In the 90s, as I remember it, Macs didn’t have anything called a directory, while Windows and Unix-based OSes had only directories (at least among geeks). I still use “directory” today if it’s in a Windows, Linux, or general context; “folder” in a Mac context. But I guess Windows switched to “folder” too at some point. But also, Macs are now BSD-based and I’m a programmer, so it’s directories when talking about command-line stuff.
Windows got “folder” by way of Macs, I’m pretty sure,
I was surprised to learn that the most direct lineage of the “folder” metaphor in Windows 95 (the first Windows which featured it in its modern form) was likely via NeXTStep.
This is derived from Steve Sinofsky’s excellent Substack[1], which walks carefully through the history of Windows 4.0/Chicago/95 and unambiguously describes Gates’ competitive target as NeXT & Jobs.
Once I read this, it was hard to un-see how obviously Win95 was inspired by NeXTStep in both design and aesthetics.
But if we're giving credit, we can't leave out Douglas Engelbart's "The Mother of all Demos"[0] in 1968.
> The live demonstration featured the introduction of a complete computer hardware and software system called the oN-Line System or, more commonly, NLS. The 90-minute presentation demonstrated for the first time many of the fundamental elements of modern personal computing: windows, hypertext, graphics, efficient navigation and command input, video conferencing, the computer mouse, word processing, dynamic file linking, revision control, and a collaborative real-time editor. Engelbart's presentation was the first to publicly demonstrate all of these elements in a single system. The demonstration was highly influential and spawned similar projects at Xerox PARC in the early 1970s.
But I don't think it had manila folders, or called them as such.
The manila folder icon was in both Windows 3.0 (and earlier) as well as OS/2 1.x so routinely called folders then too. Dir, folder, directory were all acceptable though different people had their preferences. I think I usually said dir being so used to seeing <DIR>.
I'm not sure how much Windows was directly influenced by the work of Xerox and not by Mac OS (also considering MS was basically on board on the Macintosh from day one).
Let's say Apple paved the way for Microsoft in terms of economic viability of a GUI ;)
Interesting answers in the article with some nuance and history but for most people it was when Windows 95 came out - DOS and Windows 3.1’s winfile[1] utility referred to them as directories. When Windows 95 came out it became folders.
That was Digital Research’s GEM, which Atari had licenced for the GUI of TOS (they threw it together quite quickly). There was a whole thing about GEM and inspiration from Xerox PARC and Apple; that’s largely the reason why the Atari version was the only version that really made it to any kind of brief success.
It was the only way to use a couple of very early DTP packages (Timeworks being the one I remember).
Of course, by then it was after GEM 2 and had been neutered by the lawsuit which forced it to abandon the desktop metaphor for 2 permanently tiled windows
But the other way that metaphor broke was when nesting drawers inside other drawers. With folders that makes sense; at least a little bit. I know that I have actually nested file folders before in real life but I’ve never installed a drawer inside my drawer.
But that’s OK, my love for Amiga is unconditional.
I has an Amiga as a kid and I remember in an IT class (where everything was Windows), I started talking about putting files in drawers and the teacher looked me like I had had two heads.
I used the term "directories" until about 5 years ago.
As I tried to explain things to people, they didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I said "directories." So I had to check that shit and start using "folders" so that I could communicate with people.
Haha, same here. I also found that some younger developers use GUI for navigating and manipulating the filesystem, instead of terminal. Made me a bit shocked first, just like the word “folder”, which I considered a “layman” word used by non-techies.
I didn't think it had. App is more specific and almost always used only when talking about programs intended for mobile devices. I haven't come across people using it to describe desktop software (these days). I like app better and I'm on board with a switch. Back in the warez days programs were called appz for applications so there's history there.
You were correct for about 2-4 years of the smart phone revolution though. I think we all became lazy and and replaced "application/program/software" with app since everyone knew/used app to describe everything on their phone.
I began following that trend when I realized most desktop apps are just blown up smartphone apps and former shells of more useful older programs.
app which is short for application is actually an old term from at least the 1970's. I believe the usage may come from a computer program that is applied to specific problem. You get the term computer application and program application with the latter eventually evolving to just application.
For example in Byte January 1977
"What if you just wrote a nifty new
program that runs in 16 K but your system
only has 8 K to spare? Do you buy another
8 K before you run this? Ofcourse not. You
logically break the program into smaller
pieces, which are stored in a direct access
device. When your application comes to
need a program segment which is not in
main memory, it goes out to the direct
access storage device and loads the needed
segment. Since the maximum delay of an
inexpensive floppy unit is about 0.75 second
and it has a data rate of 250 K bytes per
second, there will be little pause before the
program is again executing. Further, most of
the delay is from arm positioning motions,
so if all the data and program segments are
on adjacent tracks the delay will typically
average less than 1/30 of a second. Even ifa
person is waiting for the results, a large
amount of such swapping can go on before
the wait gets excessive."
48 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadWindows got “folder” by way of Macs, I’m pretty sure,
This is derived from Steve Sinofsky’s excellent Substack[1], which walks carefully through the history of Windows 4.0/Chicago/95 and unambiguously describes Gates’ competitive target as NeXT & Jobs.
Once I read this, it was hard to un-see how obviously Win95 was inspired by NeXTStep in both design and aesthetics.
[1] https://hardcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/
[0] https://www.howtogeek.com/769913/the-computer-folder-is-40-h...
> The live demonstration featured the introduction of a complete computer hardware and software system called the oN-Line System or, more commonly, NLS. The 90-minute presentation demonstrated for the first time many of the fundamental elements of modern personal computing: windows, hypertext, graphics, efficient navigation and command input, video conferencing, the computer mouse, word processing, dynamic file linking, revision control, and a collaborative real-time editor. Engelbart's presentation was the first to publicly demonstrate all of these elements in a single system. The demonstration was highly influential and spawned similar projects at Xerox PARC in the early 1970s.
But I don't think it had manila folders, or called them as such.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos
Let's say Apple paved the way for Microsoft in terms of economic viability of a GUI ;)
[1]https://github.com/microsoft/winfile
Of course, by then it was after GEM 2 and had been neutered by the lawsuit which forced it to abandon the desktop metaphor for 2 permanently tiled windows
The user interface shows folders but the programming manuals refer to directories.
In the File menu in TOS 2.06 it lists both Create Folder... and Close Directory
“Drawers”.
Truly the biggest loss when Commodore went bankrupt. (My first GUI growing up)
On the Amiga, you didn't have a desktop per se, but a Workbench. A Workbench has drawers.
The analogy breaks down somewhat, since I can't pull down my real-world workbench to reveal a red and white bouncing ball. Unfortunately.
But the other way that metaphor broke was when nesting drawers inside other drawers. With folders that makes sense; at least a little bit. I know that I have actually nested file folders before in real life but I’ve never installed a drawer inside my drawer.
But that’s OK, my love for Amiga is unconditional.
As I tried to explain things to people, they didn't know what the hell I was talking about when I said "directories." So I had to check that shit and start using "folders" so that I could communicate with people.
I wouldn't mind a combination between a file explorer and a terminal window.
I began following that trend when I realized most desktop apps are just blown up smartphone apps and former shells of more useful older programs.
For example in Byte January 1977 "What if you just wrote a nifty new program that runs in 16 K but your system only has 8 K to spare? Do you buy another 8 K before you run this? Ofcourse not. You logically break the program into smaller pieces, which are stored in a direct access device. When your application comes to need a program segment which is not in main memory, it goes out to the direct access storage device and loads the needed segment. Since the maximum delay of an inexpensive floppy unit is about 0.75 second and it has a data rate of 250 K bytes per second, there will be little pause before the program is again executing. Further, most of the delay is from arm positioning motions, so if all the data and program segments are on adjacent tracks the delay will typically average less than 1/30 of a second. Even ifa person is waiting for the results, a large amount of such swapping can go on before the wait gets excessive."
For me, it's 'directory' for cli, and 'folder' for gui.
Except for 'Directory Opus', it still makes sense to say 'directory'.
A list of names of things, with associated information, either text or pictorial.
Which is exactly what both GUIs and CLIs tend to give you for “folders”.