I’m using ExpanDrive to work on files through a mounted drive. I expected saved changes to show up right away, but I keep having to reopen the folder to see them. Does anyone else see this? What alternatives would you recommend for drive mounting without that extra checking?
I’m looking for a way to work with remote files from my desktop, and I’m catching up on the alternatives to ExpanDrive. I’d been treating file transfer apps and tools that mount remote storage as roughly the same thing, but that’s the distinction I needed to sort out first.
The part I’d been overlooking
My starting point was too vague: I wanted access to files stored somewhere else. That doesn’t really say whether I need to move those files around or work on them through my usual applications.
A transfer app covers the first job. A mounting tool makes remote storage available as a drive through Finder or Windows File Explorer. Both involve remote files, but they’re different ways of working, and I don’t want to pick one just because it shows up on an alternatives list.
What I actually want to compare
For me, the useful dividing line is what happens when a file needs editing. If I want to open it in a normal desktop application, make changes, and save it back without switching to a separate transfer app, mounting is the category I should be looking at.
If the task is simply moving files between locations, I shouldn’t assume I need that integration. I’m still getting familiar with these tools, so I’d rather start with the job than build a feature checklist I can’t explain.
Platform comes before preference
I also need to keep the operating system in view instead of treating every option as interchangeable. RaiDrive belongs on the Windows side of the comparison, where it maps cloud storage as local network drives.
That’s useful context before getting attached to a particular name. I haven’t established a personal favorite, and nothing in this comparison tells me how these apps would perform with my own files.
The mounting options I’m considering
For something that works along the same lines as ExpanDrive, CloudMounter app belongs in the comparison. It mounts S3 buckets, FTP/SFTP servers, and cloud accounts in Finder or Windows File Explorer, letting you open, edit, and save remote files through desktop applications. It also includes client-side AES-256 encryption, which is relevant if sensitive files are part of the job.
Another mounting option is Mountain Duck, which integrates with Finder and File Explorer. I’m keeping it in the same category rather than mixing it into a general list of transfer clients.
Where I’ve landed
For straightforward transfers over S3, SFTP, and WebDAV, Cyberduck app and Transmit app are the alternatives I’d compare instead.
My verdict is that I’d choose the workflow before choosing the app. For editing remote files through my normal desktop tools, I’d focus on mounting options; for moving files around, I’d stick with a transfer client rather than add an integration I don’t need.
7 Likes
A replacement could very well have the same annoyance of folder-refresh. I agree with separating transfer apps and mounting utilities, but I would check if it’s the saving that’s delayed or the folder representation before changing anything. Save a disposable file, then open the contents of the remote service directly without reopening the mounted folder. CloudMounter would still be on my trial list, but I’m not very interested on adding a new paid app just to work around a stale view. My deciding test would be whether that exact edit-and-save procedure works without the extra folder-refresh.
If you tend to close your laptop right after saving, I’d put upload status ahead of folder-refresh behavior when comparing replacements. I agree with @silent_fuzzy_daemon about separating a stale view from a delayed save, but there’s a usability issue either way: you shouldn’t have to keep checking the remote service just to know whether your work got there.
When comparing alternatives like CloudMounter, I’d look for a clear way to tell what’s waiting to upload, what finished, and what failed. That would matter more to me than how neatly the drive appears in Explorer or Finder. During a trial, I’d save a disposable file, briefly disconnect, reconnect, and check whether the app makes the outcome obvious. I wouldn’t assume any candidate handles that well without checking. A replacement that refreshes the folder instantly but leaves you guessing about unfinished uploads wouldn’t solve the more annoying problem.
Are you editing them on a single computer, or is there a possibility that someone else could edit it when it’s mounted somewhere else? That would change things. Outdated entries in the folder are a pain, but opening up and overwriting someone else’s edits would be far more problematic if that’s the case.
I agree with @johny that upload status matters, but I wouldn’t use “upload finished” as the whole acceptance test for a replacement. For a shared folder, I’d want to know how it handles changes coming in from elsewhere. Does opening a file pick up the other person’s latest save? What happens if both people have it open? I wouldn’t assume that making remote storage look like a drive answers either question.
Mountain Duck and CloudMounter qualify as mounted-drive applications as described here, making them candidates for resolving the issue instead of a transfer application. I cannot say that either would resolve the particular symptom you described, however, based on the information provided. I would be wary of purchasing a new application based on the responsiveness of the folder window. It may very well provide a nicer appearance, but resolving the observed behavior when actually opening and editing a file is significantly more important.
In the case of shared storage, I would personally conduct testing using a deliberately conflicting, unimportant document. Open the file on your desktop, edit the contents using the alternative machine, and attempt to save your changes. The expected outcome is not necessarily for the application to merge the contents, but a warning before proceeding or a preservation of the second edit would be reasonable behaviors. The ability to predictably understand what is happening would be necessary for me to recommend any particular application, as those abilities are not universal among candidates.
The consideration would be less of a concern if the documents were not shared between computers. Your operating system, storage service, and editing application would all play a role in the potential candidates. Testing would be necessary to determine if merely reopening the folder would refresh the contents to their proper state or update the timestamp on the file. Editing applications typically do not modify the contents of files in a way that would be desirable, so this would be an important distinction to make.
The editor shouldn’t be treated as an afterthought, @hacksudo8. Before replacing ExpanDrive, I’d compare saving a disposable plain-text file in a basic editor with saving a throwaway document in the application you actually use. Keep both in the same mounted folder. If the annoyance only appears with your usual application, that gives you a much narrower problem to investigate than “the drive doesn’t refresh.”
For a Mountain Duck or CloudMounter trial, I’d make that application the centerpiece rather than spend much time browsing folders. Try an ordinary save, Save As, and renaming the document after closing it. Those are separate operations worth checking, especially if they’re part of your daily routine. I wouldn’t choose between the candidates on the information here. A mount that behaves nicely with a text editor but gets awkward with your actual work files isn’t much of an upgrade.
Check what you are mounting over before you blame the software. A folder appearing after save is often a caching layer altogether, and the behavior depends greatly on the protocol. SFTP, WebDAV, S3 or a cloud providers API have very different capabilities, especially regarding folders and change notifications. S3 does not really support folders or notifications at all, requiring clients to guess and periodically poll. By switching to ExpanDrive you guessed right but now have to guess for others.
@silent_fuzzy_daemon’s disposable-file test is the right instinct, but I’d push it one step further: check whether the client has an attribute or metadata cache with a timeout you can set. ExpanDrive caches directory listings, and a lot of the ‘I saved but don’t see it’ complaints come down to that cache not expiring until you force a refresh. Before you pay for anything, dig through the preferences for a cache duration setting. Dropping it low often fixes the exact symptom people spend money trying to escape.
Where I’d disagree slightly with the shared-editing tangent: that’s a real problem, but it’s a different problem. @hacksudo8 is right that overwriting someone’s work is worse than a lagging view, yet the original post reads like a single-user annoyance. No point building your whole test plan around conflict handling if nobody else touches these files. Match the testing to your actual situation instead of the scariest hypothetical.
If you need to trial a replacement then CloudMounter is the one I’d set up for this. Mount the same backend ExpanDrive is using, save a throwaway file in your real editor, see if the listing is updated on its own within a few seconds. If it does, you had a cache problem. If it doesn’t, you’ve confirmed it’s the protocol, no app on that list will save you.
One thing nobody’s mentioned is that editors that write to a temp file and rename on save (which is most decent ones) hammer remote mounts harder than a plain overwrite. If your application does that and your backend is slow to show renames then you get the delay even when the upload finished instantly. Worth knowing before you conclude the mount is at fault.