 |
DESCRIPTION
Flow is an FTP client for Mac OS X Leopard. Flow supports FTP, SFTP, Amazon S3, and iDisk connections, file-editing, and concurrent transfers.
On the Mac, you've become accustomed to software that's not just powerful, but elegant too. Armed with the belief that file-transfer should be no exception, we made Flow. Flow brings the best of the Mac to your server's files and folders. Put simply, Flow makes working remotely every bit as intuitive and natural as working locally with the Finder.
- Connect to FTP, SFTP, Amazon S3, WebDAV, and iDisk servers.
- Edit files directly on the server, in the robust internal editor, or any other editing app of your choice.
- Copy and View URLs to your remote files instantly.
- Use QuickLook to preview any file the Finder can.
- Quickly Upload without interaction : When you drag a bookmark to your desktop, it becomes a droplet. When you drop files or folders on it, it’ll upload those items, and even copy their URL.
WHAT'S NEW
Version 1.2.3:
- [Fixed] Largest known crasher to date related to authentication. Customers encountered it most often when doing external editing.
- [Improved] Flow's lost some weight due to general architecture cleanup.
- [Fixed] Snow Leopard issue where Flow license files with the "XML" file extension would not be recognized.
- [Fixed] The column-view scroll positions are now preserved when reloads occur.
- [Fixed] Crasher when presenting errors.
- [Fixed] Issue with parsing certain MSDOS FTP server directory listings.
- [Fixed] Added the "New Folder" and "New File" menu items back to the remote view contextual menus.
REQUIREMENTS
Mac OS X 10.5 or later.
| SCREENSHOT
|
|
 |
|  |
 | |  |
| Flow User Reviews (18 posts) | Write A Review |
 | Jun 3 2009 |
NUTBITS It still has problems and it's been a long while since an update. I want to like it, but I'm disappointed
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Sep 1 2009 |
SHOCK J I totally agree. I've been trying and trying to like this program but it's just too inconsistent. It has NEVER been able to save passwords in bookmarks. And now it seems to have to serious issues in Snow Leopard. I'm going to have to go back to Fetch or Interarchy, an app that's not just toying around with being and FTP client.
(Version 1.2.1) | |
 | Sep 2 2009 |
That's interesting. I'm the developer of Flow -- so don't take this the wrong way, but are you using the latest version of Flow? Or even a recent version? Because if you are, and you're not able to save passwords, then I'm sorry to suggest that you're probably using a "cracked" copy of Flow. (Cracking the binary causes the code signature to become invalid, thus barring the app from accessing the Keychain, where passwords are stored.) In any case, you can grab the latest version of Flow (1.2.2 at the time of writing) from . And, for what it's worth, if you *are* using old, outdated, and cracked copies of software, and reviewing them negatively for functioning incorrectly, then I must say that that's pretty low, sir.
(Version 1.2.2) | |
| Apr 23 2009 |
FINKEL Crashes when connecting to a Webdav site. Never was able to connect. Always test software before you post for the masses.
(Version 1.1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 3 2009 |
IPHONELOVER1020 I just posted a review over at Versiontracker, but I know people use both, so I'm reposting here: I've been using this app for a while now --- at least 7 months, and I think almost as long as it's been available. At first, it was buggy, but it's matured a lot with time. Now Flow is an absolute joy to use. It's simple, it's intuitive, it's fast, and it looks GREAT. I highly recommend trying Flow out. This app is a winner.
(Version 1.1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 31 2008 |
MARS919 I just gave this app a try again. Uploading a file (50 MB) via SFTP stalls after 25 MB. My eperiences with previous versions were similar. No matter what interface or features a file transfer application it may have, the basics should be stable and reliable. At the moment, Flow is NOT a robust FTP tool.
(Version 1.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 25 2008 |
JELLYBELLY I still don't understand why this doesn't have a 2-pane view! Until then, I am sticking with ForkLift!
(Version 1.0.3) | |
| [ 4 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
 | Jul 25 2008 |
E_COMMERCE Maybe because two-pane is a horrible, horrible interface convention from the days of DOS?
(Version 1.0.3) | |
| Jul 27 2008 |
JELLYBELLY It should be an option at the very least! 2-pane views, no matter how old is still here because it just works. Seeing your data side-by-side when syncing is a definite plus. So what do you use when a file you want to upload is not on your desktop ready for drag-and-drop? Open up Finder/Spotlight/Quicksilver just to find what is supposedly easily found inside the FTP app itself? Seems like a time-waster, don't you think? I repeat, it should be an option.
(Version 1.0.3.1) | |
| Jul 27 2008 |
MACSTERDAM should it really? If you want 2 panes, there are plenty of other applications that provide that option. Flow has chosen not to offer more of the same - I applaud them for that.
(Version 1.0.3.1) | |
| Jul 27 2008 |
BERTOBOX I agree with macsterdam and e_commerce. I prefer the one pane and abhor the two-pane, just my two cents. I've still to try Flow, it looks very nice. I usually swear by Cyberduck. :)
(Version 1.0.3.1) | |
| May 12 2008 |
IMRE FAZEKAS Great stuff! Beautiful GUI, fast, easy-to-use. One big missing feature: FTP over SSL support. A lot of NAS solution require this protocol, so flow can't be used in these cases. :(
(Version 1.0.1) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 22 2008 |
ROGERWALSH This is far from a pro app at present. Good luck to the developers but it just doesn't feel right. those "old" interfaces work. this one doesn't. Nice if you want to show off, not nice to do work with.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 19 2008 |
FARDILHA I like the way Flow is going, but I can't vouch for it right now. I decided to make some tests comparing Flow with my standard FTP app (Cyberduck). My first impression was really good, Flow was being faster than Cyberduck copying a dozen (small) files from a remote server to my Mac and browsing thru folders was more responsive under Flow. So I decided to make a better test and make Flow copy a normal web site (around 50 MG distributed between a lot of small files and some bigger movie ones). That's when things start to go wrong. I tried 3 times and Flow could never properly complete the backup, while Cyberduck albeit slow was able to do so. Finally i did a different test. I went to a sub-folder and changed permissions (to 644). After this I tried to delete that folder. To my surprise Flow deleted not only that folder but the ALL ftp content, even if it was on a higher level then the selected folder. (To be certain this wasn't a mistake i repeat the operation 3 times and on all of them I lost the poor web site in full... thank God it was only a test site) So, basically I think Flow is a little to dangerous for my liking and I just can't "trust" my files to him.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 8 2008 |
WEBMOTIVA.COM It reacts just like Mac OS X and everything is where it should be. I used the term "PRO" because this app has a more effective and integrated gui that just work. The "other" famous FTP client has a too old design and the file transfer is slow. Flow transfers my files faster but I don't know why and how.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 8 2008 |
SEMIOTICMONKEY yep. everything is where it should be but the dual pane and the features (not working, ahem). I wouldn't use the 'pro' tag, alas. I would use the 'i' as in iApp tag, instead. Everything is simple for simple tasks. When you need to make the work done on multiple sites (or multiple versions of the same webapp), the one window trendy is simply wrong (i prefer dual pane for single task too cause i don't want to switch from an app to another to make simple things :-) if you don't want to navigate path by path in finder and having a bunch of finder windows opened. Imagine using a single window approach to diff/merge a 4000 lines of code. gasp! From that approach storically derives the FTP dual pane view mode that you call 'old'. It is not 'old', only more tailored to the usage (diff/merge local copy / remote copy). A single window doesn't allow this. Simple as that. This monowindowed application trendy is not good for the FTP task for the remainded reasons. It is a Form over functions case. A bad case. In my usage Flow doesn't seems to run faster than Cyberduck (or Terminal or Transmit), so i guess it is a matter of taste and casuality, here. Nothing more. | |
| Apr 6 2008 |
WEBMOTIVA.COM It's MUCH faster than Transmit when using normal FTP accounts and services. The transmission is better and the interface is more PRO for web designers. Great!
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Apr 6 2008 |
SEMIOTICMONKEY 'please make up your claims with reason' is writed in the 'comment' textbox. Please let all of us know why this monowindow trendy IS more PRO from a user experience pov and not from your individual opinion. if you are going to put rating you have to explain the reasons why. A review, indeed, and not a simple statement. We are waiting here to discuss. ps. Have you timed your Flow ftp connections against Transmit or Cyberduck (or x) ones? If yes, please put the results here.
(Version 1.0) | |
|
| View all 18 posts >> |
|
