xplorer2 v.5.5010 beta

[Kilmatead]

Got a different question - is there a way to reliably use both versions side by side simultaneously?

No. By even trying to do so you have already crossed the streams of the space-time continuum and now all cups of coffee in the southern-hemisphere will taste like tuna fish. This is a very bad thing. (But seriously, not even renaming the EXE's to try and fool the mutexen/mutices/mutexes would make a difference.)

Hyper-filter dialogs are badly laid out. The "simple version / more options" is in the middle of nowhere, very small and not clearly visible. It should not be jumbled in with the settings for the function...

Agreed. Terrible. Awful. And certainly not full of Awe. (Same for its sister-dialog in find-files.) It makes sense where it is in the "plain" mode, but it's wrong to relocate it back and forth when ticked. Also the blue-colour of the link in dark-mode is unreadable. Indeed, evil, one might say.

Two quick observations:

Mark -> Use Checkboxes should not have a literal check-"icon" in the menu (it makes it look like it's already activated), it should act like Goto -> Mirror Scrolling where the menu item only receives a real check-mark when actually checked and is otherwise blank.

Using checkboxes to select more than 1 similar item (for example, three text files) and then right-clicking an item and selecting "Open" does not act upon all three checked files, only upon the highlighted ones. If you're going to segregate normal-selections from check-selections, be consistent about it. Or, better yet, don't embrace two paradigms at the same time. Only Picasso could do that convincingly.

[Gandolf]

I appear to be able to get both v5 & v6 running at the same time, according to Help > About.

My v5 shortcut has the "/P" option set (force new instances to open as separate processes), but v6 doesn't (clean install, nothing changed). That may be the answer.

[nikos]

is there a way to reliably use both versions side by side simultaneously?

use /P command line switch to start the second, like Gandolf says

checkboxes are visible when they are enabled, so you don't need to rely on the menu icon!
if you read the announcement notes, checkboxes are used for pretty much everything except for drag-drop and context menu. FOr the latter there's an advanced option to make menus use checkboxes

[Kilmatead]

if you read the announcement notes...

Yeah, my mistake - I only quickly read the highlights in the thread, not the detailed ones. Oh bugger, I just saw that checkboxes are yet another per-pane option. I hate those; they befuddle the mind and make me cry.

...there's an advanced option to make menus use checkboxes

Yeah, by chopping off your nose to spite your face: Too late now, but I'm thinking it would have been better to simply remove any highlighting capacity at all when checkboxes are active, that would at least mitigate the confusion...

MGAO3_SYNCMENUSEL is kind of like using a meat-cleaver to prime a cigar. In fact, it's exactly like that. Do Yakuza still chop off their fingers? If so, they will really like that option - a whole new marketing area is revealed.

At least for keyboard-centric users it's more-or-less consistent, so that's something. (Well, except for the Yakuza - fewer fingers probably means they're less keyboard-centric.)

[Kilmatead]

you guys are just old geezers stuck in a groove and allergic to change

It's telling that as I turn all of these things on for testing, I turn them off just as quickly when done. Just sayin'. While I'm probably not the target demographic, I do struggle to see who is...

[nikos]

do you think you will be using checkboxes? (you answered your own question paps )
you wouldn't want to use checkboxes to OPEN items for example? some things are better done with selection

[Kilmatead]

you wouldn't want to use checkboxes to OPEN items for example? some things are better done with selection

I try to approach things with what's left of my open mind, and, in particular, to look at them from the point of view of the mentally deranged users who would want to use them.

One good thing: For the record, setting szViewTheme to DarkMode_ItemsView does improve the experience a bit. Yeah, scrollbars, but who cares. Unfortunately it also brings back the vertical lines again. Can't win. I will, at least, leave this on, so that's a start.

[johngalt]

For those with disabilities, as one example, or those forced to use a touch-screen only device, with no access to a proper pointing stick / mouse / touchpad, as another example, manipulating multiple files for *any* purpose could be made a ***lot*** simpler by having checkboxes enabled and present.

And by not having a proper pointing stick / mouse / touchpad, I mean not only not having one physically present, but also having one that has become inoperable for whatever reason (dead batteries, physical damage, Microsoft's unending desire to control what driver updates your Windows device has installed even if you know that every other single drive in existence newer than the one that you have is going to break your pointing device....).

I mean, Windows File Explorer has had the option to enable checkboxes for years. And I think that X² following suit is a good thing.

[johngalt]

I appear to be able to get both v5 & v6 running at the same time, according to Help > About.

My v5 shortcut has the "/P" option set (force new instances to open as separate processes), but v6 doesn't (clean install, nothing changed). That may be the answer.

Ahhh, good idea, thanks!

I'll give that a go and get to playing.

[Kilmatead]

Windows File Explorer has had the option to enable checkboxes for years. And I think that X² following suit is a good thing.

Of course, and no one would seriously argue otherwise. However, one should take into account the actual user-experience of having such options. For example, in Win Explorer it appears (from quick testing) that you can't actually confuse checked-selections from mere highlighted-selections. That kind of consistency is necessary for the user to predict the outcome of any given action. x2's implementation falls a bit short in this regard (even with MGAO3_SYNCMENUSEL meant to "solve" that).

One might safely presume that anyone who would be using such a function is already familiar with how Win Explorer does it, and have either learned to live with it, or have distinct ideas about how it may be improved (to fit their circumstances/requirements).

So, Nikos' task becomes simple: at the very least match what Win Explorer already does (without adding unnecessary confusion, uncertainty, or bewilderment). Or - the obviously better option - improve upon the currently-known functionality with useful and manifest refinements (without also adding unnecessary confusion, uncertainty, or bewilderment). The last part has never been one of Nikos' strong points. (As I'm sure his wife would attest, he achieves best results not when left to his own devices, but instead when met with constant nudging and nagging. Sure, it does his head in, but it also improves x2 [and his kitchen cabinets], no doubt.)

So far, neither position has been firmly occupied, which is why I mention it. Obviously, there's nothing more familiar or calamitous in this century than a bunch of able-bodied people making decisions for others less fortunate, so we need input from real users who have a true vested interest in the functionality (perhaps not I) to speak up. And loudly so.

Having just had an aggravating afternoon trying to get my smart-phone and my stubby-finger to understand each other properly when it comes to tapping checkboxes, I have a certain empathy with the topic at hand. Perhaps a malignantly revengeful empathy - but an empathy nonetheless.

[Kilmatead]

Ok, I give up - I've gone through all the options twice and I can't find the one that disables this:



This bloody thing pops up every time I want to run a user-command and I have the apparent temerity to do so with the "This PC" in an active pane. Like selecting a drive to compare, or, even, <gasp>, the truly horrible crime of using a toolbar button for "Save Settings Now".

This only seems to happen in the beta. Nanny, nanny, nanny. Where's the off switch?

[nikos]

at the very least match what Win Explorer already does

windows explorer checkboxes are dead easy to LOSE with one accidental click. That goes against the idea of building large selections

as for this message, I thought I'd add it as e.g. DOS commands don't apply to network folders or zipfolders
what commands do you issue in THIS PC? try any filesystem folder instead

[Kilmatead]

as for this message, I thought I'd add it as e.g. DOS commands don't apply to network folders or zipfolders

Yeah, but I compare drive contents (to other drives/backups) all the time, and the best way to do that is from there (how else would you select 2 or more drives in one go?). Guess you don't use images much, eh? Never mind that it goes off whenever I use any user-command at all (!) even ones that don't actually interact with a selection (they just launch stuff). Nanny, nanny, nanny, kill the nanny.

what commands do you issue in THIS PC? try any filesystem folder instead

Well, unlike the superficially psychologically healthy people like you, I, on the other hand, live for ::{20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D}, the one CLSID to rule them all. Ever since time began (on the 26th of September 2008?) I have had x2 startup on a shared homepage of that dearest CLSID on the left, and some work-folder on the right.

This is the way it is.

This is how I breathe.

Sitting up there in my addressbar, smiling down at me, I know she's there, just waiting for me to start my day. Like some magical credit-card number whose debit never comes due, that CLSID is my boon, my source or magic, my frontier Shangri-La, a mystical object of hope and dreams. I have lived through the horrible times when Microsoft thought we should call her derogatory epithets like My Computer & This PC and all the other cutesy nonsense. These are not her name. She rises above such silly childish nomenclature to gleam heroically as a combination Valhalla, Sto-vo-kor, and the shining moons of Jupiter all rolled into one.

And you're trying to sully her reputation? Make her some obstacle to be warned of? Something that goes bump in the night that we should shy away from prying eyes? That I should foresake her and dryly "try any filesystem folder instead"? A mere filesystem folder? Are you mad?

15.6 years, dude! I was there when you introduced dual-bookmarks and she finally had her throne-of-command, her pride of place to issue forth a Spiritual Essence of Myrrh to rejoin my spirits, soothe my savage beast, and give peace to the dark dostoyevskian rhythms which ebb and flow more fiercely than time itself.

5 years locked away in a Chinese prison, or stranded alone on an island, or wandering in the desert battling with Angels and devilish-djinns alike, it was she and she alone who bid me perseverance to conquer the malefactors and evil-doers who would render this illusory world of yours to dust.

I would walk into fire for her! Scream into the abyss for her!

And you would warn me about that? You and your tyrannical nanny-state would protect me from that?



Shall I go on? You know I will. This is what I live for. Come on dude, giveth peace to the weary.

[Kilmatead]

windows explorer checkboxes are dead easy to LOSE with one accidental click. That goes against the idea of building large selections

I use single-click activation all the time - you don't have to tell me about losing selections!

My point is that (especially when holding down <Ctrl> for multiple random selections), Windows Explorer at the very least does not allow for any confusion over what is and is not "selected". The same cannot be said here. Also, Win Explorer doesn't have extra settings that serve to confuse the issue further - worse indeed, if you use MGAO3_SYNCMENUSEL and it pops up a warning about having lost its teddy-bear, you hit "cancel" and it goes ahead and does it anyway! Is this justice?

[nikos]

i turned that question about commands into "don't ask me again" type
I wouldn't want to be held responsible for yet another mysterious disappearance of yours into the desert