Small feature request: showing file size in MB - feature: file size in MB

omnimike · Post by **omnimike** » 2002 Nov 24, 00:22

Hi all,

I tried 2xExplorer and it's really really nice! I was so tired of Windows Explorer locking up video files and telling me that some program is using the file (but in fact it was windows explorer itself that's reading the file) when I try to rename them. 2xExplorer has all the feature that I need except that it shows the file size in byte while I would prefer it to be in MB because I use the explorer to check how files fits into a cd which has 702.7MB (I'm too lazy to calculate that in bytes and my brain can't calculate mentally filesize/2^20). So it would be very cool if such option is added in futur release. Thanks a bunch!

Mike

PS: am I posting the message in the right place?

Post by **nikos** » 2002 Nov 24, 11:34

Hi Mike

(yes, this is the right spot to post this kind of question)

if you check the file registry.txt you'll find a value called bPlainBytesFormat that controls this very issue. The default is 1 (TRUE) so just set it to 0 to get compressed filesizes

omnimike · Post by **omnimike** » 2002 Nov 25, 00:40

Hi again,

yep it works. Then there is no more reason to use Windows Explorer... ;)

Here is a bunch of thanks delivered to you!

Mike

narayan · Post by **narayan** » 2002 Nov 25, 03:54

because I use the explorer to check how files fits into a cd which has 702.7MB

Even after knowing the folder size in MBs you will have to work out how to fit the files over several CDs.

There is a special-purpose utility called BTTB (Burn To The Brim) that splits the folders over several CDs in such a way that each CD is stuffed to the maximum.

Dexter_prog · Post by **Dexter_prog** » 2010 Apr 06, 02:13

How can I do this on the latest version (in the status bar)? By the way, who wants, nowadays, to see file size displayed in BYTES by default?

I also can't find the option to save each folders view

Post by **nikos** » 2010 Apr 06, 05:54

2xexplorer is no longer developed. Have a look at xplorer2, it has this option in Tools > Options menu

Cosmo · Post by **Cosmo** » 2010 Apr 06, 09:14

Dexter_prog wrote:By the way, who wants, nowadays, to see file size displayed in BYTES

Me, for example.

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2010 Apr 06, 12:20

Cosmo wrote:Me, for example.

You don't find it just a tad overbearing to stare at columns of lots of numbers?

My eyes would rebel before my brain quit.

And if there were no delimiting "commas", I'd tear my eyes out, just on principle.

Useful for things like uploading and burning where you need to know precise bytes, but all the time? Ugh.

Dexter_prog · Post by **Dexter_prog** » 2010 Apr 06, 13:03

nikos wrote:2xexplorer is no longer developed. Have a look at xplorer2, it has this option in Tools > Options menu

Thanks. I'm not sure how I missed that option. I am using Xplorer², I just revived this thread because it had my same question, but I didn't realize it was on the old 2x explorer support forum

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2010 Apr 06, 13:08

I, also, prefer to view sizes using BYTES. Not because the last byte is significant, but because the display width (number of digits used) offers a quick visual indication of size without having to recognize and interpret KB vs. MB vs. GB. Display using BYTES is oh-so user friendly that way.

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2010 Apr 06, 16:25

fgagnon wrote:because the display width ... offers a quick visual indication of size without having to recognize and interpret KB vs. MB vs. GB.

Good point, as I have been caught out by that once or twice - fatally burning CD-R's with what I thought was GB... but turned out to be only electrons mixed with rabbit poo.

But even these setbacks did not deter me from pursuing a life of sloth, ease, and comfort in the KBMBGB bosom. Too long did I spend in the desert of DOS teaching myself how to anally divide by those extra bloody 24 bytes (1024) just so I knew what I had. It's like dreaming in colour - if you ain't got it, you just ain't got it.

Now that I think on it, one of the first "real" programs I ever wrote was to imitate the "list" approach of a DEC PDP-11 'cat' command. Why else did I have 80 columns on my beloved amber CRT when DOS stubbornly used only 39 of them?

I was a driven man, questing for the truth.

Oh, are we off topic again? I hadn't noticed... my brain wanders in the afternoons...

fgagnon · Post by **fgagnon** » 2010 Apr 06, 19:46

@ Why else did I have 80 columns on my beloved amber CRT ... ?
IIRC, it was because the CRTs we were using predated DOS and were designed as a human readable interface for DEC, IBM and other early electronic computers. And 80 columns was chosen to match the number of characters a standard IBM punch card could have. One card for each statement (line) in our program -- limited to FORTRAN or COBOL at the time.
Further, DOS was developed with the home enthusiast computer geeks in mind, who generally could not afford the nice monitors, but resorted to using their relatively low-res TV sets as monitors -- so half a line (40 characters) was about as much as one could get on a line and have it be clear enough to be readable.

Kilmatead · Post by **Kilmatead** » 2010 Apr 06, 20:24

fgagnon wrote:And 80 columns was chosen to match the number of characters a standard IBM punch card could have.

I seem to remember having access to a DECWriter (hardcopy wide printer) which was 135 columns stock. (With the tractor-fed white-and-green stripy paper! Bring it back!)

fgagnon wrote:DOS was developed with the home enthusiast computer geeks in mind, who generally could not afford the nice monitors, but resorted to using their relatively low-res TV sets as monitors

It's times like now I miss my Apple ][ :crying:

And my friend's TRS-80. (I think this had 32-character width on blurry televsions.)

And before that I missed my PET. (9-inch CRT, 40-column greenscreen)

And before that I missed my BallyAstrocade (I made whole games in 1.8K! At, wait for it, 24-character-width! On super-blurry televisions!)

Now I'm stuck with this dual-monitor quad-core overclocked hunk of junk. (With lots of glowing blue things pulling 286 watts idle.)

Life was so much simpler, then.

"Que sera, sera..."

But at least I have my beloved KB MB GB's to console me. :roll:

Tuxman · Post by **Tuxman** » 2010 Apr 08, 02:21

fgagnon wrote:I, also, prefer to view sizes using BYTES. Not because the last byte is significant, but because the display width (number of digits used) offers a quick visual indication of size without having to recognize and interpret KB vs. MB vs. GB. Display using BYTES is oh-so user friendly that way.

ACK.