How to add DigestIT2004 MD5 to x2 context menu?

[greh]

How to add DigestIT2004 MD5 to x2 context menu?

This works in Windows Explorer context menus,
and though I've tried several approaches w/ x2, nothing has worked so far ...

md5.JPG

I want to have DigestIT2004 available in the x2 context menu,
to check MD5 / SHA values on any file/folder.

Its installed values/files are :

digestIT.dll
Hash.dll

Appreciate any suggestions, thx ~

[nikos]

you either need xplorer2 32 or 64 bit version, whichever one you have try the other!

[greh]

OK, I need/request/would really appreciate a solution to this problem,

and with due respect to your previous answer Nikos, I don't feel I should have to "try the other one" --

the 32/64 bit SHOULD JUST WORK on the appropriate platform
(maybe I "SHOULD JUST GET A MAC SINCE THEY JUST WORK! -- oh futz, I already have 6 of 'em )

Problem: How can x2 Ultimate-made-Portable, show the same context menu items as Windows Explorer,
without making it the full replacement for Windows Explorer? and, without adding x2 entries for every program, under all the context menu handlers.

Example: 7-zip and UltraIso both have "configuration" settings that give them useful context menu entries.

When I've done a regular INSTALL of x2, then these context menu entries are picked up.
But simply using x2 as Portable, it doesn't pick these up -- why Not?

How can I do this in a simple manner -- that is, without adding x2 entries for every program, under all the context menu handlers,
for example as shown in Autorun? --

HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Classes\*\ShellEx\ContextMenuHandlers
HKLM\Software\Classes\AllFileSystemObjects\ShellEx\ContextMenuHandlers
HKLM\Software\Wow6432Node\Classes\AllFileSystemObjects\ShellEx\ContextMenuHandlers etc etc

Thanks in advance for how to solve this, as I'm currently having to go back into WinExplorer to do these unzip/unrar/iso type things.

[Kilmatead]

The only reason these context-menu entries are not showing up is if you are using the 32-bit version of x2 on an x64 system.

From the looks of those registry examples ("\Wow6432Node") your Windows OS is x64. Therefore you must use the x64 version of x2 to access x64 shell extensions. The 32-bit version cannot "see" x64 extensions, and no amount of registry fixes can solve that.

Therefore use the x64 version.

P.S. You didn't, by chance, read this tip in the quick-start guide under setting up the portable edition, did you?

TIP: The ultimate edition comes in separate 32 and 64 bit versions. Thinking about portability you will be better off using the 32 bit version, as it will run on all computers - whereas the 64 bit one will be limited to those installed with 64 bit windows.

Whilst the nature of that tip is true, it neglects to mention that x64 OS shell-extensions will not work with the 32-bit version - so under those circumstances, you will not be "better off" using it.

You may, if you wish, have both EXE versions of x2 in the same portable folder, and simply run the appropriate one for whichever OS you happen to be using at the time.

[greh]

@Kilmatead ... once again, thx very much for the thoroughness of your reply -
now I can understand the WHY behind "try the other one" ....

otherwise, it's like my old chiropractor -- "well, if it don't work on one side, flip 'em over & try the other" .....
i.e. : "pop and pray" ..... or in I.T. terms "click and hope"

.... before I do that, I'm trying to find out exactly which version is operative, because I don't know & don't remember which I installed/converted to portable, uninstalled, etc ...

I looked in the small dialogue box "About ...", I've looked in the .ini portable file, I've looked in HKCU>Software>ZabaraKatranemia Plc>......,
but nowhere have I yet found a descriptor that I can understand to be either 32 or 64 bit.

so, will appreciate a pointer as to how to know that, thx very much again ...

edit: Yes I did read that "tip", but I didn't make any notes regarding it, or which version I installed ..... my BAD ..... will correct that from here on,
and be more diligently attentive to making log entries that will explain & save time in the future

[Kilmatead]

If you were using the x64 version, it would be stated very clearly in the "About" version box...

2.3.0.1 ULT [Unicode] x64 08-Mar-13

...if it does not say x64 there, then you are using the x86 (32-bit) version. Also, the x2 programme executable itself would have "_64" appended to the filename, whereas the 32-version would just be plain old "xplorer2.exe".

If you don't wish to "install" the x64 version simply to get the executable and uninstall it again (to remain portable), you may just download the x64 installer (for ultimate) and use something like Universal Extractor (which itself does not require installation) to get the file named "xplorer2_64.exe" (and possibly its .manifest file as well, just in case). But that's only if you're one of the people who are paranoid about such things.

I know that these sorts of distinctions can sound somewhat arcane to non-technical people, but that's one of the things you sign up for if you choose to play with toys like these - you can blame MS for a lot of this - the applications themselves are not really at fault. And explorer-type programmes are more technical than most, and thus cannot always be made as family-friendly as people would assume. I don't think Volvo make an explorer substitute anyway, so safety and careful attention lies with the user.

[greh]

hey - this is fun! Thx for the learnings here -

I do use UniExtract, so I just did the drill you suggested,
then clicked on the "xplorer2_64.exe " (1st confirmation) ,
looked in the "About" box, and sure enough there it is (2nd confirmation).

Then, went into a directory w/ .iso files, R-clicked, and there's everybody!
just waiting to party in that context menu .... 7-zip, DigestIT2004, Sandboxie, TeraCopy, UltraIso, UniExtract, Unlocker
(3rd confirmation)

so, in the extracted subdirectory I see:

editor2_64.exe
editor2_64.exe.manifest

xplorer2_64.exe
xplorer2_64.exe.manifest

but whereas
x2SettingsEditor.exe &
x2SettingsEditor.exe.manifest is apparently the same file for both v. ?

So if I just copy my "x2settings.ini" into this new UniExtracted 64bit folder,
then input my license details, I should be good to go as a Portable?

.... and hopefully my "X2 Tabs" will continue to work ?

* I do get the point about the file explorer replacement complexity, and also about Windows' characteristics.

Now .... if Nikos would just be willing to make the middle-click New Folder Tab thing part of the regular package,
as well as ....... naaah, it's probly too much to ask that it also OPEN next to the current Tab ?
(so, how the he*l do "lesser" file replacement programmes such as Q-Dir, QTTab, and dOpus do it? )

edit 2: so i just did what I asked about, & it's apparently all working fine .... X2 Tabs, same bookmarks, Help guide, etc. -- all looks fine
running from this new 64bit folder.

Thanks again ever-so-much, and for the "remindance" of using UniExtract as a "portables-creator" .... sort of ...
.

.

[Kilmatead]

x2SettingsEditor.exe is apparently the same file for both v. ?

Yes.

So if I just copy my "x2settings.ini" into this new UniExtracted 64bit folder,
then input my license details, I should be good to go as a Portable?

Yes.

...and hopefully my "X2 Tabs" will continue to work?

I don't know what "x2 tabs" is, but generally speaking the multitude of attending programmes we use (such as MenuHack, etc) all work with both versions.

(so, how the he*l do "lesser" file replacement programmes such as Q-Dir, QTTab, and dOpus do it?

Essentially because those programmes pander obsequiously to their users (sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad) - for every person who wants the UI to behave one way, there will be an equal and opposite number who don't, thus necessitating adding every "feature" as an option which needs a checkbox or something to turn it on or off to keep everyone happy.

As he has a terrible fear of clutter and larger option-windows (regardless of how utilitarian they may be, I think one fell upon his head as a small child), Nikos does not care about such superficial UI fetishes, does not use them himself, and solipsistically doesn't seem to think anyone else does either. And is subsequently unaware of the impact little ergonomic aspects like this have on the general public at large, and the impressions therefrom.

"Let them eat cake" comes to mind for some reason. I know not why.

You may, if you wish, take a hammer and a chisel to his very very hard head, as the guillotine has not really been in use since 1977, and tends to cause too much of a permanent mess on the kitchen floor. But it would be more likely to succeed if a whole gang of you got together with hammers and all struck at the same time.

Therefore, you need to first find a gang. I, unfortunately, am indifferent to this cause (and quite like middle-click the way it is, and don't use tabs), so won't be sharpening any blades in support any time soon. Such issues have been raised (and ignored) in the past, so holding your breath is not to be suggested.

[greh]

dam* ! I'm even getting more native icons showing up in the window! how about that !

's amazing whut "more-nearly-complete" shell integration can accomplish

[wasker]

HashTab?

[nikos]

do you know that xplorer2 has its own MD5 hash column? Use Alt+K

[stevecrane]

do you know that xplorer2 has its own MD5 hash column? Use Alt+K

I came across this thread when looking for an answer to a problem I have. I've used Alt+K and tried turning on both the Checksum (S) and MD5 Hash columns but in either case the value is not calculated and displayed for all files. Are larger files deliberately excluded from this?

[fgagnon]

... the value is not calculated and displayed for all files. Are larger files deliberately excluded from this?

Yes.
The max filesize limit is the value set for the Checksum column entry under Byte file size limits for extracting...
found on menuitem Tools > Options > General