maybe it sorts better with icon or list view? again, can't say for sure, but that might be something to check. i almostĪlways use column view, and don't usually have many problems. There may also be some issue with the combination of "sort by date modified" with the view option you have chosen.
SEARCH FOR FILES BY DATE MAC MAC
Easily browse all the Egnyte files and folders that you have access to directly from Mac Finder or.
i couldn't tell you why, and it seems ridiculous that it would work that way, but that's sort of the unsatisfying conclusion i've come to after years of confusion about folder sorting. Browse and modify cloud data directly from your computer. but i don't think that modifying one file in a folder necessarily causes the folder to be marked as "modified" by the finder's sorter. like if you open and edit a word document, it will pretty much instantly reorder the finder contents and move that file up to the top of date modified. If you do have date modified turned on, then this is just a hunch, but i think the way it calculates whether or not a folder has been "modified" is different from how it makes that same calculation for a single file. is it possible you chose "date added" instead of "date modified"? you probably didn't, but i figured i should start with that. There are multiple options for sort-by-date in finder in sierra: date last opened, date added, or date modified.
SEARCH FOR FILES BY DATE MAC UPDATE
If you have a folder on your desk labeled "receipts 2001-2017" and your secretary decided to put a 2018 receipt in there, wouldn't you expect her to update the folder label to say "receipts 2001-2018" and furthermore, change the file cabinet drawer to indicate "Important documents 2001-2018"? On why would it be ridiculous to provide the behavior I describe? (not talking performance here, just usability wise) So, I definitively remember it being a lot better than it actually was. You can try it here: (try moving a file into the System >System Preferences> folder.
The folder indeed does not update (even the immediate parent folder) by simply modifying a file, but if you remove/add files it does update it and all the way to the root level of the hard drive as well. You are partially correct, I had to run an emulator to recreate the behavior. For what? For your precious time stamp? Do it lazily, only one parent, keep writes O(1), and implement the damn thing in usermode if you care so much. 100 folders deep, which happens more often than you think, and your writes are 100 times slower. If writing to a file is 5 times slower because we had to go update 5 more parent folders, that's bad already. Yes, old file systems are cute, but a write should be O(1), not O(n). Those were the days! I mean, now our computers are millions of times faster and our storage needs immensely more complex and things you couldn't even imagine in 1991 on a home computer now happen at gigabit speeds inside a damn phone even. 1991 for System 7, wow! Oh, oh, but DOS was fun too, remember 7 character file names? Or was it eight? I always forget. Yeah, why don't we go back to those old file systems. What? I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If the engineers are to lazy to figure out a way to deliver it, that's another matter
0 kommentar(er)
