I can see the dialog box asking:
"Do you want to replace all older files, some older files, with newer files of the same name, or do you want to replace newer files with some older files of the same name?"
A new computer user would go "Huh???"
Merge is nice for those of us who can keep track of it in real life.
For the rest of us who are organizationally challenged, or time challenged, we just want it done right the first time. Unfortunately neither Apple, nor the computer can read everyone's mind.
I agree a merge function would be nice, but I think it would overly complicate matters.