ATTENTION: You are viewing a page formatted for mobile devices; to view the full web page, click HERE.

Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Directory Opus 10

<< < (23/31) > >>

@clean, I've gotten used to using multiple (vertical) panes in InfoQube and have often thought it could be of great help in a file manager.

Directory Opus 10

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.
-clean (February 08, 2013, 09:12 AM)
--- End quote ---
There's no harm in asking :up:

All developers have their ways of deciding and at the end of the day 40 is right in saying (more or less) take it or leave it. Dopus -to me- make some weird decisions, hiding a lot of the power and capability, thereby forcing the user to look up help or go on forum and invest a lot of time in figuring out how to do things. It's almost like they're trying to make it easy looking. But end up making it more complicated than necessary. (Let's face it people dont drop that kind of money unless they want more capability.) XY let's you see a lot of it's power very quickly.
My peeve with Dopus is the viewer has a couple of minor flaws that really hinder usage of Dopus for working with images. Maybe they think that's for specialist software, I strongly disagree (as do others - but probably not 'enough') and it's their call at the end of the day...

I still use it every day and like it.

^^that's cool, what you've done with IQ.

@tomos +1 w/SB. Very cool! :Thmbsup:

(That program never ceases to amaze me when I see what clever people do with it.)

thanks guys :-[
wasnt me that done it though ;D
dunno was it even Pierre - I believe that functionality is made by someone else - it's partly the same as what File Hamster use in their interface - you have very flexible positioning options if you drag a tab or panel:

Directory Opus 10

In IQ, I usually only use three panes at the most - just set up 4 for emphasis (I'm not sure how many you can open - just tried six but run out of screen space then).

The file manager could definitely take a lot from outliners and browsers in terms of ease of use and flexibility. I suggested tab functionality/options like in FF (with tabmixplus) years ago (in the dopus forum).
Also in FF I love the flexibility of the Session Manager addon. This is reflected in a limited way in Dopus with their saved lister layouts (I always hoped they would make them more accessible via an 'open' dialogue). I'm curious to check out their new tab group features.

Tomos, allow my joining in for giving kudos, and indeed, I should have a much more thorough look into IQ than I have had in the past! And I think your analysis of DO is spot-on.

40hz, you say, "Nobody is under any obligation to write software just because somebody else wants it." - You're so right, and that's why I insist on repeating what I'm asking for is not "exotic" in any way, but should be available from ANY of these paid file commanders (from which I own three).

Also, when you say, the features are available, you're not entirely wrong since with "sending to tabs" at least, you could do something, by programming; prob is, almost any such file commanders asks for its own special programming language, or terminology, and what the developers easily could implement as code into their respective file manager, you're bound to program first, as a user, and then run / trigger macros every time. It's this way I highly spiced up my IMS, with an outliner, AHK scripts and lots of additional keys, "from the outside", but I don't have enough knowledge and time to do the same for such file manager scripting.

And again, these should be basic functions, so why ain't they available to programmers, i.e. to people able to do such scripts in reasonable time?

Tomos, since you speak of images, I should have added - in fact, I had searched for this, some months ago, in two dozen or so image "viewers" and such - that not a single such image "viewer", i.e. file managers specialized in pictures, has got such functionality either, and I finally wrote some very basic ahk scripts in order to facilitate their respective "copy / move to folder xyz" functionality, which is very un-elegant and time-consuming since in any case, it implies flashing dialog boxes and such.

Dormouse, thank you for the hint to ShellLess Explorer - I had trialled about 20 such file commanders (and bought three of them), but this one had been unknown to me. (Is 30 bucks, no prob, could buy a fourth one.) Will have to trial.

As for Q-Dir, there is no functionality for copying / moving files around between its four panes, except by mouse, of course.

And finally, since there's also this thread about the difficulties of finding a decent image browser, let me say that for viewing images, there's nothing better than "Fast Picture Viewer", but there are several flaws:

- It's in version 1.95 or such, and major upgrades are paid, so for some time now, it's definitely not been the ideal moment for buying

- With XP, you only see the one big picture displayed, since for the strip of previews on the top of the screen, the prog relies upon some Windows functionality not available before Vista

- The tree component of this prog (for determining the source, and the target folders) is abysmal, never ever found something that bad.

But as said, as a viewer, its a class of its own (and I also own Lightroom - with which I'm very unhappy btw).

40hz, again, "Nobody is under any obligation to write software just because somebody else wants it." - I've got a slight problem with that stance, "I want this feature, another one wants that feature, and the developer will implement a third one."

In fact, when it's not exotic features, it would be really helpful that users back up their respective feature wishes; it's "divide et impera" that enables developers to work on irrelevant features, when at the same time they never do the work that'd be needed.

Then, let me add that FB (FileBoss) is even more expensive than DO, for professional use! (I'm waiting for their new version, in order to check if "distribution functionality", other than by mouse, has been introduced there.

40hz, re-reading your passage, "The features are available. But apparently it was the people that wrote Directory Opus who saw the potential and put in the time to write a program that provides them. And they (correctly IMO) guessed that those people who truly wanted - or actually needed - those features would be willing to buy D-Opus. Everybody else would just make do with whatever else they could get."

- ??? From my trialling, these features are NOT available! "Distribution", perhaps, by scripting, but they won't script it for you. And for more than two panes (= "listers" in their terminology), neither: It'd be more than one "window" as they call it, that'd be something like several instances of a file commander - now write some script juggling around files between those.

That's not slick, that's not professional.

No, the fact is simple: Even if you are willing to pay 120 bucks for a fast file "distribution" feature, it's not on offer, anywhere, and shifting around files is CORE functionality of a file manager, so it should be assisted, and it isn't.

In any sw category, I can give you examples of missing core functionality: It's a shame, 25 years within the pc. These developers are just too lazy to implement some 80 lines of rather simple code: It's insulting. (We're not speaking of cloning and hoisting, let alone multiple tree re-arrangements in outliners (cf. Bonsai): there, you'd need real good programming capabilities for. We're speaking of core functionality and of implementation taking 2 hours of these developers' time, make it 4 incl. debugging. Njet. Not for 100 bucks apiece. And then, as tomos says, and as others have said before, DO seems to have got some probs with images, anyway.)


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version