xplorer² suggestion

Q & A for the old 2X Explorer file manager. For other topics, please use the corresponding forum.

Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods

User avatar
VaMPiRiC_CRoW
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2003 Oct 24, 23:34
Location: Coimbra, PORTUGAL

Post by VaMPiRiC_CRoW » 2003 Oct 27, 15:30

nikos wrote:this just makes the loading times longer
it has no difference once the executable is mapped in memory

the "real" program (release version) is around 330K (and rising)
when it is that you think that the version release will leave?

User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos » 2003 Oct 27, 17:29

1 or 2 years should cover it :)
the honest reply is, "i don't know"

User avatar
VaMPiRiC_CRoW
Member
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: 2003 Oct 24, 23:34
Location: Coimbra, PORTUGAL

Post by VaMPiRiC_CRoW » 2003 Oct 27, 23:42

Hi again :P

I've two more suggestions:

1º- Show Up One Level on the top of the list;
2º- Display compressed NTFS files and folders with alternate color

User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos » 2003 Oct 28, 07:42

didn't i answer that earlier? To go up, d-click on a pane's titlebar
to identify compressed files, you can enable the attribute column, that shows a "C" for compressed files. Also there's a column that shows the real size occupied on disk, which is another clue

file compression is meant to be completely transparent. I don't see the point making it stand out -- it only makes the program look like a small-time sideshow!

User avatar
Jaykul
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2003 Jul 02, 19:09
Contact:

While we're suggesting new ideas ...

Post by Jaykul » 2003 Oct 28, 22:30

What about something radically new, like "group by" in the details view.

Here's one possible use (excuse the messy tree approximation)

+ 2002
+ 2003
...
|--+ July 2003
|--+ Aug 2003
|--+ Sep 2003
|--+ October 2003
| |--+ 4 Weeks ago
| |--+ 3 Weeks ago
| |--+ 2 Weeks ago
| |--+ Last Week
| | ....
| | |--+ Yesterday
| | | |----- Filename ....
| | | |----- Filename ....
| | | |----- Filename ....


Basically, I was thinking earlier about the ammount of work that I put into archiving downloads or files I create --- by year and month, or even by day in the case of software installers and such ... And I realized my email client (Pegasus) has the perfect solution with their grouping. Maybe this could be put into the "Scrap Frame" or maybe we could have another view for the main file manager.

Other "Group By" possibilities: by file type, by size (logarithmic scale?), by Path (in the Scrap Frame), by attibutes (really useful for checking for non-read-only files that need to be checked into source control, by author (for all those NTFS file shares), Artist, Album Title, Genre, BitRate ... ok, you get the picture :oops:
--
::Jaykul

User avatar
nikos
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 14942
Joined: 2002 Feb 07, 15:57
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by nikos » 2003 Oct 29, 08:14

in what sense would that be different to just sorting by date? Do you have something like XP's groups in mind?

in the near future, multi-way sorting will arrive, using more than 1 column at a time

User avatar
Jaykul
Member
Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 2003 Jul 02, 19:09
Contact:

Post by Jaykul » 2003 Nov 03, 19:52

Well, I hadn't even seen XP's groupings until you said that ... and uhm, yes, that, in fact, having played with it for a little bit ... they group by dates logarithmically (exactly how I would like it), but they group sizes a bit oddly ... anyway, yes, exactly that, except I want to be able to collapse groups (and of-course, sort within the groups based on something that I didn't already group by. But you're allready all over that :wink: )
--
::Jaykul

Post Reply