How to make XYPlorer to show USB camera.

[QuanSu]

Hi All,

For some reasons XYPlorer is not showing my Canon camera when I plug it in to the PC, via the USB cable, to transfer photos. Is there a setting that I can use to make my camera visible? I already turned on all options on "Hidden drive", "hidden folder", "refresh drive list" etc... and still can't see my camera. Windows Explorer can see it fine. Thanks for any help.

[admin]

XY only supports devices with a drive letter. Can you map your camera to a drive?

[PeterH]

Some cameras support different type of access on USB. They should be defined to use something like 'mass storage'.

[Mesh]

XY only supports devices with a drive letter. Can you map your camera to a drive?

I remember seeing a thread from a while ago where you mentioned that you would consider having XY be able to see all devices (not just ones with drive letters) at some future point.

For what it's worth, I'll put my vote in for this. I've certainly run into a number of circumstances where XY's inability to do this forced me to use Explorer instead (and oh, how I hated it!).

[Uagadugu]

XY only supports devices with a drive letter. Can you map your camera to a drive?

Although XY is always open on my desktop after three years, I have not yet explored all its features.
I assumed that since it is billed as an Explorer replacement, it could do all the things Explorer could do, and then some more.

It is disappointing to discover that someday I may find that I want to do something with XYplorer that it cannot do, while a seven year old copy of Explorer can.

[j_c_hallgren]

I assumed that since it is billed as an Explorer replacement, it could do all the things Explorer could do, and then some more.

It is disappointing to discover that someday I may find that I want to do something with XYplorer that it cannot do, while a seven year old copy of Explorer can.

Well...now remember that Win Expl has this "little" advantage over 3rd party apps in that it was written by M$ so they know the inside stuff (and hooks) that sometimes doesn't get made available to outsiders...thus it's not really a fair fight, agreed? I think when looking at the big picture, XY certainly can be called a replacement even if it may not support presently some more obscure features/abilities.

I'm sure it's not because Don doesn't want to support it but in some cases, can't due to lack of documentation and/or interface/API...He's done some (IMO) amazing things given the handicaps/challenges that he's been given by us and M$ so I'd not give up yet!

BTW, this type of subject has come up at least twice before:
http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3179
http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2346
which is what I think Mesh was referring to here:

I remember seeing a thread from a while ago where you mentioned that you would consider having XY be able to see all devices (not just ones with drive letters) at some future point.

[lukescammell]

None-the-less JC, I think the point about it being a WE *replacement* is a valid one. It really should do everything WE can do and then some, and showing things such as mobile phones (especially Windows Mobile ones) and digital cameras is a pretty core feature IMO. This feature certainly also gets my vote - I'd just got used to firing up WE for my phone.

[Uagadugu]

While I acknowledge that others are of different opinion, I would have preferred as close to 100% Explorer compatibility as possible before adding features of Windows File Manager.

[zer0]

Well...now remember that Win Expl has this "little" advantage over 3rd party apps in that it was written by M$ so they know the inside stuff (and hooks) that sometimes doesn't get made available to outsiders...thus it's not really a fair fight, agreed? I think when looking at the big picture, XY certainly can be called a replacement even if it may not support presently some more obscure features/abilities.

By all means JC, if there's something one cannot do due to lack of API then that's that. However, a glance at another product that bills itself as a WE replacement shows that it has features that XY does not have, especially in terms of the tree (not MiniTree). All of a sudden, the functionality that is being asked for does not seem to be out of the realms of possibility. Granted, there are very few things I miss about WE, 3 to be precise, but 2 of them relate to the tree, so I also feel quite passionate about what Mesh, lukescammell and Uagadugu said. One does not expect XY to be WE's clone (I hope hell will freeze over when that happens), but it's not unreasonable to expect WE's functionality to be present (albeit wrapped in XY's GUI), especially if a rival software product manages to have it.

[j_c_hallgren]

By all means JC, if there's something one cannot do due to lack of API then that's that. However, a glance at another product that bills itself as a WE replacement shows that it has features that XY does not have, especially in terms of the tree (not MiniTree).

The other possible cause that I now see that I missed is related to the language that the app is coded in which may thus limit API's...now, realize that I'm only speaking here from general knowledge as I'm not a VB programmer but have seen this in other app's.

[admin]

By all means JC, if there's something one cannot do due to lack of API then that's that. However, a glance at another product that bills itself as a WE replacement shows that it has features that XY does not have, especially in terms of the tree (not MiniTree).

The other possible cause that I now see that I missed is related to the language that the app is coded in which may thus limit API's...now, realize that I'm only speaking here from general knowledge as I'm not a VB programmer but have seen this in other app's.

This has nothing to do with the language. Frankly, I cannot believe that somebody, after seeing XY, still believes the age-old myth that "VB is somehow limited". As I said numerously and even today: I do general Windows programming, VB is just the compiler, and it produces machine code just like any other compiler.

PS: Why doesn't XY show letter-less USB devices? Because I did not add it! And why not? Because I did other things!

[j_c_hallgren]

This has nothing to do with the language. Frankly, I cannot believe that somebody, after seeing XY, still believes the age-old myth that "VB is somehow limited". As I said numerously and even today: I do general Windows programming, VB is just the compiler, and it produces machine code just like any other compiler.

Sorry...I was only going by what I knew from my dealings with VBA with Excel back some years ago in that some things the user wanted were just not possible in that language, and also how things worked on other systems...for example, I still suspect that a hardware specific device driver or maybe a DLL or a rootkit detector could not be as effectively coded in VB even though the result is machine code... that was my only point, ok?

[Pagat]

This has nothing to do with the language. Frankly, I cannot believe that somebody, after seeing XY, still believes the age-old myth that "VB is somehow limited". As I said numerously and even today: I do general Windows programming, VB is just the compiler, and it produces machine code just like any other compiler.

hehe, i feel the same way whenever i tell people i still use Delphi 7 (released 2002) to program my little tools...

[Uagadugu]

This has nothing to do with the language. Frankly, I cannot believe that somebody, after seeing XY, still believes the age-old myth that "VB is somehow limited". As I said numerously and even today: I do general Windows programming, VB is just the compiler, and it produces machine code just like any other compiler.

Maybe someone would could get that impression from your response here: http://www.xyplorer.com/xyfc/viewtopic. ... 466#p32139

Any particular reason? Programming environment limitation? Personal choice?

Both: I could do it with VB6 but it would be a lot of work.

(I have added emphasis for clarity.)

PS: Why doesn't XY show letter-less USB devices? Because I did not add it! And why not? Because I did other things!

Regardless, IMO if XYplorer is billed as WE replacement, implementation of all features present in WE should be of very, very high priority.