 |
Flow is a stunning new FTP client built exclusively for Mac OS X Leopard. Flow streamlines both transferring and editing files by leveraging your high-speed connection, presenting a gorgeous yet tasteful user-interface, and integrating the latest and greatest of OS X technology.
Version 1.0.3.1:
- Fix for connecting via SFTP.
- Fix for editing a file externally after closing it once.
- Fix for the "Save Changes" sheet displaying after only initially opening an editor document.
|
|
|
 |
|  |
 | |  |
| Flow User Reviews (14 posts) | Write A Review |
 | 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) | |
| Apr 5 2008 |
MILESLONG First of all I am in awe of anyone who can actually create an application of any type so any criticism by me is simply to be used constructively. I like simple, an FTP client should not be difficult to use by the average person. An application such as crushftp may have nice features but is very difficult to setup and get working. This application is easy to setup but this one window GUI on some of the latest FTP clients drives me mad, Does anyone really like just the one window? Why would I want to open up my finder window and also open up Flow in order to transmit data to my server? Everyone I have talked to about this agrees that two windows, one for the data on your computer and one window for the server is the easiest to manipulate and understand. Please consider a two window option as least. The speed seems comparable to most of the others on the Mac market. I have tested about 30 FTP clients between windows and mac in the last month and I am sticking for now with Transmit (solid) and Forklift (best GUI) for mac and CuteFTP (fast but ugly) and WS_FTP (the Transmit of the windows world) on windows. For now I'm not sure that you should be charging for this application in it's current form when you have free apps like Cyberduck which perform as well. My advice would be to keep this in a free Beta mode until you reach a point where this app can separate itself from the pack. Once you can show the value of this product then the public will be more than happy to pay for this fine app. Good luck and keep up the good work, but PLEASE give it a two window option...
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 5 2008 |
-Bugs on ordering bookmarks (through drag and drop) made me lose some (just disappeared). -Back button greyed out for some reason (as mentioned by another poster, works sometimes, others it doesn't. -View in browser button does nothing. -Using small sized toolbar icons works, except for refresh button? -Default transcript window is too large and rolls past desktop cut-off. Upon re-launch it shows up on top (with the same effect). Now the gripes. Why the list view needs size 12 font is beyond me. A standard 10px font size would have been ideal. I'm not sure if this one window does it all philosophy (or rather design choice) is going to fly. There is a reason why all other FTP programs are dual window. I sort my files by date and when I update client's websites, it's easy to see what new file I need to upload. I don't think I want to micro-manage through the Finder and then my FTP app. I think this was a very poor design choice by the author. All in all, I am not sure how much usability testing went into this program (not beta testing, usability testing). After almost 2 years of hype and development, it is still plagued with many of the bugs the betas had and doesn't offer enough bang for my buck. I'll stick with Transmit for now... but competition is always good and wish this product the best... it's just for me right now.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 4 2008 |
ESPIRIDION For a moment I was excited thinking that Flow had been updated, but this is a new program. Flow was a great program by Near-Time.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Apr 4 2008 |
VERYCARLA WebDAV is a nice touch, but it fails to connect to my site. It gets stuck on "Listing". I have no problem accessing the site with Goliath 1.0.1.
(Version 1.0) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
|
| View all 14 posts >> |
|
