I really don't mind paying for future upgrades, but.... I will have a long hard look at the changelogs of future upgrades because of future improvements to the Robust transfer feature, I honestly think that overwrite should delete old and replace with new for files AND FOLDERS, I don't think that merging the contents of folders should be labeled as "overwrite", I feel that there should be two options for folder copying, "Merge" and "Overwrite".
Thanks for your product up to now.
Future X2 upgrade policy, don't mind paying but...
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
It may help to remember that x2 is a FILE manager.
So in that context overwrite is completely accurate.
However, I do note that there is a potential source of confusion in the robust transfer dialogbox description: The sub-box title "Existing objects overwrite" would better be labelled as "Existing files overwrite".
HTH
So in that context overwrite is completely accurate.
However, I do note that there is a potential source of confusion in the robust transfer dialogbox description: The sub-box title "Existing objects overwrite" would better be labelled as "Existing files overwrite".
HTH
I first became aware of different folder copy procedures when I researched microsoft and apple copy features, I discovered that "MS" merges folders and OSX overwrites folders, i.e. deletes old first, I then thought, hey thats the more logical behaviour for copying folders from one place to the another, but... being on Windows and not wanting to move to OSX I decided to hunt for an application that would do this for me, google to the rescue, it came up with your application, saw the extolled virtues of robust transfer and it had overwrite, great, I went for it and bought your app, the main reasons for me purchasing your app werenikos wrote:if you want to make the target folder structure identical to the source, why don't you delete everything in the target first and then paste the source on top?
1). Robust or Smart transfer ( principly the Overwrite feature)
2). Dual panes
3). I could assign my own hot keys for "invert selection".
I was and am seriously dissapointed to learn that X2's overwrite feature for folders is no different to microsofts, it really baffles me that with both systems one has to FIRST delete the old and then copy to prevent merging of files, I think that OSX's folder copy behaviour is far more logical and whilst I'm not a OSX fan boy they have this one right, surely when one copies a folder to another location with a previous copy of same it makes sense that it must overwrite the old with the new by deleting the old first.
Nikos, you keep on stating that improved and faster workflow is one of the great virtues of X2, so why do I have to first go to drive "x" to delete the old folders, which could be several if its a backup job, then go to the new folder location and copy the new across, this to me is not an improved workflow, and is unintuitive, it is also logical to me that if I copy a folder from one location to another I expect it to overwrite any old folder there automatically without me having to "scope' the dirve or directory for previous examples of the same folder just so that it won't bastardise the contents of the folder by merging the contents.
I don't think you'll alienate anyone if you have options for folder transfers in robust copy which stipulate "Merge" or "Overwrite" for folders, you might just become the darling of frustrated folder copiers.nikos wrote: i'd alienate perhaps 90% of the users
i have this new product in mind that will focus solely on file copy, and there i will consider your recommendation
It seems a little odd though that your flagship application wont have this incorporated.... so I will have to run two applications to do one job
however, if thats what it takes, then so be it.EDIT; http://www.xvsxp.com/files/copying.php
X2 could incorporate the best of both worlds and be the best.