XYplorer Beta Club

Which comes first? A port to Linux or x64 Windows? Not being sarcastic, just curious. I thought I should mention that since the printed word can sometimes be confused.

Also, and this is purely hypothetical, would my paid for license transfer over to Linux or would I be required to buy another?

Okay, serious question. Is there any date available to look forward to being able to anticipate a 64bit for Windows version of XYplorer for us Windows 7 users?

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Which comes first? A port to Linux or x64 Windows? Not being sarcastic, just curious. I thought I should mention that since the printed word can sometimes be confused.

Also, and this is purely hypothetical, would my paid for license transfer over to Linux or would I be required to buy another?

I'm very curious: where did you hear/read anything about Don planning to port to Linux?

As for a 64-bit version, Don has stated both in the FAQ as well as in the forum that it's planned for 2011 but wholly dependent on a suitable 64-bit Basic compiler being available by then. My guess would be that it will be late 2011 at the earliest.

nas8e9 wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Which comes first? A port to Linux or x64 Windows? Not being sarcastic, just curious. I thought I should mention that since the printed word can sometimes be confused.

Also, and this is purely hypothetical, would my paid for license transfer over to Linux or would I be required to buy another?

I'm very curious: where did you hear/read anything about Don planning to port to Linux?

I haven't. You did notice the disclaimer I added to my post didn't you? I wonder if he would ever even consider a port to Linux if others helped him, perhaps?

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Which comes first? A port to Linux or x64 Windows? Not being sarcastic, just curious. I thought I should mention that since the printed word can sometimes be confused.

Also, and this is purely hypothetical, would my paid for license transfer over to Linux or would I be required to buy another?

I'm very curious: where did you hear/read anything about Don planning to port to Linux?

I haven't. You did notice the disclaimer I added to my post didn't you? I wonder if he would ever even consider a port to Linux if others helped him, perhaps?

Looking at the roadmap, including the 64-bit version, and remembering that Don does everything by himself (design, planning, development, marketing, sales *and* support), I doubt very much he'd have the bandwidth to have two codebases up to his standards. As for others pitching in, this post by Don seems to render it unlikely.

nas8e9 wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Which comes first? A port to Linux or x64 Windows? Not being sarcastic, just curious. I thought I should mention that since the printed word can sometimes be confused.

Also, and this is purely hypothetical, would my paid for license transfer over to Linux or would I be required to buy another?

I'm very curious: where did you hear/read anything about Don planning to port to Linux?

I haven't. You did notice the disclaimer I added to my post didn't you? I wonder if he would ever even consider a port to Linux if others helped him, perhaps?

Looking at the roadmap, including the 64-bit version, and remembering that Don does everything by himself (design, planning, development, marketing, sales *and* support), I doubt very much he'd have the bandwidth to have two codebases up to his standards. As for others pitching in, this post by Don seems to render it unlikely.

Yes, but there are plenty of people that are completely capable of wrapping Linux around what he has without changing it at all. It would still be his. All we would do would be to make it available to a whole other group of enthusiastic users.

XYplorer would dominate the market with Linux's available file managers in no time at all. Their very best file managers stink pretty bad.

In fact, one of the major disadvantages of all developments of Linux is the lack of quality file management. XYplorer could revolutionize the look and feel of Linux.

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:Looking at the roadmap, including the 64-bit version, and remembering that Don does everything by himself (design, planning, development, marketing, sales *and* support), I doubt very much he'd have the bandwidth to have two codebases up to his standards. As for others pitching in, this post by Don seems to render it unlikely.

Yes, but there are plenty of people that are completely capable of wrapping Linux around what he has without changing it at all. It would still be his. All we would do would be to make it available to a whole other group of enthusiastic users.

XYplorer would dominate the market with Linux's available file managers in no time at all. Their very best file managers stink pretty bad.

In fact, one of the major disadvantages of all developments of Linux is the lack of quality file management. XYplorer could revolutionize the look and feel of Linux.

I'm not very good with Linux: do you mean running it under Wine?

Again as very much not Don, even if there was a reasonable technical solution to having XYplorer run on Linux without too much effort but with complete control for the developer, I'm very unsure about the commercial aspect: this business brings bread on Don's table and Linux isn't exactly known for its dependency on anything but open source/freeware. A shaky return and an increase in the developer's workload, however reduced by personal and technical means, seems an unfortunate combination to me.

Wine isn't a viable option. No, I was talking about converting it, wholesale, to Linux. It would still be his and he keeps all copyrights, etc... Honestly, many, many users of Linux would be more than willing and ready to be able to purchase a decent newsreader. There just aren't any in Linux.

nas8e9 wrote:...I doubt very much he'd have the bandwidth to have two codebases up to his standards...

Using an IDE that allows for cross-compilation, there would be no need for 2 code bases. That said, I'd rather see Don focus his attention on the roadmap

Between the differences in file/path naming conventions and finding alternatives for WinAPI, I'd think if Don pursued this he might be better off with two separate code bases.

Would Linux users even be willing to pay for XYplorer?
So many seem to be FOSS enthusiasts that I'm not convinced they would.

If anything I'd think an OS X version of XY would be a better business decision.

TheQwerty wrote:Between the differences in file/path naming conventions and finding alternatives for WinAPI, I'd think if Don pursued this he might be better off with two separate code bases.

Would Linux users even be willing to pay for XYplorer?
So many seem to be FOSS enthusiasts that I'm not convinced they would.

If anything I'd think an OS X version of XY would be a better business decision.

I'd pay for it and I personally know about 5 others that would. Basically, anyone that wants to make a small sacrifice and buy a quality product that would be the absolute #1 file manager available to all manner of Linux users around the world.

Sure, there would be many buyers and could possibly be a nice market, for sure. The word wold get around that putting out a small amount would make their Linux experience the best it could possibly be.

The file manager options in Linux are not really worth mentioning. There really are no options that work. Running under Wine is a gimmick and doesn't perform well for everyone.

zer0 wrote:

nas8e9 wrote:...I doubt very much he'd have the bandwidth to have two codebases up to his standards...

Using an IDE that allows for cross-compilation, there would be no need for 2 code bases. That said, I'd rather see Don focus his attention on the roadmap

I agree. I am not suggesting that anything at all be done. Really, I was just rambling about nonsense. Sure, a Linux port would be an answer to many questions for Linux users who just can't buy, borrow, or steal an adequate solution for Linux file management. And, it could be done with relatively little hassle or inconvenience for him.

Of course, the 64bit Windows version for Windows 7 users is much anticipated. I am sick of not being able to use many 64bit options available to users of Windows Explorer, including using the file manager to defragment the hard drive. XYplorer will not pull up Windows 7 native file defragment utility and you can't access certain files and folders like \etc folder in Windows where the hosts file is located.

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Of course, the 64bit Windows version for Windows 7 users is much anticipated. I am sick of not being able to use many 64bit options available to users of Windows Explorer, including using the file manager to defragment the hard drive. XYplorer will not pull up Windows 7 native file defragment utility and you can't access certain files and folders like \etc folder in Windows where the hosts file is located.

The inability to access some Windows commands in the context menu is indeed frustrating. Don has already attempted to fix this, but no luck so far.

As for the inability to access %WinDir%\System32 and its subfolders, please see the WOW64-topic in XYplorer's help for a workaround.

Edited.

nas8e9 wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:

Ctrl/Alt/Del wrote:Of course, the 64bit Windows version for Windows 7 users is much anticipated. I am sick of not being able to use many 64bit options available to users of Windows Explorer, including using the file manager to defragment the hard drive. XYplorer will not pull up Windows 7 native file defragment utility and you can't access certain files and folders like \etc folder in Windows where the hosts file is located.

The inability to access some Windows commands in the context menu is indeed frustrating. Don has already attempted to fix this, but no luck so far.

As for the inability to access %WinDir%\System32 and its subfolders, please see the WOW64-topic in XYplorer's help for a workaround.

Edited.

Thanks. I already knew about the cheats but, it just isn't the same.