XYplorer Beta Club

Maybe I am missing something but I enabled Custom Copy and it works only for copy. When I move, I still get the default Windows 7 move operation, no Custom Copy.

Zodler wrote:Maybe I am missing something but I enabled Custom Copy and it works only for copy. When I move, I still get the default Windows 7 move operation, no Custom Copy.

I think the clue is in the name Despite a move operation essentially being a copy+delete. Perhaps it is planned for later.

Well it should be part of it. Move is as important as Copy. Copy/Move are always considered together, that's why I assumed it should work.

When closing the main window, the custom copy crashes and stops.

Zodler wrote:When closing the main window, the custom copy crashes and stops.

Progress or not? Foreground or Background? Close how?

File -> Exit.
Custom Copy enabled, the rest is at default settings.

Zodler wrote:File -> Exit.

Actually I'm encountering a more serious problem with XYplorer 10. I will post a new topic. The copies are not done correctly by version 10.

I had 3 questions.

here

Thanks, fix comes.

Use "buffer" for read/write and an option to specify the size of it
2.Is OS cache being used to read/write?

alps wrote:Use "buffer" for read/write and an option to specify the size of it
2.Is OS cache being used to read/write?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the purpose of this post (and this happened the second time already).
In order to get help or answers please try to explain your issues a bit clearer or more elaborate.

Thanks

RalphM wrote:

alps wrote:Use "buffer" for read/write and an option to specify the size of it
2.Is OS cache being used to read/write?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't get the purpose of this post (and this happened the second time already).
In order to get help or answers please try to explain your issues a bit clearer or more elaborate.

Thanks

Fully agreed.

General hint: I ignore posts that are written in such a careless and disrespectful manner. Ultimately the user will be banned.

IMO specifying buffer size is useful for larger files copying if it's done under same hd(hard disk) and add options :
1.to copy if the source timestamp is newer.

@admin:i wrote in short because it was easy to understand ,when necessary i'll be detailed.

alps wrote:IMO specifying buffer size is useful for larger files copying if it's done under same hd(hard disk) and add options :
1.to copy if the source timestamp is newer.

@admin:i wrote in short because it was easy to understand ,when necessary i'll be detailed.

You are right: you can write as you think it's necessary.

But don't be surprised if admin interprets it as he thinks it's right...

Especially for me: I understood his words better than yours.
I might try to *interpret* your words - but it seems admin doesn't want to do that.
And I think it's *his* right to do so.

PeterH wrote:You are right: you can write as you think it's necessary.

But don't be surprised if admin interprets it as he thinks it's right...

Especially for me: I understood his words better than yours.
I might try to *interpret* your words - but it seems admin doesn't want to do that.
And I think it's *his* right to do so.

Agreed! There is a big gap between writing it so short as to possibly be unclear to someone else who isn't a native English speaker (like Don) and writing too much so as to be confusing (I've seen many rambling long posts by some users here over time) so the best is to try for the middle ground: make it clear to most all as to what you mean...just because you know the issue very well doesn't mean we may...it's much more efficient time wise to discard a few extra words while reading than try and guess the missing ones.