"tag each one as as SOURCE or DESTINATION"

Ok, the source would be a single lister then, this will make 4 (instead of 5) possible targets within 2 more "windows" (or 6 in 3 more "windows"). Very good. Now please tell me how, between these 4 target "listers", within "windows" 2 and 3, I could switch the target, but without clicking the mouse all over the screen. Key assignment? Which command(s)? And no, you can't find this in the "help" file:

http://www.gpsoft.com.au/help/opus10/default.htm#!Documents/Source_and_Destination.htm

And neither do they answer you if you kindly ask them for that info; I did, in vain.

And with all due respect, Window's inability to copy / move the same file to more than one target directory AT THE SAME TIME has nothing to do with my wish of being able to switch the target directory in an easy way. "Worked like a charm." - yes, for people who like to move their mouse on screen the extra mile each work day, right? - or is there a COMMAND behind it that I could assign to keys: "make lister 5 the target lister" (= even split up between several commands, then to be combined into a macro).

And yes, I know their command reference, but I don't find the commands needed.

So please tell me how it could "work like a charm" for me, too.

(Sorry, but an illogic point can't be a good point by definition.)

"and use gridmove or whatever to line them up" - that's what I call unprofessional indeed.

I know many people here like DO a lot, and I see that both it's "pretty", and that you can do a lot with it. But then, I have never ever understood why there isn't one single of these "big shots" in file M (= DO, FB, SC, TC, X2, XY - these are in alphabetic order here) to offer more than just two panes in one screen / instance / "window" / whatever. To my knowledge, there isn't but that ugly, MS-like free thing (I looked it up for you, it's "Q-Dir", with up to 4 panes), without any serious functionality that offers 3 or even more than 3, but the combination "good functionality, professional offering, and more than just 2 panes" isn't available anywhere.

Why would this be so important? Because many users (= me included, but it's far from an "exotic" wish) often do a lot of "distribution" of files, from a "source" directory, into several other, target, folders, often with photos (if it had correct functionality here, XY would be ideal for that because of its rather new photo preview pane) and doing this by mouse is very stressing to any developing or outgrown "mouse arm".

So, "put selected item into pane 2/3/4", by respective key-assigned commands, would be a big relief (and would be a much faster workflow even for people who don't have any "mouse problems" (yet)) for lots of actual use of a file manager, but this would imply the intro of a third and fourth pane to begin with.

And yes, you could do it in a similar way with tabs, so additional panes ain't really necessary, for this (while coming certainly very handy for multi-source-mult-target shifting around of files), but then, commands for copying and / or moving the selected file in the active pane or tab, to the directory in tab 2/3/4 (let alone further ones) are NOT AVAILABLE in any of these more or less expensive (and otherwise, quite good) "major" file commanders.

So we have LACKING CORE FUNCTIONALITY in any of those, and that means, why should you buy the most expensive of them, when even that one isn't any better in this very important respect, even dozens of years after its creation?

So there's room for big improvement here, with DO, and with more reasonably priced competitors.

Let me add that of course I asked for such features, in vain, before complaining to third parties.

Or then, explain to me why I'd be totally wrong again, by asking for features that should have been available for the last 15 years.

Ad 2 et seq. supra

Today, in German papers, they speak about MS Office 2013.

a)

It seems you can buy a non-subscription home version, and individual non-subscription versions of Access, etc., but I'm not sure these are non-cloud-synch by that, and even without such cloud synching, how much data could they transfer "home" anyway?

The main offering from MS is a subscription scheme, of course, for individuals, small business, and corporations (public authorities of course), and here, there's some info: There'll be continuous synching of your data on / with the MS servers; for small businesses, it seems the subscription, incl. the cloud storage, is 12 bucks 50 per month and per seat.

b)

It seems evident for me that this way, U.S. authorities (= NSA, etc., or more precisely, the NSA plus all the authorities and big (or specialised!) corporations that regularly get "their" data from them) will now have constant, regular access to any data processed by MS Office 2013 and further on. Perhaps there is some automatic simili-"encryption" in order to make the technical aspect of the out- and inbound transfer "safe" against your possible competitors and third parties, but I assume that in your comp, and on arrival on the MS cloud servers, the "real" data is processed, and not something encrypted MS "synch" sw cannot read and "understand".

This means I assume they've now "found" a way, by offering the cloud storage AND REAL TIME SYNCHING "themselves" (= MS plus NSA behind them), to prevent "you" (= professionals and corporations small or big) from effectively encrypting data you store within the cloud, offering perhaps some "protection" against third parties, but no protection whatsoever against the GLOBAL EVIL BODY.

Or am I mistaken here? Could you use this MS Office 2013 cloud synching system with data encrypted by your own encryption sw (and then hopefully with strong encryption keys)?

c)

As said, I doubt this system would "take" such data - and even if it pretends to do, why not assume this will double your data flow then: One flow of your encrypted data, forth and back, in order to reassure you, and then the real data, in real time, you "Word" or "Excel" or "Access" files, etc., perhaps "encrypted" the MS / NSA way, ready to be processed by these bodies.

Why this is so harmful?

d)

Even with their "patent frenzy" (cf. their allowing for "patents" for things not new at all, but just because you have the necessary money to pay for the "patent" of these processes et al. perhaps known for years; or have a look at U.S. sw "patents" which cause scandal world-wide in the "industry"), the U.S. do invent less and less, and with every year, this become more apparent. Thus, the U.S. government is highly interested in "providing" their big corporations of "nation interest" with new info about what would be suitable to make some development on (= forking findings of third parties), or simply, about what U.S. corps could simply steal: Whilst a European corp is in the final stages of preparing patents, those are then introduced by their U.S. competitors just days before the real inventors will do it.

e)

It's not only the Europeans who are harmed: Whilst the Japanese ain't not as strong anymore as they had once been, it's the Chinese who steal less and less from others but who invent more and more on their own and who risk to leave trailing the U.S. industry anytime soon.

f)

I spoke about passion in general and in programming in the forked thread, and I saw that indeed, individual passion in sw excellence is dead, speaking of a possible win-win situation where the developer has got the satisfaction of producing a work of art, thus providing functionality excellence (in the meaning "functionality in the workflow of the user", not sterile technical functionality within the sw itself) for his customer.

On the other hand, it seems that more and more developers (= individuals as in the case of Surfulater and many other sw's, and sw houses with thousands of programmers and sw "architects") more and more strive to attain excellence in features WORKING AGAINST THE CUSTOMER: No win-win situation anymore, but taking the "man who pays for it all" for a ride.

g)

And it's not just inventors, etc., abroad that are at risk: It's perfectly sensible that some innovative, small U.S. companies are spied for the benefit of big U.S. companies, be it for simple stealing their ideas alone, and / or for facilitating their taking over for cheap.

h)

Of course, it's not only and all about inventions, it's also about contracting (Siemens in South Africa? Why not these same contracts be going to General Electric, by using core info? I just made up this example and I'm not insinuating that GE might want or go to "steal" from Siemens, but yes, I'm insinuating that some people might be interested in "helping" them to do so.)

i)

I don't know collaboration sw / groupware ("IBM Lotus Notes", etc.) well enough, but I suppose you'll get similar probs here, and as we see by now, even sw for individuals, like Surfulater, tries to excel with "features" that could possibly harm the users' interests.

j)

So it might be time, about 30 years after Orwell's "1984", to store "old" comps (Win 8 and Office 2003, anyone? har, har!), "old" sw, and to divide your work between comps that are connected to the net, and those that are not, and to transfer data between them with secure USB sticks, in readable, "open" (and not proprietary) data formats (perhaps XML instead of "Word", etc.), in the end.

I suppose that using Win 7 and Word / Excel / Access / PowerPoint 2010, on non-cloud-connected pc's, could be a viable intermediate solution for the years to come. (In a corporation, you could even install "parallel networks", i.e. many such pc's but of which none is connected to the outside world.)

k)

The purpose of this post is to show that I'm not speaking out of paranoia, but that reality (here: brand-new MS Office 2013, probably the biggest impact in sw for the coming years, except for operating systems) outstrips fears by far.

You see, when it's the passion of torturers we have to speak of, instead of passion of people wanting the good for the community, we're in trouble, and this point in time seems to have been reached, sw-wise.