flamerz, it's evident your observertion is right, the discussion on the bits offering there shows this clearly enough. As said, their version 3 was out for a week or, make it 3 weeks, and with their bits offering date fixed in advance. They should have reported the bits offering for some more 3 weeks, but I suppose that wasn't possible, bits-wise (bear in mind they had been on bits many years ago, not regularly as some other developers do, so we cannot assume bits treats them as preferred customers (cf. the Sunday they got there, but in retrospective, that Sunday wasn't too bad since this way, not too many prospects (hopefully) got into this early-publishing nightmare there).

They are heavily working on every single point mentioned there, and many more, I'm sure, even the minor ones, and their only "fault" is having gone bits early, instead of doing it 3 weeks later; that's unfortunate, but let's face it, next time, even the bits crowd that wants it all for free will get a more mature version, not some x.0, but x.3 or x.4, and should be happy with it, and I hear that for us DC members (or "visitors", as I happen to be called by the system), there could some intermediate offering, even if bits-only people not having a look, too, might wait for version 4.1 (or 4.02 or such): The x.0 lesson has been learned and how to avoid it, by everybody, I presume.

Another possible strategy which comes to mind: Developers offering rock-solid, perfectly mature versions x.9 or such on bits, with listing all the fine things to come within the next months, with version x+1.0 and following, together with a free update to that next major version - from what I've seen by the reactions of bits customers in such cases, I think that's a very enticing offer that makes salivate (and possibly buy, judging from what they say there) lots of prospects in the (special) bits world - of course, I just can speak of the probable reaction of those who post there and don't know how all the silent bystanders react - but they probably react in a positive way as those who write, since their high interest might be contagious, as is the prospect to get all these new fine things soon (the bits owners are the only ones to have valid data on all this) - with some bugs then, in the intermediate releases, but you accept these much better when you've become accustomed to a product, than if you hear of them in the moment you are expected to take a decision for a software brand-new to you.

This being as it might be, FileBoss is certain to offer many very good things, and what people (rightly) said on bits on its version 3  labour pains, will very soon be the news of yesteryear, not being valid any more today.

No need to repeat the numerous missings in Directory Opus, all the more so since it's not well accepted in this forum to mention them, and when you do, you're invariably told that you are asking for sheer rubbish: Whenever Directory Opus doesn't have, it MUST be rubbish, it's that simple! Cf. the current DO thread for this, and I happily accept this. But let me speak about FileBoss:

They have a "home licence", for up to three computers, and a "commercial licence" where you pay for any computer - BUT the "home licence" is also valid for individuals, i.e. and if I understand well, if you have some corporation or work in some, the corp must pay per seat, but you're free to install your "home" licence on up to 3 comps, be them in your personal use (and not of your paid secretary) or that of your family members. (Compare this with DO where even your wife pays extra (all the more so since DO checks every single comp out every felt minute).)

Good news here, FileBoss will be 40 p.c. off very soon, on bits - remember bits takes 50 p.c., so don't blame FB for wanting 30 p.c. of the asking price, and not just 25 p.c. - unfortunately, 40 p.c. off seems to be a lot less "interesting" than 50 p.c. off for many prospects, but we're speaking of some 5 dollars here, so don't let pass a very interesting offer (and bear in mind, the DO-1-comp-30$ version is literally stripped to the bone).

On YouTube, see two videos (15, and 10 minutes, but they explain a lot), and I mention some points here that you can observe there.

Yes, FileBoss has more than 2 panes in one window / instance (you can see this in the 15-min. vid), and I won't repeat here why this is extremely handy for most pc users out there, any sorting out your inbox into multiple folders becomes so much easier then. This is a unique feature of file boss, within the big shots, neither DO, nor X2, nor XY, nor SC offering such a feature (and no, multiple tabs (which FB has, of course, as they all have) are NOT an alternative for multiple panes in any way). As for shortkey to access these multiple panes when you're a a keyboard guy, not a mouse guy (anymore, e.g. for carpal tunnel syndrome caused by far too many web sites in your previous life where amply mouse abuse had been inavoidable), let's see about this later.

The second video (about 10 min.) shows another specialty of FB, i.e. copying / moving files with common attributes (e.g. "tags" as name parts, and many more), also from many sources, to a common destination, BUT with replicating their respective source folders there. This seems incredibly useful to me, IF you need such a feature, i.e. then this function will save you an incredible amount of manual work. At this time, I don't grasp yet how I could make this unique feature useful for me (and then explain to others how it could become useful to them), but I have to admit I know this feature just from looking on, not from trialling, and I have got a certain feeling that for both for project management as for "software engineering" / versioning of multiple files in multiple folders and sub-folders, such a feature could become pure gold if used in a smart way (home-made CMS, anyone?!).

There are other such, sophisticated features in FB that are not immediately "accessible" for the casual prospect, so I'll write again after having thoroughly trialled. And FB isn't any newcomer, see the "mini review" for the previous version in the respective DC folder (which I discovered rather late I must say, so this hint might seem unneeded for some but may be helpful for others). The offer on bits is their brand-new version 3, just out a week or so.

Very fine, cthorpe, no need to give you the benefit of the doubt a second time in a row when you SYSTEMATICALLY twist my words in order to "answer" to something else I never said, or even better, to make me not having said things that are obviously there. (Just a hint, though, do it "by accident", here and here, then it will perhaps go unnoticed and pass your manipulative message, but if you do it with every sentence, well, it's ineffective when it becomes too apparent.) Thank you.

Shades, I don't understand your argument, neither on the user experience level nor on the technical level. Why not have a third pane, and functionality "go/copy/move to pane 1/2/3" instead of "go/copy/move to the other pane" when never ever I'm asking for "copy/move to both other panes" - where's the prob I don't seem to see here? And again, I don't see the necessary functions to write a script in the DO command reference for selecting e.g. pane 4 as the target pane.

Just drop it. The real prob with DO is elsewhere: It's considered superior, and whenever you ask for a function that isn't there, you get the answer, "it's possible", without anybody telling you which way it could be possible. It's very similar to the alleged "superiority" of Apple: it's just "better", and that's about it. We're speaking of adoration of divinity here, while facts belong into quite another category. It's a revolting business scheme but which pays, man's nature being the way it is.

And finally, as said before and in any such file commander, scripts could copy/move, in the end, to tabbed (= invisible) folders, but wouldn't bring you the visual display of that third pane by this, or then by hiding one of the two folders currently on display.

And yes, copying / moving around files is core functionality of a file manager, not "you do it alone", and as such it should be assisted by your paid file manager, whilst in fact, functionality here is very poor everywhere (just compare the "go" functionality of these file commanders with their respective "copy/move" functionality, e.g. in XY). Another functionality is bulk renaming, here you'll have much more functionality, too, in most file commanders, than with "copy/move", and then I'd suppose most people do lots more of copying / moving files, than they do mass renaming. So I'm in my right to consider this state of affairs weird.