XYplorer Beta Club

mwb1100 wrote:Just to throw my lack of 2 cents into this - I haven't posted in this in thread for several reasons:

1. my DP wishes are pretty basic, so I'm pretty sure they'd be met by almost any proposal that wasn't completely braindead, and Mesh has appeared to put a lot of thought into this
2. JC Hallgren has made his DP use case known in other postings, and they align nearly 100% with mine, so I figured I could let him speak for me
3. I feared that the thread would degenerate into a 'too many cooks' situation, which it apparently hasn't (maybe this is a good thing?)

I'll second that!

mwb1100 wrote:Just to throw my lack of 2 cents into this - I haven't posted in this in thread for several reasons:

1. my DP wishes are pretty basic, so I'm pretty sure they'd be met by almost any proposal that wasn't completely braindead, and Mesh has appeared to put a lot of thought into this
2. JC Hallgren has made his DP use case known in other postings, and they align nearly 100% with mine, so I figured I could let him speak for me
3. I feared that the thread would degenerate into a 'too many cooks' situation, which it apparently hasn't (maybe this is a good thing?)

I third this feeling. There are probably several of us who are happy to let those who have specific thoughts/needs express them here.

But I am thoroughly looking forward for a DP implementation. I've tried to understand Don's (and others) assertion that DP is unnecessary - but I just can't get on board. I see that viewpoint as like those old coders who insist on using EMACS instead of a modern IDE. Sure you probably could get stuff done just as quickly on your VT100 terminal - but does that mean everybody should be forced to?

Okay, I digress.

How about one of those forum Poll thingies? You'll find find a better representation of those who care about this issue there rather than a request for proposal thread.

POLL QUESTION: If XYplorer offered an optionally shown Dual Pane feature, how would you react?
1. "I'd finally pay for this product. It's exactly what I've been waiting for!"
2. "I think I'd find it a useful additional to the already great XYplorer."
3. Meh.
4. "Great. One more box I have to uncheck in the XYplorer configuration."
5. "No Way! I'd probably ask for a refund from Don and go back to FAR. How dare you give me that option!"

Okay, I guess asking people if they want a new feature is pointless. Who wouldn't take another optional feature even if they don't have any intention of using it? So, with that in mind, how about a better poll question.

POLL QUESTION IMPROVED: The XYplorer developer is contemplating implementing an optionally enabled dual pane feature. Of course, to do this, his effort spent in other areas (bug fixes and features) will be necessarily reduced during that time. What do you think of that?
1. "Do it, dude! XYplorer does everything I want except dual pane! I'd finally pay for this thing!"
2. "Do it! But please continue to tackle quasi bug-like rough-edges in other parts of XYplorer too."
3. "Yeah, I'll probably use DP. But I'm happy to wait a while if its implementation would slow the rollout of new scripting commands."
4. "I probably wouldn't use DP. I wouldn't be too happy if its development noticeably impacted the XYplorer updates I've grown accustomed to."
5. "Don barely updates XYplorer as it is! So help me, if he goes off on this tangent I'm so going back to FAR (and asking for a refund)."

FWIW, I'd vote #1 in POLL#1 (although I already have a lifetime license) and #2 in POLL#2.

mwb1100 wrote:2. JC Hallgren has made his DP use case known in other postings, and they align nearly 100% with mine, so I figured I could let him speak for me

Thanks, mwb1100, RalphM and scrotty!
But I don't want to pretend to represent your views completely, so please keep checking in on these threads to make sure that we've not gone over the edge!

My advantage or background in this type of thing is that I've worked pretty heavily with PC's since the early 80's and I was a corporate systems analyst/programmer using COBOL and Assembler on IBM mainframe type equipment for 25+ yrs before I retired in 2001, so I've had to deal with users, technical specs, interface design, documentation, etc. maybe much more than most people here.

And that hopefully gives me a better understanding of trying to balance the needs of users .vs. the wants of users .vs. the time requirements on the developer and attempting to find the best combination of all three that will help sell the product to users who require this feature to choose XY instead of the competition.

scrotty wrote:POLL QUESTION IMPROVED: The XYplorer developer is contemplating implementing an optionally enabled dual pane feature. Of course, to do this, his effort spent in other areas (bug fixes and features) will be necessarily reduced during that time. What do you think of that?
1. "Do it, dude! XYplorer does everything I want except dual pane! I'd finally pay for this thing!"
2. "Do it! But please continue to tackle quasi bug-like rough-edges in other parts of XYplorer too."
3. "Yeah, I'll probably use DP. But I'm happy to wait a while if its implementation would slow the rollout of new scripting commands."
4. "I probably wouldn't use DP. I wouldn't be too happy if its development noticeably impacted the XYplorer updates I've grown accustomed to."
5. "Don barely updates XYplorer as it is! So help me, if he goes off on this tangent I'm so going back to FAR (and asking for a refund)."

Not bad!

But simply checking a poll option is too effortless for the DP fans to convince me. My suspicion has always been: Those DP fans just want what they are used to from their previous file manager, + all the cool stuff in XY. They do not think about how to implement/integrate this in to XYplorer in an intelligent way -- they just have their DP habit and scream: gimme my good old DP!
But DP is not a simple additional checkbox. It's a fundamental design decision and the idea to implement this after 10+ years of development is near to crazy. So, additionally to mere desire, there needs to be a solid concept about how this should fit into the current GUI.
And up to now, only a few (Mesh, jc, and some others ...) have tried to come up with a real concept... I'm not very impressed yet.

And BTW, if a user vision of XYDP is finally completed, there comes the question of technical implementation: is it possible, and if yes what's the best way to do it... surely my job, but you will suffer from all the bugs along the way...

Finally, about the often and easily neglected costs of adding an "option" (aka "If you don't like it, make it optional!"):
- it takes time and energy of the developer (that's me)
- the software gets heavier and slower
- the software gets more difficult to handle for the user (every option is a call to decide and take responsibility)
- the software documentation gets bigger (and has to be written!)
- the software will be more complex and inevitably more buggy
- other improvements (new features, improved features, bug fixes) will be postponed
- and, last not least, in the particular case of DP, I fear the software might lose some of its profile, it will bloat-blur into some hybrid thing between DP and SP...

i'd go for SP

theres still alot more improvement with SP for the near future to come

and besides SP is more popular than DP

It's a fundamental design decision and the idea to implement this after 10+ years of development is near to crazy.

When I read the Don's comments and feedback, especially in this area I listen. I become concerned about the time and effort to implement a DP, and what would have to be slowed, sacrificed, or abandoned. Doing DP apparently would require a very significant effort of time and resources. I admit to being less than enthusiastic about DP, vs the tabbed interface. Since DP isn't my dream, I'll pretty much stay out of this after this comment.

I'm glad when Don shows real interest and motivation in enhancing XYplorer. It in the areas that Don is motivated and interested in that I expect to see real success in. So far not DP.

admin wrote:
Finally, about the often and easily neglected costs of adding an "option" (aka "If you don't like it, make it optional!"):
- it takes time and energy of the developer (that's me)
- the software gets heavier and slower
- the software gets more difficult to handle for the user (every option is a call to decide and take responsibility)
- the software documentation gets bigger (and has to be written!)
- the software will be more complex and inevitably more buggy
- other improvements (new features, improved features, bug fixes) will be postponed
- and, last not least, in the particular case of DP, I fear the software might lose some of its profile, it will bloat-blur into some hybrid thing between DP and SP...

Well, I'm sure you know my position, but I'll give it anyway in regards to the specifics you provided:


- it takes time and energy of the developer (that's me)

True. There's no arguing with this - and people will be thankful that you are continuing to try to improve your product. We all have experience with software that used to be great, before the developer decided to abandon future development.


- the software gets heavier and slower

Well, as far as DP is concerned... the distribution will certainly be larger, but that doesn't mean the app has to be slower. For one, people who don't use DP shouldn't be burdened by the additional processing, and for those who do - there are enough poorly coded file managers out there that manage snappy performance with DP, that I can't imagine you would have a serious issue with this.


- the software gets more difficult to handle for the user (every option is a call to decide and take responsibility)

Eh. I've never been a big fan of this argument. Two requirements have to be met (in regards to this) by any and every application - the UI (including the Options configuration) has to be well designed, and the default settings have to be intelligently chosen. With that in place, either you have a novice user who doesn't like to look beyond what an app initially appears to do upon first load, or a power user who doesn't mind delving into the depths of configuration in order to explore the true power and features that are available. And both scenarios are dealt with. So, this is not a big deal, in my opinion.


- the software documentation gets bigger (and has to be written!)

If this ever becomes a sticking point for dual pane, I'll write it!


- the software will be more complex and inevitably more buggy

As long as it's for a good cause, it's the natural balance and not to be avoided. Otherwise, people would also say that since there's a chance of getting hurt crossing the street, they'll never leave their house.


- other improvements (new features, improved features, bug fixes) will be postponed

This is obviously a subjective issue. To me and anyone who is a true DP afficionado, it's worth it to get *this* new feature.


- and, last not least, in the particular case of DP, I fear the software might lose some of its profile, it will bloat-blur into some hybrid thing between DP and SP...

Mmmm... I understand what you're saying, but I just don't see it. As long as a file manager isn't locked into one or the other, there's no reason to ever typecast them like this. I never thought of PowerDesk as one or the other, I simply knew that it could handle either need at a moment's notice. You don't think of a car as a "grocery carrier" versus a "luggage carrier" - you just appreciate that it can do either. The only times I ever took notice was when I ran across a file manager that *couldn't* do one or the other. To me, XY wouldn't be bloating into a hybrid, but evolving into the next stage of coding zen where chaos turns into order (or at least, messy file management tasks turn into beautifully simple exercises of will). Okay, okay, that was a bit flowery - but you get the idea.

Can I 4th this feeling as well then please? I agree with much of what has been said by the 2nd/3rd feelers above!

As Don knows, I purchased the lifetime license, forced myself to use XYplorer for a couple of weeks but found myself back with my TotalCommander, even though I got used to the single-pane I just was not comfortable and as fast.

So, I trust Don's skills when v8.0 comes around that whatever Dual-pane he implements it will be better than nothing and hopefully allow me to switch from TotalCommander once and for all as I very much appreciate all the effort in new features and constant updates to XYplorer.

One note from me - I do NOT use tree-views in TotalCommander, just the 2 dual panes, I actually find navigating with a tree-view to be slower, personal opinion only of course! What I do find useful is to have all my drive letters ABOVE each of the panes as well as USB sticks or any other drives that take on a new drive letter - one click above the pane I want to view this drive gets me straight to it.

My 2 panes with drive letters above as shown below...

Fedorov wrote:
Can I 4th this feeling as well then please? I agree with much of what has been said by the 2nd/3rd feelers above!

No, this is good! Anyone who falls into this category, at the very least, pop in to give your support. Otherwise, it looks like no one cares about DP anymore!

admin wrote: - other improvements (new features, improved features, bug fixes) will be postponed

It seems to me that this gets mentioned pretty often when the DP feature is discussed. I have no doubt the statement is true, but I think it's true of any big feature. For example, so far scripting has held no interest for me (I'm too lazy to figure it out). But... I recognize that scripting is a big new feature, it's unique, and many users are very excited about it. So it would never cross my mind that I should gripe that feature XYZ is not being paid attention to since so much effort is going into scripting.

So maybe for 8.0 those people who don't care about DP can recognize that it's a big new feature and many users would be excited about it (OK - it's not unique, but 2 out of 3 ain't bad).

My only real concern is to minimize any impact on the current interface and performance. Or at least not very much.

For me DP is a bonus, but not something I will use very much. Since I prefer a SP interface and that is what I am most familiar with I have tried to not poke too many of my thoughts in the thread while the more experienced users put their .02 in. As long as I can easily toggle it on/off with minimum interference on the current interface I will be happy. Like it or not, DP is a big factor for many people using custom explorer applications and I think that xyplorer will benefit long term from the implementation.


Of course there are tons of bells and whistles that are possible but for now just concentrate on a minimal 'bare bones' DP implementation.

eurytos wrote:My only real concern is to minimize any impact on the current interface and performance. Or at least not very much.

Concur with that, for sure! We don't want to break anything so that it'll show...ok, so a few bumps in the road may be fine, but that should be it.

eurytos wrote:For me DP is a bonus, but not something I will use very much. Since I prefer a SP interface and that is what I am most familiar with I have tried to not poke too many of my thoughts in the thread while the more experienced users put their .02 in.

As one who has pushed for DP for some time, I also would likely only use it now and then...but when I need it, there is absolutely nothing that will take it's place! Kind of like the people who buy a 4-wheel drive vehicle and drive it on city streets 95% of the time....but when there's a raging blizzard, then it comes in quite handy even on those streets!.

eurytos wrote:Like it or not, DP is a big factor for many people using custom explorer applications and I think that xyplorer will benefit long term from the implementation.

That's been my feeling all along also! And why I brought up the analogy of Apple systems now running Windows and how that expanded their market share to people who'd never ever bought one before as they had some specialized appl that required Windows, or who felt more "at home" in that OS...even if Mac OS is better and less buggy.

eurytos wrote:Of course there are tons of bells and whistles that are possible but for now just concentrate on a minimal 'bare bones' DP implementation.

Agreed! But also with a plan or roadmap in place so that it can be enhanced upon without having to rework the initial scheme, as any other approach would be short-sighted.

OK - in summary I second the words of j_c from this morning.

What I don't know is the relation between cost and effect for Don. Especially, as I learned that Don doesn't like the idea of DP (very much), and I think this affects his weighting of pros and cons... But however: he must (and will) decide.

To the technical side: one thing that could start in SP, and be usable in DP, is the handling of the tree.
- during SP, the tree could be made "hideable".
("Hidden" is "not shown", but when "unhidden" is shown as before, while closed/reopened means, it's buildup new.)
(And hidden tree can be "maintained" by navigating folders up and dowen in list...)
- for DP, this leads to several possibilities:
-- one tree per pane, each beeing built seperate, (one thing I would love for tabs, too!) and each beeing "hidable". Advantage: each tree can be quite compact, as only the local used branches need to be open. (Minimum of scrolling the treen - I miss this quite often!) The active pane contains the active tree and list. For each tree the active location is that of it's list.
-- one tree for all, as today for tabs. Saves space on screen, but is harder to handle, as often must be scrolled. It's active location is that of the active pane (= list), inactive pane has no active location in tree...
(So there is a big difference between single tree, and tree-per-pane with one tree hidden!)

I would prefer one (hidable) tree per pane - and would prefer ability to dynamically switch to single tree.

To arrangement of all these "windows": that can not be flexible enough! For widescreen best could be all side by side. For others maybe one pane above the other - each with tree. For single tree maybe tree left, right one pane above the other. For dual screen separate windows could be fine, ...
(Didn't I mention the catalog?)

mwb1100 wrote:Just to throw my lack of 2 cents into this - I haven't posted in this in thread for several reasons:

1. my DP wishes are pretty basic, so I'm pretty sure they'd be met by almost any proposal that wasn't completely braindead, and Mesh has appeared to put a lot of thought into this
2. JC Hallgren has made his DP use case known in other postings, and they align nearly 100% with mine, so I figured I could let him speak for me
3. I feared that the thread would degenerate into a 'too many cooks' situation, which it apparently hasn't (maybe this is a good thing?)

Nice summary of what's been running through my mind! So allow me to "fifth" this idea

As to the DP vs tabbed issue that has been raised elsewhere in this thread, I would advocate having tabs enabled in the DP format - much like DOpus, FileBoss and others. I don't actually use the feature (multiple tabs on each pane in a DP setup), but it's there and allows people on both sides of the debate to have their cake and eat it too! Right, off to raid the fridge - that made me hungry!

Darwin wrote:

mwb1100 wrote:Just to throw my lack of 2 cents into this - I haven't posted in this in thread for several reasons:

1. my DP wishes are pretty basic, so I'm pretty sure they'd be met by almost any proposal that wasn't completely braindead, and Mesh has appeared to put a lot of thought into this
2. JC Hallgren has made his DP use case known in other postings, and they align nearly 100% with mine, so I figured I could let him speak for me
3. I feared that the thread would degenerate into a 'too many cooks' situation, which it apparently hasn't (maybe this is a good thing?)

Nice summary of what's been running through my mind! So allow me to "fifth" this idea

As to the DP vs tabbed issue that has been raised elsewhere in this thread, I would advocate having tabs enabled in the DP format - much like DOpus, FileBoss and others. I don't actually use the feature (multiple tabs on each pane in a DP setup), but it's there and allows people on both sides of the debate to have their cake and eat it too! Right, off to raid the fridge - that made me hungry!

Hmmm, before this goes out of hand I have to quote Mesh when he's correctly talking about me:

Mesh wrote:...Don has been kind enough and generous enough to agree to implement Dual Pane into XYplorer 8.0, providing that the users interested in DP can agree on a clear and simple concept.

"agree on a clear and simple concept" -- this does not mean any of these:
(1) Let's make XY look, feel, and behave like any of the typical DP files managers.
(2) Let's just add all DP features eve invented as an option.

If DP is an "all or nothing" for you DP afficionados, then say so now.