Merging folder contents on copy/move

[cafin8d]

This may have already been suggested. If so, then this shall serve as a polite 'Me too'.

When moving/copying a folder to a place containing a folder with the same name, the Finder and PathFinder simply replace the entire folder with the copied one.

I would love to see an addition to the Replace dialog box that allows the *contents* of the folders to be merged.

Cheers

[Guntis]

I just lost two valuable documents just because of this very strange Mac OS X "Panther" Finder's (not Path Finder's!) file handling: I chose to move and replace folder with files, in hope that the new folder copied over the existing folder will add new files and will replace existing, but instead, OS X Panther deleted destination folder completely, replacing it with the folder being moved there. So I lost files in the older folder... I just cannot understand in which age we live. This kind of file handling is definately the Stone Age!

So my suggestion for the next version of Path Finder (if these features are not already there!):
1) Replacing folders doesn't delete content of the destination folder, but content of both folders is merged, replacing only files with the same file name, and even then it would be good to ask do I want to replace them (with the checkmark to set it for all files at once, or answer such questions for each of the identical files).
2) If files or folders are being deleted by the system because of Move command, then at least move them to Trash bin, not delete completely so I cannot even restore them!

Also, I cannot use Cut command in OS X Finder to move files, like I can in Windows. Again I cannot understand this limitation. Why I can use it in documents, but cannot use for file system, especially if I *can* use Copy and Paste... Something like Iron Age where people started to use metals, but not all metals...

I really miss Windows Explorer's neat file handling features in OS X... Mac is heaven-sent machine, but its Finder is definately made somewhere else...

[neilio]

The issue here is that you were replacing an item: the folder. The Finder (and Path Finder) can not gleam intention: it can't tell if you mean to replace one folder with another, or actually merge the two (which is what I believe you wanted to do).

One way to work around this could be to put up a dialogue which says, "replace folder or merge contents?" The user would then tell the system what their intention was.

The issue then becomes the fact that, for the most part, the action that is most often performed is replacement; I would hazard the opinion that it's relatively rare for someone to want to merge the contents of a folder with another. So having a dialogue come up every time you want to replace a folder with another would quickly become annoying.

So then perhaps the option could be: if you are holding down a special key combination (say, Control + Option) when dragging an item into a directory with the same named item, the application will know you want to perform a merge, and display the confirmation dialogue.

Then, (whew!) the issue is making the ability to do this not only intuitive, but obvious from a visual standpoint. This is probably the biggest challenge: how do you tell a user visually that the contents of the folder they're dragging will be merged with, instead of replacing the identically-named item in the destination?

Also, what if there are similarly named items inside the source and destination folder? What criterion determines what gets deleted or replaced?

I'm not disagreeing that this could be a very welcome feature for Path FInder, but I wanted to illustrate the difficulties in implementation. This is already on our to-do list, so I can say we'll do some thinking about how a feature like this would work... but at the same time, this is probably something that we wouldn't implement at the file browser level. It could be a special "merge" feature that you could trigger, but it wouldn't work from a drag and drop. I believe that implementation could pose more problems than it would solve.

We're open to suggestion, though. Have any ideas how this could be implemented where it would still meet the needs of the majority of users?

Thanks for the suggestion!

Neil

[Guntis]

Thanks for your reply.
I just think that if I want to replace one folder with another in a way that the first folder is being completely deleted, then I can select that folder and press Command-Delete buttons and it's done, then I can drag new folder in the same place. But most of the time I want to merge folder content together. Because often I have documents about particular topic, then in another location presentations about the saem topic, and sometimes also graphic files about the same topic in another folder. Finally I decide I want all files put together in one folder. I really don't see any need to destroy first folder to replace it with another - why user can't just delete it before replacement?
I suggest this way:
If I drag folder with the same name as the destination folder, Path Finder would show two buttons: "Merge folder content" and "Replace folder".
If I choose first option, PF merges content of both folders, and would ask how I would like to merge files (but only it it finds two identically named files!), displaying their size and modification date, and adding checkmark if I want PF to use my choice for all files. Otherwise it would display this question for each file, and I would look at the file size and modification date to decide each individual case. Maybe it will take some time, but at least I am in full control. Each file being replaced is moved to the Trash bin.
If I choose second option "Replace folder", PF would show flashing warning message with red letters that the content of the first folder will be deleted to Trash bin, I press "OK" button, and PF moves first folder to the Trash bin (so there is still possibility to recover something, if I remember later that there were some important files), and then moves in that place new folder with its content.

[Guntis]

I will explain how it's done in Windows, and I think it's done fairly well - when I select file and Cut it (Ctrl+X), its color becomes 50% lighter, to show that file is still there, but is being "cut". If I paste it elsewhere, it's being moved with the existing file permissions. Just like normal Move command does it. If I Cut or Copy another file before pasting this one, then the file which was Cut first, just returns to its normal state, and is not moved or deleted. Very simple solution.

I agree that maybe this Cut behaviour is not exactly like Cut is done in the text file, but it's very useful, and I prefer using shortcuts on my laptop, as this way I can work much faster. I just use trackpat to select files, then I use shortcuts to copy and paste. If I had Cut command available, I would select files, Cut them, navigate to the destination, and Paste. No need to drag anything around, no need to hold Command or Option keys... I think this is why some developers (I think including PF) have come up with the Shelf solution - you put files on Shelf, then drag them out in the new location. But I still believe that Windows idea about Cut is more simple and straight forward. Just like in text editor.

[bill]

Here's how I can picture a merge function working:

Add a new toolbar button, "Merge Folders." The merge button, like several other toolbar buttons, would only be active if one or more items were selected - only folders, in this case. Once you've selected one or more folders and clicked "Merge Folders" a navigation window pops up, just like the "Move To" and "Copy To" buttons. Navigate to the folder you want to merge into (using "New Folder" if necessary) and select it.

Now you have to deal with items in both the merge-from and merge-to folders that have the same name. I suggest that if the two folders have such items, a new and improved replace window pops up.

The replace window as it currently exists gives the minimum necessary information, that an item already exists in the target folder with the same name as the item you want to put there. (I seem to remember that this is on the to-do list for improvement.) Your choices are "Replace All", "Skip" and "Replace".

The new and improved replace window has a "Cancel" button added, and some other options, such as "Smart Replace". Cancel, Replace All, Skip and Replace are obvious, and I won't go into them.

When the n&i replace window pops up, it'll list the first duplicate item with the following information: name, size, late modification date. Each file has a radio button in front of it, to allow you to pick the copy/version you want to keep. If you click Cancel or Replace All it goes ahead and does its thing (or not) without any further input from you.

Skip leaves the item in the target folder intact and moves to the next duplicate item, showing its name, size, etc. Replace replaced the item in the target folder with the item of the same name in the originating folder, then moves on etc. Pretty obvious.

Now for Smart Replace. If you click on this button, it gives you the option to automatically pick the files by age (oldest/newest), size (largest/smallest) or any other criteria you care to pick. Path Finder then goes on to replace items (or not) based on your choice (if you've picked "save newest" then it'll save the version with the latest modification date).

You still have to deal with sub-folders and their contents. You could handle them the same way as files: choose based on size and modification dates, and possibly add the ability to count how many items are inside each one ("folder thisFolder/subfolder contains 37 items; folder thatFolder/subfolder contains 41 files").

Or, you can recursively merge, where all sub-folders (and sub-sub-folders and sub-sub-etc-folders) are matched and merged in turn.

[Guntis]

"...and in elder days there were wars in the Heavens between the Ibemmeraphim and the Angels of the Apple of Knowledge..."
Funny, yesterday I read that IBeMmeraphim is selling their laptop manufacturing business away... So Apple of Knowledge seems to have more knowledge how to do this business :)

Now about topic -- I think your idea is good, except that there is no need for Folder merge buttons in the toolbar - as soon as I drag folders with the same name onto each other, merging action starts to take place and all what you described later should be welcome!

[bill]

I would suggest that the button is the way to go, for a couple of reasons.

1. Unless you've got both folders in the same parent folder (which you can't, of course, if they've got the same name), you're going to need at least two windows open. Easy enough for me, at home, since I've got an extra monitor plugged into the Pismo, but on one monitor it would require fiddling with the windows.

2. Dragging a folder onto a second folder of the same name is less flexible. Under the button idea, you can save the contents of any folder to any other folder of any name (as long as you have the permissions to do so, of course).

3. The idea as I see it allows you merge more than two folders. You could merge as many original folders as you feel like selecting into one target folder. I don't know how often you'd want to do this, but it's something that could be done.

4. Dragging a folder onto a folder is functionally similar, if not identical, to dragging a folder into another folder's parent folder. It's designed to replace something in the event there are identically named items. You'd have to add something to make the Finder or Path Finder function differently, based on cursor location (in the folder as opposed to on a sub-folder's icon). Of course, that's already built in - see spring-loaded folders.

I do wish we had the ability cut & paste files. I used to use PowerMenu (IIRC) in the System 8 & 9 days just to add that ability. I'm sure if I poked around enough I'd find something to add that capability.

[eyez73]

I would love to see this option, as I would imagine a number of ex Windows users

[RobertB]

This is where Split-pane windows would come in very handy! Hint, hint. :)

You could have both the folders open and then hit a single button or shortcut and the files that are different(newest) would be highlighted, then you can decide if you want to copy the files over to the other pane. Probably have to limit to actual files and not folders, but that still is an great missing option.
Have had this feature on Windows and it has saved me a lot of time and headache.

[NeXTer]

There was probably some logic to the default behavior, like consistency. But noone I've discussed this particular point with thinks it's one of Apple's better ideas. At least having the option to merge on move/copy would be an appreciated feature. So far I haven't seen any way of accomplishing this in OSX without resorting to the shell.

To elaborate - Let's say I want to move this tree:

Latest documents
+ Joe
+ George
+ Steve
... fifty more people ...

To this other tree:

Archived documents
+ Joe
+ Martin
+ Steve
... fifty more people ...

Currently one has to resort to the shell to accomplish this, whereas the filemanagers on most "sensible" (in this regard anyway) systems will merge the folders, asking you if you want to overwrite duplicate files in the trees.

edit:
Noted the discussion on implementation in another thread. Seeing as the system already asks whether to replace the item, adding the options "merge folder" and "merge all folders" should be a minor issue.

[flukesh]

I just want to again validate the need for this feature. At the very least, I would prefer that the destination folder is not entirely deleted before a copy / move operation, because if the operation fails, you may end up with a blank directory. As a developer who needs / prefers to use both Windows and Mac operating systems, the ability to merge folders in OSX is seriously misssed on a daily basis.

[neilio]

We have this on our list of things to investigate for a future update. I can't give you specifics on when or how this feature will be implemented, but we'll look into it.

Neil

[stefaan]

One of the main reasons that I'm trialling path finder is to see if it can do a merge copy.

The standard copy of OS X is plain stupid, by this I mean that it will completely overwrite a subdir if the same subdir is copied into the structure, it completely removes all content.

I want to add the newer files to the structure only, as per standard cp in linux or as windows behaves.

Can path finder do this somehow?

Thanks

[grotsasha]

As you see it's on the todo list since some time now. As far as I know it was not implemented yet, but it will be sometimes in the future.
I think that it's not that simple, because PF uses new Cocoa copy engine for copy/move, so if this is not possible within it, one should create his own solution...
While we wait, one can use FileMerge (inside Developer Tools) to merge two directories. Further info can be found here (http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/macosxhints/2006/03/cmpfldr/index.php?lsrc=macosxhintblog)
(I'll move this to Suggestions after you read this)

[neilio]

The standard copy of OS X is plain stupid, by this I mean that it will completely overwrite a subdir if the same subdir is copied into the structure, it completely removes all content.
I should add that this is the way Mac OS X (and Mac OS classic) has worked forever. Obviously for someone coming from Windows or Linux this can be a really nasty discovery, but in my opinion it makes sense from an intuitive perspective. When you replace a file or folder, intuitively you don't expect the file contents to merge, and the same goes for folders, IMO.

I'm not saying we won't add a merge feature in the future (I can see how this would be *very* useful) but it wouldn't be the default option - there would probably be an addition button in the file copy window to overwrite, merge, or cancel.

The main issue with a merge feature is it isn't built into the Mac OS X file system, so we'd have to build this addition on top of it. A key consideration would be speed - we wouldn't want this feature to affect how fast PF manages files.

Neil

[AlexA]

Hi,

I'm giving Pathfinder a spin because I've got fed up of the Finder. I love many of its features however I am disappointed to discover you seem to have copied one of the Finder's stupid quirks... if you copy a folder over a folder of the same name, the only option is to replace or cancel! 9 times out of 10 I do this I want the folders to merge. This is something even Windows does!

Can this please be made an option?

Also, auto sizing columns in list view would be nice.

Thanks,

Alex

[rodrigo74]

I wonder how is the current status for this? This thing about folder copying is pretty much the main grip I have with Mac OS, it just makes so much more sense the way Windows and most Linux file managers handle that...the thing is, since a dialog is already displayed when we move or copy a folder to a place that already contains a folder with the same name, it would be just a question of adding one more button to the dialog box saying "merge contents"...and then for files with similar name we could have a dialog asking if we want to replace it (probably showing some basic info such as file sizes and modified dates) with 2 buttons, Yes and No (and maybe a checkbox "Apply this to all"). I swear it it much easier and efficient than it sounds by reading it here :)

If lost files quite a few times due to this braindead policy adopted by Mac OS (I also use Linux and Windows, so sometimes I forget this thing) and man, it IS painful! As someone correctly put, this is quite stone-age stuff, especially for a system like Mac OS which is supposed to be forgiving and non-destructive.

[jstillwa]

I also am -very- interested in this getting resolved. Though, with OSX, I am not sure why integrating this is such a problem. As far as I know, BSD automatically does a merge ala Windows/Linux. So, mv blah/* newdirectory merges. Or you can use cp -ri for confirming overwrites of individual files. So, though OSX's gui may not have an API for it, the operating system it runs on certainly does.


In any case, Path Finder is awesome and still totally worth the cash. This is, literally, my last issue with my switch to OSX.

Thanks for all your hard work
-John

[grotsasha]

Although BSD's mv has this ability, Cocoa frameworks don't, so we've got to write our own implementation of that. It's not something impossible, it's just work. Since we get plenty of requests about that, we certainly consider to implement it at some point.

[whittaker007]

I totally agree with the crucial need for the folder merge ability.

If you have a lot of photos, music, documents etc. in a complex nest of folders and you want to merge them you have to copy individual files in small groups at a time which is time consuming and prone to error - exactly the kind of task that should be handled by the OS.

On the other hand if I want to completely replace a folder it takes half a second to delete the original first. The default replace behaviour (without even a warning) is dangerous, confusing for users of other operating systems, and is the most unintuitive part of OS X next to ejecting devices by dragging them to the trash.

[minhdows]

I think a simple animation would be an easy way to let the user choose to displace the files, or merge the contents.

Here's the animation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q19qt0l3Edw

[tripp3]

I want to add my voice to say that merging folders is becoming more and more important. Without it one must go to a great of work. I understand that it has its issues, but none the less it is still an enormously logical feature. I wonder how many Mac people thatt there are out there who don't know what they could be doing because they never had the oportunity. Obviously there are some who come via the PC that do know, and are perplexed by the fact that the Mac is so lacking.

And to address an issue directly with you folks at Cocotech, I wonder how many visitors you get who have heard the rumors that you may add merging as a feature, and then just quietly leave without saying a word when they find cannot find what they seek here. I for one have came here several times without leaving a trace. I am only now leaving a comment because, as I said I am finding greater and greater need for a merge feature. At this point I am probably going to buy some syncronizer software that costs more that your software and may not even do what I need.

Saddly

Tripp

[grotsasha]

We do see the amont of people asking for this feature and I know that this thread is incredibly popular. This has been on our todo list for a while, so we do want to implement this at some point as it seems as a logical extension of the current workflow.

[adamw]

So when is it going to be implemented?

If I could vote for any feature that should be implemented, it is this one. For now, the only reasonable solution left is to use cp in the terminal :)

Adam

[deadfolk]

I'd like to add my vote for this, too.

I can understand why this works the way it does currently, but I REALLY need to merge often, and I always get nervous shifting large amounts of data from the command line.

I've not tried PF yet. I was hoping this feature would already exist, as it was my primary motivation for checking out the product. This feature alone would have me forking out the cash without hesitiation. I'll be taking a look at the demo anyway, I guess. But here's hoping for some movement on this...

DF

[jessejanderson]

I would buy Path Finder for this SINGLE feature alone. A simple "Merge" in addition to the "Cancel" & "Replace" that Finder offers would be great.

In your article about Pathfinder and Leopard you talk about PathFinder being like "Finder Pro", having features that the power users want. Obviously this merging folders is a feature that the power users want.

If/When this feature gets added to Path Finder, if an admin emails me I will most definitely purchase myself a copy.

[matth]

I'm just curious why no one here isn't just using the 'ditto' command--its been in OS X since 2004...
:confused:

[jstillwa]

The same reason people use finder instead of the command line shell... We just want something more convenient. :)

[neoporcupine]

Surely this feature isn't that difficult to implement. I have been looking at other file managers and they all seem to have the same issue. Not only would I like to see a MERGE but also a MERGE/update that only copies (moves) newer files over.

ditto is a little slow, in my opinion. I believe it copies all files, irrespective if the src files are the same as the target or not. I can't see a date/filesize option for ditto; a sad exclusion if you ask me.

rsync is a lot better for this

rsync -r srcpath/* tgtpath

Will only copy newer files to the path. MUCH faster when you have a hideously large tree structure on your backup drive. You may want to use option "a" instead of "r" depending upon what you are backing up, "a" ensures permissions and links are copied (good for desktop, applications, Library etc), "r" just copies the files (good for documents).

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/rsync.1.html

[heckberry]

Hi All!

I totally agree with you! I find it unbelievable why some one would be please with the replace behavior of the Finder and Path Finder. If I would like that in real life, I would first delete the destination before copying the source.

As a programmer and keeping my documents in sync, I need the merge option and would buy path finder just for this option alone.

So IMHO stocks would rise of cocoatech if they build this strongly needed feature in their program!

Cheers!

Heck

[egrieco]

It seems I'm not the only one with a need to merge hierarchies of directories together. I wrote this AppleScript a while back to accomplish that task.

Users can select multiple folders in the Finder and the script will merge two at a time until all of the top level folders and their children have been merged into a single directory tree. The folders are paired into A and B folders from the selected set, it simply renames items with conflicting names from the B folder before moving them into the A folder. The renaming, as currently implemented, prepends "DUP_n_" to the filename where n is the lowest available number greater than 0 for that root name.

Due to the interface and speed limitations of AppleScript I have started to write my own graphical file browser with advanced directory merging features. However it is not one of my priorities so I have not been able to work on it lately due to the work involved with starting a new company.

Features:
- Cryptographically hash items with duplicate names and silently delete one if the hashes are the same, i.e. merge duplicate files.
- Allow merging of n directory trees. (the script already does this)
- Previewing of directory merges via a browser in a nondestructive way.
- Spilling of files matching given search criteria. i.e. move files matching a search criteria into a given folder. This can probably be done with spotlight already.
- Locating duplicate files anywhere within selected directories and allowing de-duplication and replacement with symbolic links, hard links, or aliases.

Until I have a chance to get this working hopefully the script will prove useful to a few.

[DonaldC203]

Does every company selling file management software have MAC brain? I love my G5 but it needs a folder merge like windows. Its been years. I would buy this APP now seeing as I need to merge or sync a bunch of folders together and keep the directory structure intact. Its simple to figure out go look at a windows machine...see just copy that. Windows users seem to understand how it works so I know MAC users will have no problem. I've just googled all night looking for something to help me merge, update, sync my duplicate folders (however you want to say it) It does not exist on MAC. Obliterating the contents of the destination folder is a dumb idea by itself. For now I am loading all of my folders onto a portable drive and taking it to a windows machine. I will then be able to combine all my folders (over thirty of them with deep directory structures) into one folder with an intact combined directory structure and no duplicate files or renamed duplicate files. And all files in the correct places. Did I explain that well enough..so far no MAC only person gets it and I'm mystified. And since I'm here why would anyone name two different files the same name so your MAC has to put a 1 or 2 at the end for you...silly.

Hey my first post is a RANT...yeah!!!!

[gotjosh]

I have been working on a little applescript hack to deal with this.
its not exactly elegant, but it works ok for me:

global the_output
on run {input, parameters}
set the_output to ""
tell application "Finder"
set tgtWin to window 2
set tgtpath to (quoted form of POSIX path of (target of tgtWin as alias))
end tell
display dialog "tgt: " & tgtpath
repeat with i in input
set srcpath to (quoted form of POSIX path of (i as alias))
do shell script "rsync -au --stats " & srcpath & " " & tgtpath & " | grep 'files:'"
set the_output to the the_output & result & "\n"
end repeat
display dialog the_output & " delete src?"
return input
end run

i have a screen shot of the automator workflow and more instructions here:
at gotblogua (http://gotblogua.gotjosh.net/11-2007/171_mac-osx-merge-solution/)

[Robsta83]

I have recently migrated to OS X (via my girlfriends need for support after purchasing her MacBook), and managed to lose her work due to this overwriting problem.

Consequently, I have raised a topic on Apple's own discussion forum, and am hoping for a few other with the same issue to help us to achieve a solution.

What I propose is that there should be an option to 'Overwrite' folders, and an option to 'Merge' their contents (ala every other OS).

I mean, how can we currently copy a folder with a stacked hierarchy of subfolders? I assume that each sub would be overwritten?

If we could drum up interest then I will push this through Apple's feedback page and get it implemented.

Here's the link: http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1291091

Lets get through to them collectively,

Robsta

[adventure_photo]

I am trying to backup 1 hard drive to a mirror image hard drive. When I select all the folders and drag and drop them over to be copied, it only looks for actual new folders and does not compare the files contained within the folders. I am basically only trying to copy new and updated files. I don't want to have to go on a folder by folder way of going about it. Is there an option for it to look within folders when copying several folders like I am trying to do? If not, this is a very needed option.

Thanks for getting back to me-
Adventure_Photo

[sshepherd]

Any update on this? Was it ever implemented?

I'm another one of the Windows users that converted to Mac over a year ago and this one issue with file copying is a major deal killer with me on the Mac OS. I need Apple to change the behavior to support file/folder merges as the default, or a replacement for the Apple finder, using the command line is just silly - defeats the point of a graphical OS.

If your finder this this I would certainly buy a copy as I doubt apple will fix it on their end anytime soon. I'm sure many other would too that have googled for fixes on this issue and the only other alternative seems to be the Apple FileMerge application which isn't a real fix either.

[brownalan]

Add me to the people who would buy pathfinder today if it had that one feature.

Also add me to the people who can't understand how people defend the write-over behaviour. This is nothing to do with being an ex windows user. This is because I want to be able to do both behaviours (write over and merge) at different times. If merge is the default behaviour then I can write over by doing a delete before doing the copy. But there's no equivalent path to doing a merge if pathFinder only supports write-over.

C'mon people. Am I missing something? Doesn't everyone want to do merges of directories sometimes?

[shg]

I'm banging my head on my desk right now because of this very issue. I recently suffered a hard disk controller failure during a copy operation, and the failure has deleted about 5% of the data on the disk. The problem is, the data lost is spread out over almost every directory. One file from this directory, two files from that directory, nothing at all lost from that directory, one file lost from that directory.

Of course I have a complete backup of everything on another disk - but since Finder and Path Finder can only OVERWRITE rather than MERGE, they are no use to me unless I want to sit back and wait for 400 gigs of data to transfer when there are only 20 gigs of missing files.

Crazy!

[grotsasha]

You can use SuperDuper (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/) to "smart update" your backup - if the hard drive's condition will still allow to do it.

[ryuuguu]

I also downloaded pathfinder just because I thought it had a merge feature. It was mentioned in a discussion of the merge problem. So I too would buy pathfinder just to get this feature.

I tried ditto and move from terminal but get ditto: can't get real path for source errors.

[egrieco]

shg:

I'd recommend playing with the Applescript that I posted except that it might be exceedingly slow with that much data.

Check out rsync if you are handy in the terminal. Read the man page, there are lots of options and with the right combination you should be able to get the result that you want.

As for Cocoatech implementing this feature I wouldn't hold my breath. This is more complicated than the auto-resizing of column widths ( http://forum.cocoatech.com/showthread.php?t=2182 ) and that doesn't seem like it will ever happen.

[Flyby]

Sorry for a dumb question here but, can someone tell me what this merge problem is, before I have an "aw s%@t" moment and find out the hard way?

I haven't clogged up the Mac yet since I have a NAS that does most of the heavy storage lifting for both the Macs and PCs, but I know the day is coming. On the Windows side I use a program called PowerDesk that lets me do pretty much anything between two folders. I don't want to try doing the same thing on the Mac side if I am going to nuke something.

[uniqueuser]

Hi, I just switched from Windows to OSX as well and must say that this replace behavoir is really dumb.

Cocoatech should take a look at the best filmanger on Windows call Salamander from http://www.altap.cz They have a function "copy & replace only older files" which is exactly what I need.

Very simple to do and I really can't understand why this is missing.

[scsherwood]

This topic has been talked about for 4 years. What is the problem? Clearly, it is a needed feature.

If Pathfinder had it, I would buy today. Even though I like some of the features Pathfinder offers, they're not enough for me to spend $35.

IMPLEMENTING COPY MERGE IS ENOUGH. No one offers this. Apple has let the screams fall on deaf ears. If Cocoatech wanted a surefire HIT and a goldrush of new users, all they would have to do is implement COPY MERGE.

There are a lot of Windows Users coming over to the MAC. Every one of them expects to find a way to do what the Windows Filemanager already does --- COPY MERGE!!!!!!!!!!!

Why doesn't anyone get it!?????!!!??!??!:(

[christefano]

This topic has been talked about for 4 years. What is the problem? Clearly, it is a needed feature.

Please consider registering at UserVoice (http://uservoice.com/) (aka http://feedback.cocoatech.com) and voting (http://feedback.cocoatech.com/pages/general/suggestions/3505) for this feature.

[ijames]

Humans can easily delete a folder and the replace that folder with another one...

But IT IS DELIRIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO MERGE MULTILEVEL FOLDERS!!!! For example two folders both created by iTunes that have forked because the hard drive went missing for a while.

Thus, THE COMPUTER SHOULD DO THE HARD WORK!!! It should drill down and merge all files and folders. I shudder at the thought but Microsoft got this one right.

There is no downside to making the automatic option the merge. Humans are good enough at deleting folders they want to keep already why make this a regular pain in our side?

So Unix doesn't have this feature? Maybe it's time to add it...

This is bigger than Pathfinder... But it would certainly be good if this is the default method that pathfinder did it's copy.

It should be that the DRAGGED FOLDER is MERGED with the DROPPED FOLDER RECURSIVELY...

I've spent hours trying to find something that does this and nothing comes close that I can trust at all...

Nothing compares with Beyond Compare on the PC. And I could use that in Crossover (at least the earlier version), but does that copy "mac files" or do I lose information???

[bschappel]

It was made by Connectix and was called SmartCopy. It would copy any items that were new and replace any items that were named the same but older. Very simple logic.

We used to pay $40 a copy for this feature alone. We miss it VERY much.

If OS 9 could do it, there is no reason OS X can't.

[telemachus]

This topic has been talked about for 4 years. What is the problem? Clearly, it is a needed feature.

If Pathfinder had it, I would buy today. Even though I like some of the features Pathfinder offers, they're not enough for me to spend $35.

IMPLEMENTING COPY MERGE IS ENOUGH. No one offers this. Apple has let the screams fall on deaf ears. If Cocoatech wanted a surefire HIT and a goldrush of new users, all they would have to do is implement COPY MERGE.

There are a lot of Windows Users coming over to the MAC. Every one of them expects to find a way to do what the Windows Filemanager already does --- COPY MERGE!!!!!!!!!!!

Why doesn't anyone get it!?????!!!??!??!:(


I agree completely, I have just spent absolute ages manually merging dozens of folders all over the place in two computers, and if it was on windows (which merges by default) it would have taken about 1/10th the time.

This is a necessary feature, so please add it.

Thanks,
Mark.

[NZBioinformatics]

Those with the Developer Tools installed will find an application called FileMerge within Developer>Applications>Utilities. This will let you compare not only file contents, but also the contents of directories and merge them, too.

If you're trying FileMerge for the first time, I suggest reading the help notes (under Help>FileMerge Help) and work on made-up directories until you understand it. FileMerge is a nice little application and I've often wondered why Apple doesn't expose it, or something like it with a "Finder" interface, to wider use.

Its possible that PF might be able to leverage the use of the code lying behind this functionality in some way--?

I've mentioned elsewhere, that it'd be nice to see the other capacities of this program applied to PF, especially now that it works with two panes.

[NZBioinformatics]

Mark (telemachus): See post 50 ;-)

[JamesHT]

It is hard to believe that this is a function that Microsoft got right, and Apple got wrong. When I copy a folder from one drive to another that has a folder of the same name, my natural assumption is that the contents of those folders will be merged, preserving the "newest" versions of any same-named files. You know how to destroy a years worth of work on a Mac? Copy an empty folder with the same name as the folder with all your work in it to the same drive. Poof. GONE. Your stuff isn't even in the Trash.

Please add Merge Folders as an option to that annoying little popup you get in Path Finder when the destination folder contains a folder the same as the one you are trying to drag in there. It is quite tedious to dig through folder heirarchies trying to figure out what the folder differences and get everything merged together.

Tried that FileMerge from the Developer tools. No. Thanks. What a terrible interface.

[straycat]

i must agree with the windows behavior and JamesHT and others posts.
i moved in to apple 1 year ago and i found this dreadful "replacing-not merging" issue the hard way.
i lost about 70gb of movies, music and life-time collected pictures.

i was able to recover most of them with datarescue II and filesalvage.
i also found that data recovery programs on the mac don't recognize all file types. filesalvage has an option to read 5 diffrent versions of a new file type to train it for recovery. i had to provide 5 .srt files for it to learn it and search for them.
since all my .srt were deleted i had to downnload 5 different .srt from the web.
tedious work.

apart the fact that i had to delete a lot of my recovered files because data recovery programs also don't recover the folder structure. how could i re-organize about 20000 songs by artist and album or multiple sub-fodlers of picture sets in a flat folder?

[NZBioinformatics]

Further to my previous post, since it has occurred to me that there are two different concepts of "file merge" and some people may be confused by my suggestion.

Let me list several operations to make clear that I'm not referring to any of the existing Apple variants, nor just the thing Windows user seem to be after:

Moving the contents of a folder into another, as-is:
- select the contents of the folder (e.g. select-all), move them into/onto the destination folder

Replacing a complete folder of the same name, as-is:
- select folder, move to target destination containing the folder to be replaced, read the dialog and choose 'Replace' or 'Stop'
(If this confuses Windows users, just think of things in the Finder as being single objects, even they contain things: you are replacing one object with another.)

Move/copy folder to be within another folder, as-is (regardless of name of target folder):
- move/copy folder to folder icon/name of target folder (equivalent to "dropping within" folder)

Merge contents, new suggestion:
- select *two* folders, name a new destination folder (or, less often, select an existing target folder) and merge in a (wide) variety of ways.

Merge contents can be made to have the same result as what Windows users are referring to, but can have wider applications. I was referring to something broader, not just the particular strategy Microsoft uses. (You can also merge files, but that's another story.)

The interface for the FileMerge application I referred to is they way it is in part because its for developers. In particular, the means of naming the two files/folders are they way they are because its useful for developers to be able to paste the textual version of file/folder paths into the application (esp. if these come from code). I believe I pointed out that the interface would need to be different for general users; my reference to it was that the CocoaTech developers might be able to use this as a starting point and others may be able to use the application as a (partial) work-around.

Note that this application allows more than a simple one-shot only-do-it-one-way thing, the target directory doesn't have to be one of the two source directories and so on. I was referring to this, not just the particular way that Windows users are referring to.

I'd add, at the risk of being criticised, that I don't think its useful or correct to consider that either Apple or Microsoft have this "right" or "wrong". That sort of thing strikes me as a case of blaming the tools not the workman! ;) On the same note, there is no "right" way to merge folders either, there are many possibilities that suit different purposes; this is part of the reason I was thinking of something broader that the "Windows does it differently" issue.

On the "Windows does it differently" thing, there are two separate issues. The first being people accidentally replacing files, the second having a replacement for the Windows approach.

The former is, I hate to say, it a mix of not reading the dialog box message warning you what will take place and allowing you to opt out (it is pretty clear to me) and/or not using backups (e.g. Time Machine).

A solution for the latter, "folder move to same-named folder means copy-merge contents, not replace target object, aka 'the Windows way'" (phew!) isn't necessarily simple: there may be considerable testing needed to verify the behaviour is identical as for Windows, and people will complain loudly if its not... With that in mind, I have sympathy for the CocoaTech developers!

[JamesHT]

Let's say we have we have a folder on a hard drive with files:

Offsite_backup
..8000-9001 job files
....Photoshop
......really big file.psd
....Originals
......first draft.doc


Lets say that I have a couple of backup DVDs that also contain files that pertain to that job, in a similar folder structure, but each one only contains a sub-set of the final job because of the size limitations of each DVD. But I need to put the original job folder back together again from these three pieces of the puzzle.

DVD_1
..8000-9001 job files
....Photoshop
......picturea.psd
......pictureb.psd
....Originals
......finaldraft.doc
....Quark files
......Final Job.qxd (dated jan 1, 2008)
......First Crack.qxd
......Revision.qxd
....Support files
......Illustrator
........illustration1.aif
........illustration1.eps
........illustration2.eps
........logo.eps
......Pictures
........picturea.tif
........pictureb.tif

DVD_2
..8000-9001 job files
....Photoshop
......another really big file.psd
....Quark files
......Final Job.qxd (dated jan 3, 2008)
......final proof.pdf
....Support files
......Illustrator
........really large illustration.aif
......Pictures
........picturec.tif

Now, when I copy files from the 2 DVDs to the destination folder, I currently have to, by hand, pick through all of the subfolders from each source and copy the different files, by hand. A merge folders option would do all of this work for me, treating folders as CONTAINERS of object, not objects themselves. The final folder should look like this:

Offsite_backup
..8000-9001 job files
....Photoshop
......another really big file.psd
......picturea.psd
......pictureb.psd
......really big file.psd
....Originals
......first draft.doc
......finaldraft.doc
....Quark files
......Final Job.qxd (dated jan 3, 2008)
......final proof.pdf
......First Crack.qxd
......Revision.qxd
....Support files
......Illustrator
........illustration1.aif
........illustration1.eps
........illustration2.eps
........logo.eps
........really large illustration.aif
......Pictures
........picturea.tif
........pictureb.tif
........picturec.tif

All sub folders now contain all the files associated with the original job folder, and the older version of the Final Job.qxd is overwritten with the newer version from the second backup DVD. Imagine how fun it is to pick through all this crap by hand. Imagine how fast it would be for a computer to simply do the heavy lifting.

The suggestion to elect to merge folder by pointing to two source folders and merge to a third destination folder wouldn't work very well in this example, because the destination is already where I want it, already has files in it, and the merge operation would have to be done twice.

On Windows, this can be done simply by dragging the folders into the destination and letting Explorer do it's default behavior:

Does the target folder exist?
..no - create it, enter the folder and start copying files
..yes - enter folder and start copying files
....Does the target file exist?
......no - copy the file
......yes -
........Is the destination file newer than the source file?
..........no - copy the file, replacing the target
..........yes - skip the copy
..........
How hard can it be?

[salome]

I never used Windows, so I miss the merge /replace/ ore do other things-Function not so much, but if I need it, I use FolderSynchronize
http://softobe.com/products/flsy/pp.html
And Disc order http://www.likemac.ru/ is at least able to copy and past, what as you know is not possible in Mac Finder.
I know you all would have a sheep with five path, but in between this .apps may help
salome

[NZBioinformatics]

The suggestion to elect to merge folder by pointing to two source folders and merge to a third destination folder wouldn't work very well in this example, because the destination is already where I want it, already has files in it, and the merge operation would have to be done twice.


My suggestion didn't exclude the possibility of the merged (i.e. target) folder being one of the source folders, but that options not to be limited to that.

Your point about "having to do it twice" is related to handling multiple sources simultaneously, not merging per se. A small number of consecutive single merges should yield the same effect; if it were me I'd be wary of spending effort implementing a true multi-way merge. They could consider implementing a repeated two-way merge as a convenience (i.e. re-apply on a list of input folders behind the scenes), but personally I'd leave that as a later convenience and in the interim, let the users re-apply the merge as needed.

As I wrote earlier, there are different types of merges. By this I meant all of: different target directory options, different merge options, and, potentially, use of "ancestor" or "template" structures. I wouldn't expect all of these to be implemented, but what I was getting at was that I thought an approach open to generalisation may be more useful to a wider range of users.

I'd add that I believe the real limitation in the example you have presented is the way the backup has been done. It may be better to try fix the problem at the source, as it were ;) Some backup software can span a volume over several DVDs. Likewise, you could simply ensure the DVDs have non-overlapping sets of files, in which case no merge would be needed on restoring files. (One thing that can be useful to deal with files that are physically stored in different locations, but are logically related, is to use aliases or links to create a logical structure that isn't discontinuous that refers to the actual storage locations.)

Personally, I structure physical storage of files to suit the backups, and logical storage (i.e. links/aliases) to suit how the files are used, the argument being that backups should be kept as simple as possible (the more detailed story would take too much time here and isn't particularly relevant).

[NZBioinformatics]

Salome,

Good point about the synchronisation software, there are several these available. Synk (yes, with a 'k'!) is another I believe.