TC reads only 100 color filters and ignores the rest.
Currently I have 104 and this number is growing - and I cannot use them
EDIT: 108, I found 4 that were lost due to this bug.
Last edited by m^2 on 2007-01-12, 17:29 UTC, edited 2 times in total.
could it be you are reporting the same error which was reported for TC v6.5x before: Limit of file types colors.?
Could it also be that the same solution still applies? I.e. arrange your color filters in a more efficient way?
HTH,
Karl
Yes, the same problem. But for me, there's no organization efficient enough. Without big loss of information, I can get it down to 104. Next 4 would be really painful. The main reason I have so many groups is that I color new files brighter than old ones - it doubles number of my groups.
Last edited by m^2 on 2006-11-28, 21:57 UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Hacker wrote:m^2,
So you really use 52 different colors?
Roman
No, some groups share colors. But logically they are different, I could merge them for better coloring, but then I wouldn't be able to select by group. I can make special groups only for coloring purposes, but even now I have too much redundancy.
Of course yes, but people who don't use it won't get slower.
And for me, file recognition time is far more important than a few miliseconds longer list loading.
ghisler(Author) wrote:It's indeed limited to 100 filters at this time. Too many filters would make TC slow.
Well, at the same time people's computers will get faster, and thus won't necessarily have to be bound by a 100-entry limit. Why not let the user decide when it gets too slow? Arbitrarily limiting the users possibilities seems strange, although at the same time I can't see why anyone would need a 100 filters.
But if sb. manipulates luminescence to show file age (only 4 values to provide enough contrast) and changes saturation to inform that file is encrypted (or sth.) and uses 60 file classes, he needs 480.
So removing redundancy would be much better solution.
ADDED: I know it needs a lot of work and there are many more important requests, but could you please note this as a future improvement?