Whish List: To improve the visual experience with X2

[admsupport]

Why do camping when we could stay at a comfortable hotel?

I spend long hours in front of a PC, for the sake of my eyes (or my taste) I would enjoy a better UI definition. Brighter, with deeper colors and better icons design and resolution (they pixelize).

Vista, XYplorer, Windows Explorer, DO9 literally shine on screen.
X2 shines for his functions, that's nice, but why the window has to look so old fashion & cheap?

It's lightwear, alright. But I don't care much about size as long as I like the software. Today's hardware capability if fine to render a good GUI visually appealing.

As for the "I don't care the look of..." I often read in pools, it's lame. Everybody is sensitive to beauty and to elegance. And if you really don't, that's mere renunciation.

So let's go for a GUI that shines!

[nikos]

yeah, i am a follower of clean spartan utility-focused looks. Substance over surface. In what way would you imagine improvement? It's a window, not an oil painting!?

[admsupport]

yeah, i am a follower of clean spartan utility-focused looks.

So am I. But it is not about a clean spartan utility, it is about the quality graphic: colors, shade, brightness of the window and the icons. Do you mind spending 1 minutes to compare the graphic details of these two windows (sorry about the download time)





Both are "clean" but the former window has brighter colors and neater icons, it just looks solid. X2 looks Windows 95 like (even with the new MS fonts). It will not suffer a serious lift up.

There is not a soft in my knowledge that did not seriously improve its graphical appearance along the XP~Vista 5 years transition. As far as I recall, X2 has not change much in this regard.

It is nothing about oil painting. Artist painters are lazy people anyway.

[nikos]

to my eyes these 2 snapshots are very close if not identical, what do others think?

[admsupport]

to my eyes these 2 snapshots are very close if not identical, what do others think?

Can you watch again, I have spent a bloody time uploading/changing the size of the photos for faster download. When I am editing can you see the photos? It was taking ages to download on my screen.

Identical? GUI colors depth, tabs color & shading, icon resolution? No way, that's either bad will or visual impairment

[Cosmo]

The upper picture is from XYplorer (99% sure). And if you take a screen shot of the whole window, than people see The whole difference: No 2 pane option.

There are 2 things I like in XYplorer (compared with x2):

The option, that the width of the columns in detail view can be set auto-adjusting in respect of the content.

The less obtrusive shell-context-menu management (as in x2 until 1.7.1)

BTW: For better comparability you should have set the toolbar in x2 without text, but with the same commands and also behind the address bar. And you should have used the same cut-out (e. g. with or without tree-pane)

[RickyF]

I am happier with a consistent UI rather than trying to follow the fashion.

Microsoft made the mistake of making significant changes to the Vista UI from XP's without improving anything. For example, on XP I can right click on the desktop, select properties and rapidly get to display settings. Vista requires extra steps and Microsoft changed the word "Properties" to "Personalize". This degraded existing users' experiences and added nothing for newbies. A large part of Vista's bad reputation comes from this type of willy-nilly attempt to be "new and improved" rather than better.

Yes, X2 is not the shiniest app. Yes, X2's menus could be better rationalized. Yes, X2's graphics could be shinier. But, Nikos continues to improve the functionality of this wonderful tool. As an example, X2 had bread-crumb paths long before Vista was released.

During my several year's use of the program, his focus has been in maintaining its value by making it better not shinier. He suffers for it because the majority of the world likes shinier over better.

Engineers are notorious for favoring function over form.  I applaud Nikos for being a "typical" engineer.

[admsupport]

There are 2 things I like in XYplorer (compared with x2)

I compare the visual graphic quality of X2 to a similar app in price & function (also the work of one developer) but the comparison does not go beyond this point. I could have used the window of any other application with a descent (& modern) GUI.

My point is just X2 looks bad. This is an objective observation! To many file management software I have tried where looking cheap because there is little, if no effort made in this way.

[admsupport]

Yes, X2 is not the shiniest app[...] Yes, X2's graphics could be shinier

That's relevant, so there is place for graphical improvement

During my several year's use of the program, his focus has been in maintaining its value by making it better not shinier

Neat presentation and good features are compatible. Usually they go by pair. I am pointing out too much imbalance between the functional qualities of X2 and its visual presentation.

He suffers for it because the majority of the world likes shinier over better

It is called evolution, products tend to get better in form and function

Engineers are notorious for favoring function over form.  I applaud Nikos for being a "typical" engineer.

Whatever it is, technical, religious or political, an extremism is synonymous of dryness and lack of tolerance. I don't applaud any extremism.

However what I understand better is that visual improvement may not be a priority, especially for one man to do the job. But it should be on schedule and it is about time! I don't ask the moon either. Just some polish on the GUI and the icons.

[Cosmo]

I compare the VISUAL GRAPHIC QUALITY of X2 to a similar app in price & function (also the work of one developer)

I have read this. But as I said, if you want to do this wit the support of 2 screenshots, than you must take them in a way, that the contens are comparable. Your's are not. BTW, there do exist theme-enhancements for x2. I don't like such stuff, but you should take a look at that.

but the comparison does not go beyond this point.

This might be the fault. For me functionality is the key word. If I want to see something beautiful, I take a loook at my wife.

My point is just X2 looks bad. This is an objective observation!

It is impossible to make "objective" anything about looking good or bad. That is objective wrong. So I don't tell you, how XYplorer looks objective, but in my eyes it looks worse. So in my very subjective opinion you took the wrong comparison.

[admsupport]

@Cosmos

Download the 2 apps, you will see for yourself the way you want it (but wait a sec, I compare the graphical quality, not the design or the layout!!!... , so it is not relevant). You are making a voluntary confusion between taste and quality. What you like is your taste. What is proper is quality.

Let's take your wife's image because she is your taste. If you see her photo at a high definition, she will look good. The same picture at a very low definition (until it pixelize) and she will look bad, not matter your love or your lake of objectivity in that matter (the old saying loves makes us blind )

X2 looks bad, the colors are fade, there is very attention whatsoever about the graphical quality. the icons pixelize, even the enhancement themes are mere amateurism. There cannot not be improvement because it is at the program level you make these changes. Even the best icons will look cheap on the actual GUI.

[admsupport]

Already 107 visitors on the thread! Since there is a saying that states:

who keeps silent, consents

It is about already a hundred of people vouching for an serious X2 lift-up (in stereo and at loud volume in Nikos 'hears)

Let's keep the number up !

[fgagnon]

Form is hollow without function.

All too often I have seen "improvements" in form that have reduced function.  Two MS examples come to mind.
MSoffice's new "ribbon" looks nice but removed access to functionality I regularly use, so I un-installed it and went back to office 2002 (with converters to translate docs from the more recent product).
I just purchased a Vista machine, and quickly discovered that its glassy Aero theme is horrible for being able to distinguish between active and inactive windows; fortunately Vista permits using classic themes that, while maybe not so artistically appealing, permit unambiguous display of foreground/background, and access to menus.

That being said, I am not against beautiful form, providing it does not detract from function.  In the case of x2, I fear indirect functional loss because it is a one man show, and were nikos to devote resources to "improve" form, we would see less attention to functional development and addressing operational issues (debugging).

[teknowledgist]

I think the differences between those pictures is so minimal, I have to concentrate to identify them.  The look of X2 is "good enough".

One of the first things I do to my machine and the administrator account on all the machines I work on is revert the Windows Explorer theme to a more "classic" theme.  I don't like all the eye-candy, and I'm honestly not looking at the details of the icons.  As long as the icon is both easily distinguishable from the other icons and somewhat representative of it's function, I'm going to click it and move on to the next step of my task.  

User interfaces can be compared objectively with controlled studies.  Apple did this back with the first Macintosh OS releases, but I don't think anyone is doing it today (including Apple).  Regardless of UIs, psychological studies have shown that people actually recognize objects presented in clear, abstract form faster than those presented in photorealistic form, so in a lot of ways, "hi-res" icons actually slow people down.

IMO, MS is screwing up with each newer product by making icons less distinguishable, less representative (because of details), and often not fixed in location (read personalized menus and "ribbon" style toolbars).  The icons may look great at 256x256 pixels, but at the sizes that most people use them, all that detail just becomes muddy.

Now all that being said, because everything else has been made shiny with pointless rounded corners, handle-less toolbars, candy colors and reflective highlights, it is a bit jarring to have an X2 window sitting on top in stark contrast.  Jarring, but (very) functional.

When it comes to looks, if I haven't shaved in a few days, my shirt is a bit wrinkled or my shoes are scuffed, I couldn't care less because I'm  comfortable/functional enough that I don't want to be bothered.  If however, someone offered to give me a hot lather, straight-razor shave, an ironed shirt and polished shoes at no cost, I would accept graciously.  Likewise, if you, admsupport, offered a set of knock-your-socks-off icons and assistance in color design, I doubt anyone here would complain (as long as usability doesn't suffer).

Anyway, that's my take.

[admsupport]

Form is hollow without function. That being said, I am not against beautiful form, providing it does not detract from function

I second that  :thumbup: