beta build 165-10

Sumoku · Post by **Sumoku** » 2007 May 31, 14:52

Oops! I got the debug version by clicking on "Ignore" in the massage box. Silly me!

Now let's see what happens....

The same thing! I was hoping for more.

Doesn't the debug version write a log-file somewhere?

Post by **nikos** » 2007 May 31, 15:08

this debug bundle you've just downloaded has a readme file, there are the instructions. Basically you run this "dbmon" before "kenny" and check the debug messages generated.

Sumoku · Post by **Sumoku** » 2007 May 31, 15:47

More embarrassment. A bad habit of skipping Readme files. I didn't even notice DBmon sitting there.

Alas, with no debug to file, it's not quite as useful as it might have been. Am I missing something? I captured an image of the DOS window, which I could send you, but I can't help thinking there should be a better way. I don't have the time or the patience to type out the debug text.

Post by **nikos** » 2007 May 31, 15:52

checkout that readme file again

Messages will appear in the DBMon window; select everything (like in a DOS box: System menu | Edit | Select All), copy, paste and email to me

if there's anything interesting it will be near the end when the crash occured

wasker · Post by **wasker** » 2007 May 31, 17:46

Sumoku wrote: Oops! I got the debug version by clicking on "Ignore" in the massage box.

Nikos, can I have a build with a massage box too?

MegaZapFan · Post by **MegaZapFan** » 2007 May 31, 18:24

wasker wrote:...massage box...

Two.. Two... two puns in one!

feralkid · Post by **feralkid** » 2007 Jun 02, 06:47

Just installed beta 11 over beta 10 and got this error:

The application has failed to start because its side-by-side configuration is incorrect. Please see the application event log for more detail.

the application event log showed:

Activation context generation failed for "D:\Program Files\zabkat\xplorer2BETA\xplorer2_UC.exe.Manifest".Error in manifest or policy file "D:\Program Files\zabkat\xplorer2BETA\xplorer2_UC.exe.Manifest" on line 29. The attribute UIAccess is not permitted in this context on element requestedExecutionLevel.

I don't know what they're for, or the proper syntax for manifest files, but I did edit the manifest file from this:
<requestedExecutionLevel
level="highestAvailable"
UIAccess="false" />
to this:
<requestedExecutionLevel
level="highestAvailable" />
and it started ok...
If UIAccess has to do with User Account Control, I have this feature turned off.

Thanks,

Post by **nikos** » 2007 Jun 02, 08:20

i've been struggling with the manifest... looks like "highestAvailable" cannot be set and if it is then it doesn't work (or it fails altogether). I have a modified manifest here:
www.zabkat.com/xplorer2_UC.exe.manifest

feralkid · Post by **feralkid** » 2007 Jun 02, 11:42

The new maniifest is working fine for me! Thanks...

Post by **nikos** » 2007 Jun 02, 12:48

it works, but it doesn't asks you to elevate to administrator, so i still have problems with people trying to enter the registration key

wasker · Post by **wasker** » 2007 Jun 02, 15:22

feralkid wrote:Just installed beta 11 over beta 10 and got this error:

Yup, same here. Solution: uninstall previous version and install new from scratch (registry settings shouldn't be deleted).

Also under Vista I had some weird "compatibility" error messages when trying to open a bunch of media files through the right-click.

PS.
Nikos, yeah, I upgraded to Vista finally, so if you need an alpha tester -- I can do that.

Post by **nikos** » 2007 Jun 03, 06:11

thanks, whatever you can find in vista let me know

WimdeLange · Post by **WimdeLange** » 2007 Jun 04, 20:55

As promised, the test with 94500 files in a directory. But the files are local on my disk of the laptop. Not on the network. That takes so long (longer then 5 minutes) that I can't test it. This network is at work and I can't take more then half an hour to do several timings.

The timings are rather crude, only by using an watch.

So 94500 files in one directory. Alle files have a name like: Order received XXX 12345678 20070512-124543 (123445).XML The numbers are an identification, a timestamp and another identification.

I started this test after working an hour with my laptop, some emailing and internetting.

Started with xplorer2 in details mode (name sorted):
open directory: 58 seconds. This is the first time.
back to the previous directory and open again: 30 seconds.

To explorer (without closing xplorer2): 57 seconds for opening the directory in tiles view (name sorted). That is slow! The directory is already opened somewhere else.

Now for sorting in explorer. Switch to details: 4 seconds. Sort on date. 1 second, sort on name, 8 seconds, sort on type 4 seconds. Strange timings. How is explorer sorting? It is not the same algorithm?

Sorting in xplorer2? Sorry hard to measure. It not instantaneous, but all measurements are clearly faster then a second: date, name, extension. Does not matter.

Back to opening the directory again (both in detail mode):
xplorer2: 23 seconds
explorer: 22 seconds

Conclusion of this limited test: xplorer2 is faster in sorting and most of the times faster in opening. The latter could be off course the effect of a cache.

Someone other suggestions for doing measurements? I keep the files some time on my laptop. The files are only 1 to 2 K big, so it is not really a space hog (207 Mb, 390 Mb allocated)

Some information on my laptop:
1.73 Ghz, 1 Gb memory. Windows XP Professional SP2.
60Gb disk, NTFS. Disk is optimized using Diskeeper (without rebooting), so the directory (56Mb in size!!!) is not spread out on the complete disk.

Post by **nikos** » 2007 Jun 05, 05:29

thanks wim, i had no doubts that x2 would kick arse when compared to windows explorer