Odds in Drives List

[fishgod]

Two minor things in the drives-list seem odd to me:
1. Bars in used Space all look the same regardless of % free (or I am not understanding what they are trying to tell me)
2. "Per Cluster"-Column is allways shown in bytes regardless of the selected mode (e.g. flexible)

See screenshot for both issues.
Using XYplorer 21.30.0039 but I think these issues are there since a long time.

[nas8e9]

Two minor things in the drives-list seem odd to me:
1. Bars in used Space all look the same regardless of % free (or I am not understanding what they are trying to tell me)

I can't reproduce the view your screenshot shows, including the identical bars, while using Windows 10 20H2. I'm deducing from the screenshot that you see this problem in Windows 7, or also in Windows 10?

2. "Per Cluster"-Column is allways shown in bytes regardless of the selected mode (e.g. flexible)

I can confirm that with XYplorer 21.30 on Windows 10 20H2 x64.

[fishgod]

I can't reproduce the view your screenshot shows, including the identical bars, while using Windows 10 20H2. I'm deducing from the screenshot that you see this problem in Windows 7, or also in Windows 10?

It's not only that there are all identical, they absolutly do not reflect the drive fullyness, look at the percentages in the "Free" column.
You are right, this is on Windows7. But looks the same on my Windows10 20H2 machines.
Even for smaller drives of ~1TB.

[nas8e9]

It's not only that there are all identical, they absolutly do not reflect the drive fullyness, look at the percentages in the "Free" column.
You are right, this is on Windows7. But looks the same on my Windows10 20H2 machines.
Even for smaller drives of ~1TB.

You're right: I was looking at the Small Tiles view, while you were showing the Details view with the Used Space graphically shown as bars. There's definitely something wonky with the bars display: you'd expect it to visualise the percentage used, but seems to use an entirely different logic.

[admin]

1) These are not bars showing the relative fullness. These are logarithmic representations of the absolute size.

2) That would be impractical since the cluster size is always in that lower byte range.

[PeterH]

I remember I didn't really like it when made, and don't understand it now.

You say the logarithmic repr. of 64GB, 51TB and 12TB should be identical?
Even if it's relative to the given dimension, 64 and 12 should be same?

Seems I miss something.

[admin]

I agree that it does not work well. If you look closely you will see the differences, however the problem here is that, contrary to our hearing, our vision cannot handle logarithmic data well. I should probably remove those "size bars".

[PeterH]

Thanks for the hint:

If you look closely you will see the differences, ...

The figures seem to have the same length - but in real the bigger values have one "digit" more. So, having my glasses on, I must admit: it's not only useless. (Though I don't like it )

[fishgod]

OK, so the bars do not reflect what I have expected (and it confused other users to).
So, why not make these bars represent the drive fullyness? I think that would be of much more use (and would be the more expected behaviour as the tiles-view also shows drive-fullyness)


The Cluster-size is indeed in the Byte to lower KB-Range.
So it surly make no sense in formating them with units like MB, GB, TB or even PB.
But using KB would make it look much cleaner (also flexible makes sense to me, as it would show KB then in most cases).
Nevertheless, if you don't like to change it, whats the point in having the format-context-menu on this column?

[admin]

Good ideas there. Check our next beta...

[fishgod]

Nice, this looks really good Thank you