XYplorer Beta Club

Mesh wrote:I am a new user to XYplorer. I've used many other file managers, and for years had decided on PowerDesk as the best balance between the bunch. As it is effectively a dead product now, I have been looking for a replacement.

After trying many others (including DOpus), I find XYplorer to have the best balance of features and performance - except for dual pane.

Hi and welcome to the XY forum!
As Graham said, I also think there are numerous unique features of XY which offset the DP issue. Now as you've probably seen in this thread before, I'm one who really needs DP on some occasions, and when I do, I use an alternate product (x2 lite) for that function/need, but the remaining time, I'm perfectly happy with XY setup.

Mesh wrote: This has nothing to do with an outmoded sense of nostalgia, or a resistance to change. It's because, like many others here, there are parts of my workflow that are most efficiently done with a dual pane setup, and multi-tabs just don't cut it. I've read the rest of this thread, and I've seen some of the suggestions offered - but I have to agree with those who state that using a third party app is not only cumbersome, but simply not a substitute in many circumstances.

I'll agree that it's not the ideal to need another app, but given the limited time I use it (maybe 2-3 times per month for total of maybe 2 hrs max), it's not unworkable.

Mesh wrote: Speaking as a new user and potential customer, I will state that when it comes to software, in addition to features and performance, support and development are very important to me. From taking an admittedly quick look through the forum, I see that bugs tend to be addressed relatively quickly - which is fantastic. But user requested features don't seem to be handled with the same care and attention. This issue of dual panes seems to be a stellar example of this.

Yes, bugs are handled quite quickly, as are most all user requests! Some have been implemented almost TOO soon, before we've had a chance to discuss best approach for all types of users/systems...DP is one of a few that have not been implemented, but we've talked about it...I even did so via phone one time!

Mesh wrote:
Personally, I don't see what the problem is - given how much this feature is desired and requested by many of XY's users, I don't understand why it hasn't been added as an option. Please note that I'm not talking about changing the nature of XY from one type of file manager to another - but adding it as an option so that users of either philosophy can work as they please.

It's obvious that it would be a major overhaul of code and Don's not as willing to do that for this feature, it seems...I see it as somewhat similar to the Apple systems not running Windows until just recently...a clash of cultures, maybe?

Mesh wrote:
If we were talking about making XY dual pane *instead* of multi-tab, than I could understand the arguing and resistance by many - the author in particular. But there is no reason why XY can't be both, and as such, I am at a complete loss as to why this feature is getting such resistance.

Some people love having tabs in their internet browsers, and now IE7 supports that. Personally, I hate it - I think it's much more efficient to have a seperate window for each simultaneously open page. But IE 7 allows people of either philosophy to work exactly the way they want to. There's no reason why XY can't do the same.

Separate windows, huh? Well, one can run multiple XY's and get that type of handling...there are some scripts that aid in that setup as I recall.

Mesh wrote:

Having said all that, I am thrilled to see the features and polish that XY possesses. However, I am going to decline making a purchase at this time. The first reason is that I require dual pane, and XY doesn't have it. But the second reason is that as a prospective customer, the arguing and resistance that the author has exhibited towards implementing a feature that is clearly desired by many users and potential customers makes me nervous.

Please don't be just as reluctant to try to use XY without DP as Don is to implement it, if you get my point...there have been a few other features that us users have asked for and he's declined but it's generally been for the best as in many cases, he's come up with a solution that is better or we've found it's not really needed after discussion.

Mesh wrote:
The best developers I have had relationships with respond to feature requests with a positive attitude. It's not about whether they themselves have any use for the feature in question - if the users have a genuine desire and use for it, they do their best to implement it.

The way Don handles us users and our requests is why I've devoted hundreds of hours to help support it and promote it! He's been extremely willing in most cases to add features...some times, for small tweaks/items, it's been in as little as one day! Now do you get THAT level of support from another vendor? I really would doubt it!

Mesh wrote:
What I'm seeing here worries me, and that gives me pause. If these things should change, and dual pane is implemented well into XY (and I do mean well, as opposed to a half-hearted attempt to stop the begging), I will reconsider and most likely make a purchase at that time. But until then, I'm afraid I have to look elsewhere.

Well, I think you may be saying you're going to overlook ALL the other great features and the great support of XY just for a feature that most of us find isn't really as needed as we thought...I really don't think you can find this level of response and support from any other file manager...maybe you can, as once I found XY, I was hooked within about 2 days, so I don't really know what else may exist...some vendors release updates once a month, if that...Don does it almost daily (when not on holiday/vacation) and that's only typical of security/virus software!

j_c_hallgren wrote:
I'll agree that it's not the ideal to need another app, but given the limited time I use it (maybe 2-3 times per month for total of maybe 2 hrs max), it's not unworkable.

For such limited use, I can see where you could easily compensate. In my workflow, though, I tend to use it more often - and that would make it a much harder compromise.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
Yes, bugs are handled quite quickly, as are most all user requests! Some have been implemented almost TOO soon, before we've had a chance to discuss best approach for all types of users/systems...DP is one of a few that have not been implemented, but we've talked about it...I even did so via phone one time!

Well, that's good to hear. I did admit that it was only a quick look that I took...

j_c_hallgren wrote:
It's obvious that it would be a major overhaul of code and Don's not as willing to do that for this feature, it seems...I see it as somewhat similar to the Apple systems not running Windows until just recently...a clash of cultures, maybe?

Perhaps, but as a general rule, good software development should allow multiple cultures to use their application with equal ease and efficiency. Obviously, there are exceptions here, but as a general rule it holds true. Applications that do not achieve this tend to have much smaller customer bases than they otherwise could.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
Separate windows, huh? Well, one can run multiple XY's and get that type of handling...there are some scripts that aid in that setup as I recall.

That wasn't meant to be a direct analogy to the way I work with file managers, but an example of how an application can cater to multiple methodologies.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
Please don't be just as reluctant to try to use XY without DP as Don is to implement it, if you get my point...there have been a few other features that us users have asked for and he's declined but it's generally been for the best as in many cases, he's come up with a solution that is better or we've found it's not really needed after discussion.

The mindset is completely different between developer and user. A developer is going to consider coding time and effort, their vision for their software, potential customer reactions and sales, etc... But from a consumer's point of view, it's usually much simpler - does it do what I want, how I want, and at a reasonable price?

It's not about being stubborn - but for a user, either a product meets their needs or they move on. When I initially examined my options for a file manager, like many others, as soon as I saw that XY didn't have dual pane - I nixed it immediately and kept looking.

It was only because I did not find something worthwhile from my remaining choices, that I went back to take a closer look at my second tier of options. Otherwise, I wouldn't have even given XY a trial run. But because of the lack of other quality options, I gave XY a shot, and was pleasantly surprised. I decided that before cutting it from my list again, I would give it an honest attempt and see how the multi-tab approach worked as a substitute. After some quality time with it, I decided that while the multi-tabs had their uses, it was not a substitute for dual pane. A significant portion of my file management tasks now became more difficult and cumbersome using XY as opposed to PowerDesk - and that is not a sign that you've made a good choice.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
The way Don handles us users and our requests is why I've devoted hundreds of hours to help support it and promote it! He's been extremely willing in most cases to add features...some times, for small tweaks/items, it's been in as little as one day! Now do you get THAT level of support from another vendor? I really would doubt it!

Honestly? I have had that, as well. Oh, I'll grant you, it's definitely rare! But I have had it.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
Well, I think you may be saying you're going to overlook ALL the other great features and the great support of XY just for a feature that most of us find isn't really as needed as we thought...I really don't think you can find this level of response and support from any other file manager...maybe you can, as once I found XY, I was hooked within about 2 days, so I don't really know what else may exist...some vendors release updates once a month, if that...Don does it almost daily (when not on holiday/vacation) and that's only typical of security/virus software!

I'm not saying at all that I'm overlooking all the positives that XY has to offer. On the contrary, that's what makes it so painful! With XY, I'm looking at a file manager that is so close to being perfect for my needs. After my initial test run, the only things I would like to see are a good dual pane implementation, and the ability to truly customize the toolbar with any of XY's commands.

Now, the latter is something that I consider icing - it would be nice if XY could do it, but it's not important enough to be a deal breaker. Dual Pane is another story, however. While some people don't need it, it's very important to me. I've tried XY to see how well it could compensate, but the short answer is that it can't. And I'm not really interested in using two programs to do what should be doable in one.


That being said, you've made a good case for Don and XY, and I'll continue to try working with it - but the only thing I expect that to accomplish is that it will make it all the more painful when I have to decide to look somewhere else.

graham wrote:mesh wrote:

May I suggest you keep looking at this forum as the day will come when DP will not be so high on your need list.

With respect, I submit that you don't know my workflow, and it's not reasonable for you to judge what is or will be important to me. This is not intended to be a snap, but a legitimate statement.

Mesh wrote:Speaking as a new user and potential customer, I will state that when it comes to software, in addition to features and performance, support and development are very important to me. From taking an admittedly quick look through the forum, I see that bugs tend to be addressed relatively quickly - which is fantastic. But user requested features don't seem to be handled with the same care and attention. This issue of dual panes seems to be a stellar example of this.

I honestly don't think you got things right here, if only because DP is a very special and unique case. All user wishes are taken into consideration and Don considers them.

But he is working on a full application that doesn't aim to include the wishes of everyone, because trying to please everyone can lead to a big mess of bloaty software, and no one wants any of that.

Yes, everytime a new idea is mentioned Don looks at it also for himself, how would he benefit from such a thing, but that doesn't mean that if he sees no interest in it he will just refuse to implement it.

Many times he has added features that he doesn't use, at all, because they were requested from users and he thought they would be a good addition to his application. More than once he has been convinced by users than something he might not have seen as a good idea actually was one, or would be seen as much by many.

Let me assure you that Don handles everything with good care, whether or not he sees a personal interest in it. Everything is considered, and nothing is done without being fully considered and thought out first. I actually think there simply is not one other application that benefits from such a fantastic support (or constant development) out there, period.

But that doesn't say he will agree to everything, of course! And again, I think DP is a very unique case, and you should use it as an example of how things are handled, because except for the fact that Don is opened to discussion, it is not the rule but the exception.

Mesh wrote:Personally, I don't see what the problem is - given how much this feature is desired and requested by many of XY's users, I don't understand why it hasn't been added as an option. Please note that I'm not talking about changing the nature of XY from one type of file manager to another - but adding it as an option so that users of either philosophy can work as they please.

I also believe that this is where you're mistaken, because a DP file manager is by essence a very different tool than a single-plane one. Adding another pane without any actual support for it would be pretty useless, let's all agree there.

But as soon as you have two (or more) "panes", or (File) List as we call that control in the world of XY, that can be visible at the same time, everything changes. I'm not even talking about all the code and work needed to support things visually, from a GUI POV, but simply the core of the application, how it works. Every feature must then support the DP aspect, and all that comes with it.

Soon people would ask that the Move/Copy/Backup To feature supports the secondary pane, and such support in Script would be asked, as well as DP-specific features, and forced to admit that a DP without support for it isn't really a DP.

And the thing is that Don doesn't see a real specific advantage for the use of a DP, and more importantly thinks that there are other features that are much more exciting, that would be a lot more powerful and useful for XY users, and since he is bound by the same laws of physics as we all are he needs to make choices, do some things before others, and he chooses to add things like Scripting first.

And to be honest with you, I do think it is great, because I do believe that such amazing features (like Scripting, UDC, ...) will improve the possibilities and power of XY in ways that DP could never do. Besides, DP is a very common feature elsewhere, the same cannot be said about XY's powerful & fast search feature, its Highlighting features, Catalog, etc

XY is not like any other file manager (or application for that matter), and we all love it for that. Such an accomplishment must be credited to Don, who always managed to make it evolve in way he thought best for XY, and so we trust him he will keep doing do in the future.

Remember, if you want DP you can find it anywhere (else). XY is an alternative, one that we do consider to be a better one, for plenty of reasons. You are free not to share our view of this issue, or to feel that XY doesn't fit your needs, of course, but please do not "use" this issue to think that user wishes are not taken into consideration with great care over here, because I assure you that is simply not the case, quite the contrary.


(Just note that this was, of course, my own opinion of the whole thing. I'm just another user, and I'm certainly not speaking for anyone else here, especially not Don, just trying to explain the way I feel towards this.)

Mesh wrote:

j_c_hallgren wrote:I'll agree that it's not the ideal to need another app, but given the limited time I use it (maybe 2-3 times per month for total of maybe 2 hrs max), it's not unworkable.

For such limited use, I can see where you could easily compensate. In my workflow, though, I tend to use it more often - and that would make it a much harder compromise.

Ok...so...could you better describe exactly what your workflow is that makes DP such a requirement? There have been a couple of cases where some "forumites" who are more XY familiar have been able to analyze the users needs and find a way that works for both the user and XY...

I've had cases before with a new product that I was sure wouldn't do what I needed and it turned out that it would but only if done in a slightly different way or sequence, so let's see if we can maybe help figure out something that XY can do that satisfies the apparent need for DP, ok?

Maybe there isn't a way, but it's worth a try, IMO! And if there isn't, then that just helps make the case that some more research on the topic may be needed...BTW, I was always hoping that a limited DP could be added as minimum, so at least the basic capability would exist.

mesh wrote:

With respect, I submit that you don't know my workflow, and it's not reasonable for you to judge what is or will be important to me. This is not intended to be a snap, but a legitimate statement.

Of course I do not know your workflow, and I am not judging importance, and neither do I know what Don will introduce to xyPlorer in the future but the latter is why I merely suggested you maintain an interest in XYPlorer. It may be that your workflow can be totally accommodated at some future time with new additions to XY. In the short time I have been associated with this product I have seen dramatic changes, the latest being scripting. The power that this potentially offers, and I say this in ignorance of what Don is planning for it, could be facilities that make your workflow change and give you more. That all said, as other have said if your committed to DP then there are plenty of products around.

I did once suggest (wish) to Don that to satisfy even more sales maybe a simple addition of another list be incorporated similar to that done now by some external script but having seen Jacky's response to you I see that what may seem simple to me can become very complex to XY.

Don has said that he is willing to incorporate new ideas if he is convinced of the value and in the case of DP he has said he has yet to be convinced.

Please accept that I am not trying to tell you that XY is right for your workflow. I have no interest in giving free advice or securing a sale. You took time out to comment on XY and along with others I have offerred my views.

jacky wrote:
And to be honest with you, I do think it is great, because I do believe that such amazing features (like Scripting, UDC, ...) will improve the possibilities and power of XY in ways that DP could never do. Besides, DP is a very common feature elsewhere, the same cannot be said about XY's powerful & fast search feature, its Highlighting features, Catalog, etc

XY is not like any other file manager (or application for that matter), and we all love it for that. Such an accomplishment must be credited to Don, who always managed to make it evolve in way he thought best for XY, and so we trust him he will keep doing do in the future.

Remember, if you want DP you can find it anywhere (else). XY is an alternative, one that we do consider to be a better one, for plenty of reasons.

I know that dual pane can be found elsewhere, but it's specifically because XY is so great that makes it such a tragedy that it misses such a core feature for file managers. And whether it works for you, personally, doesn't change the fact that it is a core feature that file managers should have - the number of people who want and/or require it attests to that.

Partially in response to j_c_hallgren and graham, since it would appear that there is still an issue of some people - Don in particular - not understanding how dual pane can be beneficial to some, I will take a turn at it. I know others have tried, but I'll make my own attempt - and who knows? Maybe it will offer a shade of enlightenment.


I'll begin with an analogy - text file comparison. Let's say you're comparing two text files that are different versions of the same document - and for Don's sake, let's say that they're different versions of the same source code file. You need to make a selective set of changes - let's say one file is the master source file, and the other is a test version that you use to experiment with certain features and bug fixes. So, some items need to be copied from the test source to the master source, and some pieces of code need to be deleted from the master source. This is not something that any program can do automatically - the app can help by showing you the differences, but the choices of what to do with each difference must be determined individually by the user.

Nobody is going to give a CMOS's time of day to a text comparison app that doesn't allow you to view both files simultaneously. It's a given that it's a necessary feature to such an application. You need to see both versions side by side, despite whatever automatic processing the program is capable of.


The way XYplorer works now and Don's take on it, when applied to this analogy, would mean that your text comparison app is only capable of showing you one file at a time, but the two files appear on seperate tabs. In order to see the differences and work with them, you'd have to constantly switch between the two tabs, remembering what you just saw on one while looking at the other. And then you have people telling you that - no, really, this way is better.

Who, while sober, would believe them under such a scenario? For this example of a text comparison app, dual pane serves a vital function and is a requirement for efficiency. It is not nostalgia, it is not outdated, outmoded thinking - it's simply common sense. A person comparing two text files is not going to drag and drop a piece of code from one file onto the tab of another and *assume* that it went in properly. Nor would they want to constantly switch back and forth making sure that the last action went through as intended. The lack of a dual pane in such a scenario isn't just a matter of preference - it would be idiotic.


Now, how does this relate to a file manager? Simple - with a file manager, the list of files in a directory is the subject being compared, rather then the text file of the example above. So, if you need to compare the files in two directories in any way (and no, I'm not just talking about a simple CRC check for identical lists - but more complex comparisons involving lists that aren't *supposed* to be identical), then you need TWO LISTS. You need to see the contents of both directories at the same time.

If I remember correctly, I think I read a post where Don couldn't understand what the big deal was in having two lists instead of one list - well, complex organization/comparison tasks are where it really makes a big difference. It's easy to say that there are alternatives when the goal is to get two directories to contain the exact same list of files. But there are plenty of cases where things are a lot more complex than that.


Let me give an example. I think most people can agree that it's not too common that the average person names files intelligently AND consistently AND doesn't come across a reason to change their naming scheme at some point in time. And when you consider that files are often handled by more than one person - particularly in business environments - that means that file names are often all over the place.

So here's the scenario - your company is looking to get certain financial and project data on various investments together in a set to send to accounting/the printer/the client/whomever. But because different people and departments work on different aspects of each proposal, you have a mishmash of files, and not all in the same location. So, your job is to compile and organize a complete set - but only of the files that fit the parameters of your assignment.

So, you have your Master Directory, which has a good number of the required files - and you need to figure out what's missing and copy it over, renaming it to be sensical and consistent. Looking at the task for a single project:

-------------------------------------------------

Master Directory:

Thomas Proposal - Funding Requirements.xls
Thomas Proposal - Initial Proposal.doc
Thomas Proposal - Ledger - 2007 Q1.xls
Thomas Proposal - Ledger - 2007 Q3.xls
Thomas Proposal - Prospectus.doc

-------------------------------------------------

Source-of-your-pain Directory:

2006 - Cover Letter - TP.doc
Balance Sheet - T.P..xls
Funding - Thomas.xls
Horton Incentives - 2006.pdf
Jenson - 2006-2007 - Summary.doc
Jenson Project Proposal.doc
Ledger - Thomas, 2007Q2.xls
Proposal - Thomass.doc
Q1-Q3 2006 - Jenson.xls
T. Prj - Qtr 3 '07 Info.xls
Thms - Oct-Dec 07 finances.xls
Thomas Questionarre.doc
Tomas Ledger Q1(2007).xls

-------------------------------------------------


Clearly, this is not something that can be done automatically by any app. There is no consistency to the file names, nor is there any guarantee that the names are spelled correctly, and that says nothing for abbreviations. It requires a human eye to determine which files need to be transferred over, and it requires a human eye to figure out if the file already exists in the Master Directory, under a different name.

Now, who wants to do this by switching tabs for an hour? Raise your hands.


No, the way to do this is to have both directories showing side by side - it's the most efficient way to do it, and it is absolutely not outmoded thinking. It is perfectly relevant, and perfectly valid. To perform this task by switching tabs would be positively masochistic, not to mention a waste of time.



For those of you who didn't previously understand why dual panes might ever be useful, does this help at all?

Mesh wrote: And whether it works for you, personally, doesn't change the fact that it is a core feature that file managers should have - the number of people who want and/or require it attests to that.

As I wrote above, while I will agree that DP is a feature that is valuable (and which I'd use if available), I would also disagree somewhat that it's a "core feature that file managers should have", since the (likely) most commonly used one does not have it: Windows Explorer
I think it's something that one gets accustomed to having and once one does, seeing any way to do tasks in other ways may just be ignored when there may be better ways or alternate ways via XY to do so.

Addendum/Update: The example you provided is exactly the type of situation that I've tried to use a justification for DP!

But now I'm still also wondering...is that something you do most of the time? Or just sometimes? Because...it's in those cases where I use x2-lite, and reserve the benefits of XY for all those times when it's not needed and where it can do things that other FM's just can't do...even those with DP! So...I think you could benefit from XY even if it doesn't do every thing every time!

j_c_hallgren wrote:
As I wrote above, while I will agree that DP is a feature that is valuable (and which I'd use if available), I would also disagree somewhat that it's a "core feature that file managers should have", since the (likely) most commonly used one does not have it: Windows Explorer

Hmm... if Microsoft didn't put it in, than it's not important... I think you just opened a Pandora's Box there.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
I think it's something that one gets accustomed to having and once one does, seeing any way to do tasks in other ways may just be ignored when there may be better ways or alternate ways via XY to do so.

Whereas I would argue that it's something many people get accustomed to because for many situations, it's extremely useful, if not the best way to do it (see the example in my hideously long post above).

Have you used two instances of XY to do what you want? I have to admit that it is not ideal but it does enable two tabs to be viewed at the same time. There was a script available (not tried it) that also provided another window.

From a personal pov, I think the need for DP is not as great as you suggest but is based on the fact that many alternative FM's do use this method, however it does have certain advantages. Many reviewers use DP as a check-list tick but miss out on other major things giving the impression DP is a crucial requirement when it is just one of many. For me, I prefer to have multiple tabs available for easy switching.

As to whether Don includes a DP feature I think it is most unlikely as other new features are more exciting and ground-breaking plus. DP can be had as jc does by using a product with that feature so it is easily available and using s sript or udc available at the touch of a button. This seems the way forward, for things not directly built into XY then call them from XY. I use this approach a lot for photographic file management and AutoCad version development history. Don does not supply converters for raw cr2 or dwx files but using XY I can access specialist programs to do this. For me this is where XY starts to become more than just a file manager program as it can effectively have plug-in programs available at all times. the use of scripting will provide an approach to make this even more powerful with front-end windows and conditional branching (Don has made mention this is to be in a future XY7 release). This, I think will revolutionise the way files are managed and integrated with external specialist programs and once loaded into memory available instantly.

If, as you hint, there is no solution other than a built in DP the XY is not for you. I sincerely hope you can find a solution and that XY is part of it.

graham wrote:
Have you used two instances of XY to do what you want? I have to admit that it is not ideal but it does enable two tabs to be viewed at the same time. There was a script available (not tried it) that also provided another window.

I know that option is available, but it's an extremely unwieldy solution.

graham wrote:
From a personal pov, I think the need for DP is not as great as you suggest but is based on the fact that many alternative FM's do use this method, however it does have certain advantages. Many reviewers use DP as a check-list tick but miss out on other major things giving the impression DP is a crucial requirement when it is just one of many. For me, I prefer to have multiple tabs available for easy switching.

I don't know why so many people dismiss what others say are important to them. It's not my place to tell you what is or is not important to you, and it would be the height of foolishness for me to even try - as I have no way of knowing how you work and how you like to work.

Many reviewers do indeed use DP as a check list item - and perhaps there's a very good *reason* for that. Having comfortable seats is an important requirement when buying a car. Is it the *only* requirement? Of course not. But it doesn't matter how great the other aspects of the car are, it doesn't matter how revolutionary the steering system is, or how innovative the gear shifting is, or if there's a fridge built into the arm console and a flushable toilet under the kid seat, or if there are a thousand fantastic things that set the car above all other cars - if the seats are uncomfortable, the car fails the test of practical useability, and you move on to look at another.


I wish people wouldn't dismiss what's important to others just because they don't have a great need or preference for it.

That being said, I am continuing to try and make XY work for me, and so far it's turning out exactly as I expected - I absolutely love it, but all the things that are so great about it don't compensate for the fact that it can't do what should be easily done on a file manager.

Mesh wrote:I don't know why so many people dismiss what others say are important to them. It's not my place to tell you what is or is not important to you, and it would be the height of foolishness for me to even try - as I have no way of knowing how you work and how you like to work.

I wish people wouldn't dismiss what's important to others just because they don't have a great need or preference for it.

That's why I'd agreed that it would be useful to have...and that I was hoping there might be an alternate solution...Did you see my addendum/update (blue text)?

BTW, I'm kinda thinking that Don (when he reads this) will go: Arrrrgh! So much text! And may not read it fully...well, I hope he does read it...I've tried to say that while it may not go along with his vision of the product, it should open up a whole new group of potential sales/users, and that is what helps make the case...$$$$!

j_c_hallgren wrote:
Addendum/Update: The example you provided is exactly the type of situation that I've tried to use a justification for DP!

And yet I read that Don still didn't understand why DP had a legitimate use. Given this example, is this not self-evident?

j_c_hallgren wrote:
But now I'm still also wondering...is that something you do most of the time? Or just sometimes? Because...it's in those cases where I use x2-lite, and reserve the benefits of XY for all those times when it's not needed and where it can do things that other FM's just can't do...even those with DP! So...I think you could benefit from XY even if it doesn't do every thing every time!

It's frequent enough that I have a situation where dual pane is the best way to go. And while some people do push the second app solution, it's really a lousy workaround. When you're forced to use a second, inferior file manager just to get dual pane, you are unable to use all the features that make XY so great - which makes it an even more cumbersome solution.

You don't buy a laundry washing machine that's heads and tails above every other one on the market - but can't wash delicates - along with a second, crappy washing machine that can wash delicates. You just buy a good washing machine that can do both.

Seriously, wouldn't you even be a little outraged if the manufacturer said they didn't build in a delicate washing cycle because they, personally, see no reason to ever wear clothing that isn't sturdy enough to handle being washed by a sumo wrestler scrubbing with river rocks?


Like I said earlier, I initially dismissed XY completely, because I saw that didn't have dual pane. The only reason I came back to even evaluate it is because nothing else that I initially found fit the bill. I tried Xplorer2, and to be honest, it was the closest runner up to XY. But it has a lot of minor bugs that, while not individually a deal breaker, cumulatively add up to a very unpolished result - for example, clicking on directories in the tree yield an immediate listing of the files in those directories - but if you're navigating the tree with the keyboard, and use the up and down arrows to switch folders, there's a small delay before the file list shows up for each one.

In addition, while Xplorer2 does have a dual pane interface, the way it was designed drives me absolutely nuts.

To begin with, a person can only use Xplorer2 if they aren't prone to epilepsy, because the constant flashing of grey to white to grey as panes go active and inactive is sure to elicit seizures. In addition, I'm sure they were thinking that it was more efficient to use one tree rather than two. However, that yields two problems - the first is that if the two areas you're working in are very far apart, it's a royal pain in the posterior to have to switch and scroll from one to the other every time you're shifting directories. The second problem is that using a dual pane with a single tree means that you're going to have flashbacks of relay races in grade school, because every single time you have to change the set of directories you're working with, you have to click the pane you want to be active first, and then click in the tree for where you want to go. Then you have to click the other pane to make it active, and then click in the tree for where you want that one to go. That's four actions with a single tree, compared to the two actions you'd have if each pane had its own tree.

At first glance it might be a waste of screen space, but it really is more efficient to have dual trees when you're using dual panes - which means that Xplorer2 is a lousy option as well - and that was the closest match I found. Ai.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
That's why I'd agreed that it would be useful to have...and that I was hoping there might be an alternate solution...Did you see my addendum/update (blue text)?

I didn't see it when I made the post you quoted, but I saw it right afterwards - which is when I replied to the updated text.

j_c_hallgren wrote:
BTW, I'm kinda thinking that Don (when he reads this) will go: Arrrrgh! So much text! And may not read it fully...well, I hope he does read it...I've tried to say that while it may not go along with his vision of the product, it should open up a whole new group of potential sales/users, and that is what helps make the case...$$$$!

Well, perhaps a more detailed explanation will help him understand where a briefer one did not.

And while I can't speak for anyone else, I know that my money will certainly be leaping out of my pocket as soon as XY has a good dual pane implementation.