XYplorer Beta Club

petersboulton wrote:I would urge that DP, now its here, gets its potential fully exploited rather than moving development on to the next 'new' idea.

I agree, but I decided to wait a little and collect more opinions. I need a broader opinion base because myself I'm quite unexperienced with DP so I would easily make the wrong decisions.

I agree, but I decided to wait a little and collect more opinions. I need a broader opinion base because myself I'm quite unexperienced with DP so I would easily make the wrong decisions.

That makes sense! It must be hard for you because just because some people shout the loudest it doesn't mean their idea is the best! I guess you have your ways of seeing the wood for the trees.

My shout is for dragging tabs between panes and for selecting unique or common files in both panes. Shout over - I'll go back to sleep now.


Zzzz. Pete

petersboulton wrote:

I agree, but I decided to wait a little and collect more opinions. I need a broader opinion base because myself I'm quite unexperienced with DP so I would easily make the wrong decisions.

....
My shout is for dragging tabs between panes and for selecting unique or common files in both panes. Shout over - I'll go back to sleep now.
Zzzz. Pete

That makes a strong sense for me. Would be very useful. Also some sort of folder synchronizer (if it ain't any already).

admin wrote:I agree, but I decided to wait a little and collect more opinions. I need a broader opinion base because myself I'm quite unexperienced with DP so I would easily make the wrong decisions.

These are some of the suggestions made by students at the Wednesday seminar that I participated in (my comments are added in italics):
Remove the Panes menu and integrate the commands into the other menus - Having a separate menu makes it look like dual pane is an add-on. For the SP users who don't like that idea, I have to look at Tree, Catalogue, Mini Tree... which I never use.
Integrate the copy and move, again it emphasises that dual pane is not part of XY. An options menu is required because without scrolling tabs and no pane header it's often impossible to see the destination of the other pane (unless you use very short path names and few tabs).
Add pane headers for identifying the active pane and showing the path. See above.
Dislike of the entire pane colour change for active / inactive pane. It interferes too much with any colour filters. Again, pane headers solve that problem.
Synchronize between panes.
Synchronous scrolling.
Compare files and folders between panes.

Then the ones already discussed (I think):
Swap panes - selected tabs only.
Swap panes - all tabs.
Copy tab to other pane (XY does the reverse).
Open folder in other pane.

Sort of related:
View Zip file in other pane. This is NOT the same as extracting files to the other pane. It simply views the contents of the zip file in the other pane. It might be possible to come up with a script to do this but I expect any scripts involving 7z will need to extract rather than view.

You may have some of these requests from the students themselves, I suggested that they look at the forum. However, it's examination time for many, so they may not have time.

Unrelated:
I've just seen the splitter width on right click on the splitter. Do people really want to adjust the splitter width in the GUI? (Also, it's not on the Info panel or catalog / tree splits, which also change width). Much more useful is preset positions for the splitter as T.C does. Also being able to move the splitter with the K.B. is useful - I use AHK to do that in T.C. since it's not built in.

Gandolf wrote:Remove the Panes menu and integrate the commands into the other menus - Having a separate menu makes it look like dual pane is an add-on.

You know, I kinda agree! Three of the items could easily go within the View menu/submenu, and the Move/Copy could go elsewhere as well

Add pane headers for identifying the active pane and showing the path.
Dislike of the entire pane colour change for active / inactive pane. It interferes too much with any colour filters.

I'm in favor of the inactive pane color as that is how I'm used to it from x2, but the other big downside to pane headers is the space needed...for us with smaller screens (and now with netbooks also, which I understand have even smaller screens), vertical room is at a high premium, so anything extra that would need space would not be desirable! As an option, fine but not as fixed standard, please!

I'm still waiting for the ability in v8 to make my list as small as I could (1-2 items) with old SP vers....now the min I can get is 5 items...I need that space on the IP!

Yes, "pane headers" and "drag & drop" tabs between panes would be great.

Apart from that, very nice implementation, Don.

j_c_hallgren wrote:I'm still waiting for the ability in v8 to make my list as small as I could (1-2 items) with old SP vers....now the min I can get is 5 items...I need that space on the IP!

This sounds easy but may not be practical from a programming point of view.

When the Info panel is maximised it's height should be such that:
In list or detail the height of the list is one (or two?) lines. Font size then becomes a controlling factor.
In Thumbnail the height is determined by the thumbnail size.
This would mean that the maximum size of the Info panel would vary depending on the view setting and the Single / Dual pane mode. At the moment it is fixed and the number of lines in the list varies depending on the Address bar, Toolbar, Tabs and Horizontal / Vertical Dual Pane mode.

Gandolf wrote:

j_c_hallgren wrote:I'm still waiting for the ability in v8 to make my list as small as I could (1-2 items) with old SP vers....now the min I can get is 5 items...I need that space on the IP!

This sounds easy but may not be practical from a programming point of view.

My point is that, using vertical panes, it was perfectly possible in 7.90 and now it's not, and there isn't anything that has changed in layout vertically to affect it, ok?

Yes, I realize that this min list size may be related to the min space req'd for horizontal panes, but I shouldn't have to loose that max IP/min list in vertical mode...if/when I switch to horizontal, at that point, then reduce my IP by the min amt needed to make list fit, and I'd be quite happy with that!

If what I want to view in that min list space isn't enough to see one line due to font/view, then that's my problem...I only want the min list size to be the same nbr of pixels that I could have in v7.90.

I'm really happy to see that XYplorer now has Dual Panes!

I would like to see Panes be just another way of looking at Tabs -- it would be logical that if you had two Tabs setup and then you selected Dual Pane, that each tab would go to its own pane. I'm not suggesting more than two panes as few screens could handle it. If you had more than two tabs setup, the active tab and tabs to the right of it would go to the right Pane, and all tabs left of the active tab would go to the left Pane.

Hello, just another vote for the ability to not have the dual-pane option affect single-pane UI. In my case the problem is the space for tabs lost to the tree control, now that the tab area is limited by the width of the list panel. I see why it was done, and it indeed makes sense for dual-pane, but I'd still really like a "Wide Tabs" option and will never use the dual-pane mode. Yes, I've tried it, many times, in multiple programs over 25+ years, and just don't find it to my liking.

I have not spent much time on this forum, so I realize I'll have less "say" about it, but I am a registered XYplorer user, and ended up going back to 7.9 instead of tracking all the latest changes just because I really want that extra space back for my tabs.

Thanks for listening!

Jim

Hi and welcome to the XY forums! But in your case, it's somewhat a very belated welcome as you actually joined about 9 mths ago but just now became "visible" as a poster...anyway...

jbm wrote:Hello, just another vote for the ability to not have the dual-pane option affect single-pane UI.

I think that is something that is possibly in the plans...

I see why it was done, and it indeed makes sense for dual-pane, but I'd still really like a "Wide Tabs" option and will never use the dual-pane mode. Yes, I've tried it, many times, in multiple programs over 25+ years, and just don't find it to my liking.

At least you understand why, as compared to some here who just didn't get it...and have you tried using DP in a "single pane" mode? That is, with alternating panes? Some users have found that quite handy.

I have not spent much time on this forum, so I realize I'll have less "say" about it, but I am a registered XYplorer user, and ended up going back to 7.9 instead of tracking all the latest changes just because I really want that extra space back for my tabs.

FWIW for me personally, it's not how many times someone posts that matters as much as when and how...I would value your opinion higher than someone who just joined today or a few days ago given that you've seen the changes as they occurred and know the history of DP and you're a registered user as well compared to someone just in trial period.

I'll try to add the "Wide Tabs" option to 8.20.

admin wrote:I'll try to add the "Wide Tabs" option to 8.20.

jbm wrote: I have not spent much time on this forum, so I realize I'll have less "say" about it, but I am a registered XYplorer user, and ended up going back to 7.9 instead of tracking all the latest changes just because I really want that extra space back for my tabs.

I agree; we had to postpone buying a set of licenses for our offsite agents until we are secure in the direction this DP implementation is going.
Wasn't the original plan that this should have minimal impact on those who prized xyplorer for its SP implementation?
At this rate we will most likely re-evaluate the v8 releases no earlier than the end of this year.

Rather disappointed, actually.

Seer wrote:Wasn't the original plan that this should have minimal impact on those who prized xyplorer for its SP implementation?
Rather disappointed, actually.

Other that the "Wide Tabs" situation (which will be addressed soon), can you be more descriptive of why you feel so disapointed, so that this can possibly be addressed?
Maybe some of us who stay current don't see things the same as you do, as I don't see that DP had hardly much of an impact on SP usage at all, besides the reduction in tabs over tree.

You joined quite a while ago but have barely posted here...thus we need some more data to go on...at least that's my opinion...for example, I looked at your first post..you asked about .NET support and I asked what you meant exactly and got no reply so that thread kinda died.