Well well... honestly I
(obviously) don't use a dual pane, nor do I feel the need for one. I did used to work all day long with one, back on my OS/2 days (!) and I thought it was pretty cool.
But the way I feel is, basically, that is was great cause I was on text-mode, but now with Windows & its GUI mode and all, I just don't really feel a need for it at all.

I actually feel like a great single pane file manager with awesome usefull features (like rich operations, drop stack, etc) is more efficient, to me at least.
Now I hear the some may need to do some comparaison of folders and/or synch. I personally don't really have to, and what comes close to this for me is done through a search & rich copy
I'm not sure how much a dual pane would really help/improve XY, even though with its big "myth" it'll probably have an affect on some users.
On a more "technical" way, maybe what could be wished for could be something else, for new features like a synch one:
- You "start" it, choose a source (original) and a destination (clone, or w/e) and XY does the job, put the dest in synch with the source, with BEFORE doing anything showing you a list of what will be done: which files/folders will be copied/deleted, etc. (maybe with the ability for one to choose which of those operations will be done; so one can "cancel" some of them)
This to me would sound like a better thing, cause it really does something, I mean a dual pane look sexy to its fan

, but it doesn't do nothing per-se. Here, the synch feature would do the actual work, and that sounds more efficient to me.....
And in the same way, one could think of a folder comparaison feature, that would list results of this comparaison: what items are on source but not dest, etc. You could even dream of this using criteria of your choice: dates, sizes, CRCs, etc so once again it does the work, faster (& better) than you could do it manually with your dual pane....
Allright, that was my 2cents
