nikos wrote:I've asked Sal to create a separate forum for xplorer2 so that it won't be confused with 2x any more. That should help keep confusion levels down!
Can you ask Sal to make a separate forum with only one member? Then zippit can keep posting to that forum and we can go on with X2 development (at least: keep on bugging you with annoying questions and unrealistic change requests)
fgagnon wrote:
So, pila, can you please check & report on the sort setting under
VIEW|ARRANGE BY ... ?
** (also a function of whether quick view is ON, and the size limit for the quick view display -- so, pila, please also tell us this is not the case here, as that appears to be the assumption)
Sort is by type (extension), there are several types of extensions in most of my folders, dual pane, only folders and files are shown.
How about stop gripeing.How much memory do you have ? How many apps do you have running.Don't blame nikos if you have crippled your abilities.x2 is a beta version and seeks comments,not complaints. [/quote]
376 mb. None.
Regular Explorer shows the contents of the same folder with 1200 files in a second, x2 takes 15 seconds. I use it on two different computers with different OSs and have the same feelings.
I am using x2 probably at least 7-8 months. I have v35 non-debug version and it was significantly faster than the same (and all later) debug versions.
All I said is that I would appreciate if at e.g. every 6 months we would have one non-debug version and then continue adding features to the beta versions.
the slowness sounds like a complaint similar to what I had until I discovered that x2 was trying to sort on a slow-to-retrive attribute -- even though I was sure it wasn't
(That's why I suggested checking the Arrange by ... status.)
... and the observation that x2 still waits until is has sorted by that attribute before displaying even the "name only" list.
Now my filelist displays are all sub-second for me even for Mbyte-size files in folders with 1000's of files. But this performance was in a directory/file structure created for test purposes all al one session, so location on disk likely to be nearly contiguous in address-space. (But location-on-disk shouldn't be a difference in performance issue compared to other file explorer apps.) [I also use on 2 different 'puters & OS's]
So I don't understand what would be different & causing slowness you see.
When I try regular Windows Explorer on the same folder, with the same 1500 files of several different types, using the same sort by the extension, it display contents in less than 1 second. x2 takes 12+ seconds.
Since contents of this folder varies every several days, and ocassionaly it can be down to less than 100 files, I feel it very often, since when I move withing the folders pane, x2 will stop on that folder even when I want to skip it when there are over several hunderds of files.
and again: regular Windows Explorer shows it in less then 1 second and x2 non-debug version 35 was also about that fast.
I wasn't able to reproduce the long display times on 2GHz P4-class machines running XP or w2k using abt 1000 half-MB files of various types.
But when I checked the old 400MHz P2 computer running w98 on a copy of the same big directories ... viola!
I see 4-5 seconds response times (list view, sorted by type).
and in comparison, m$ explorer is sub-second for same folders.
Also no response time difference whether the folders are accessed across my home LAN, or on the local HD. Tonight I see a definite speed issue with x2.
(nikos, take note -- x2 has great functionality, but shows up notably slower than the m$ thingy here.)
have you tried sorting by name or unsorted? Also if you read a folder once, it is cached by the system; if you first read it with x2 and then compare it with explorer, it will give an unfair advantage to the 2nd reader
nikos wrote:I've asked Sal to create a separate forum for xplorer2 so that it won't be confused with 2x any more. That should help keep confusion levels down!
Can you ask Sal to make a separate forum with only one member? Then zippit can keep posting to that forum and we can go on with X2 development (at least: keep on bugging you with annoying questions and unrealistic change requests)
Thanks for the PM reply.
A seperate 2x and x2 was my goal.
By the way "member" has many meanings" see Webster for complete details.I have a nice one or 2.
[/quote]
