This is one of my biggest productivity sticking points - when I use WinRar or Winzip, extracting or moving files automatically creates the destination folder.
The Move and Copy dialogs in x2, however, don't have this option, which is frustrating. I'd like to be able to set that as a sticky setting in the Move dialog.
I'd also love for autocomplete to happen in the move dialog for folders in the active pane without having to type the complete prefix path first.
Finally - please make the Folder/File checkboxes remember settings between x2 settings. I almost always only want selections to extend to files, and no matter what I do, I can't make those settings stick.
I promise to love you long time!!!!
Another request - create destination folder automatically
Moderators: fgagnon, nikos, Site Mods
then you'd need a setting to NOT create the destination folder if you didn't want to! Either way some people wouldn't be happy.WinRar or Winzip, extracting or moving files automatically creates the destination folder.
autocomplete like you want it is possible, only you must turn off explorer style autocompletion first (from TOOLS > OPTIONS, advanced page), then manually press F1 to autocomplete paths (even relative)
i am not sure which settings aren't preserved for you, but this is 100% operator fault, probable reasons are:
* not saving settings on exit (e.g. using Actions > Save settings now)
* using Actions > Folder settings for custom settings too much
* using window layouts (each layout has its own settings)
Like creating a checkbox would kill you? You Greeks have weak constitutions, in more ways than one.nikos wrote:then you'd need a setting to NOT create the destination folder if you didn't want to! Either way some people wouldn't be happy.
I believe he's referring to this thread, wherein (as I supported and you rejected) the Files/Folders settings on Ctrl-F are not saved, not in layouts, etc. So I'll take your 100% operator fault and throw 99% of the sand back in your face you big bully.nikos wrote:i am not sure which settings aren't preserved for you, but this is 100% operator fault,
No problem
No worries.
The deal with the "create folder" I envisioned as follows:
The box at the bottom for "create destination folder" would default to the current xplorer2 of "unchecked."
If you check the box, it remembers it for subsequent sessions, or for the current session, depending on how things are saved.
This little change would make a huge difference.[/img]
The deal with the "create folder" I envisioned as follows:
The box at the bottom for "create destination folder" would default to the current xplorer2 of "unchecked."
If you check the box, it remembers it for subsequent sessions, or for the current session, depending on how things are saved.
This little change would make a huge difference.[/img]
There's quite a difference. I think you underestimate the sum of repetitive tasks coming with big amounts of filehandling.nikos wrote:but you would have to type the folder name in HERE field, wouldn't you? I don't see much difference between this and creating the folder with F8 beforehand!?
I often use the here field with "typing" (copying paths in, using the history and change the paths there). It's really useful *not* to have to change into the destination directory for that, for instance for moving/sorting files in different dirs.
And the creating of an directory directly through the move function is a significant increase of productivity, there can really be no dispute IMO.
Also you don't necessarily need the check box option. I still like how the old ACDSee solved this by giving a message that the dir doesn't exist and the choice if it should be created.
(BTW, I suggested the creation of non existing dirs years ago already)
- FrizzleFry
- Platinum Member
- Posts: 1241
- Joined: 2005 Oct 16, 19:09
Having copy/move create the destination folder, if needed, would be a useful addition... I agree with BRX that a checkbox is not really necessary... a dialog that offers to create the destination folder if it does not exist should be sufficient.
BTW, since when does the browse for folder button use this annoying thing?
I seem to remember a much better folder picker dialog.
BTW, since when does the browse for folder button use this annoying thing?
I seem to remember a much better folder picker dialog.
Just a little more
Lest I appear to be a complainer ...
Nikos, your software is friggin' awesome, and I've invested so many hours customizing it happily to meet my workflow.
But these efficiency issues that seem to be small inconveniences, while probably aren't a huge deal if you move a few files here and there, really kill productivity when you have a ton of files to move on a regular basis.
I do a lot of list downloading, processing, and file moving as a part of my many jobs, and saving a couple of seconds on each move adds up to hours, which I'd rather spend making money to donate to your development effort, or writing about how great your product is.
Just a couple of things would make these gnawin inefficiences a thing of the past. I can start threads about them individually, but they wind up being:
1. the Move issue I just discussed.
2. the way that adding items to toolbars gives you a tiny, tiny dialog window on the left side with hundreds of options, but no way to filter them and find the one you want. I've gone so far as to write an AHK script to expand the control size, but without incremental searching, i'm still dragging the scrollbar up and down to find things.
3. The way the new/organize functions work. I need to first add a command through one process, then adjust/edit it through another. I can't do it all in one place, and when organizing, I can't add something new.
These things probably weren't a huge deal for you when the product started, but now this great software is being used in serious ways, in high-volume scenarios, and as a very important time and money-saving tool.
I'd pay at least another $10 for licensing to have these functions, and I suspect a lot of people would.
Thought of doing a user poll on features?
Again, I want you to understand I'm not being critical of you, but rather identifying what really is a common and necessary-to-address issue.
Thanks!
Nikos, your software is friggin' awesome, and I've invested so many hours customizing it happily to meet my workflow.
But these efficiency issues that seem to be small inconveniences, while probably aren't a huge deal if you move a few files here and there, really kill productivity when you have a ton of files to move on a regular basis.
I do a lot of list downloading, processing, and file moving as a part of my many jobs, and saving a couple of seconds on each move adds up to hours, which I'd rather spend making money to donate to your development effort, or writing about how great your product is.
Just a couple of things would make these gnawin inefficiences a thing of the past. I can start threads about them individually, but they wind up being:
1. the Move issue I just discussed.
2. the way that adding items to toolbars gives you a tiny, tiny dialog window on the left side with hundreds of options, but no way to filter them and find the one you want. I've gone so far as to write an AHK script to expand the control size, but without incremental searching, i'm still dragging the scrollbar up and down to find things.
3. The way the new/organize functions work. I need to first add a command through one process, then adjust/edit it through another. I can't do it all in one place, and when organizing, I can't add something new.
These things probably weren't a huge deal for you when the product started, but now this great software is being used in serious ways, in high-volume scenarios, and as a very important time and money-saving tool.
I'd pay at least another $10 for licensing to have these functions, and I suspect a lot of people would.
Thought of doing a user poll on features?
Again, I want you to understand I'm not being critical of you, but rather identifying what really is a common and necessary-to-address issue.
Thanks!