Moderators: Hacker, petermad, Stefan2, white
Now THAT is exactly what Hacker is talking aboutS> Hey that seems to be a good idea, even though not all the
S> shortcuts are stored in the menu files (actually none of
S> them, only the ones modified).
What exactly prevents you from distributing your shortcuts along with menu?
! We love you Black Dog!!! That Black Dog doesnt need any fancy gui, or sophisticated export options. He is fully satisfied with a menu file and merging shortcuts into existing ini files. But most people wouldnt call this portability or "exporting keyboard settings". Not all of us have the quality of Black DogErr, what exactly am I talking about?
My first thought was too, not to change anything because I also find it annoying when shortcuts all the time change.icfu wrote:That's exactly what a complete newbie to TC does NOT wanna do....People who need different shortcuts can mostly change them via the configuration.
Icfu
But on the ohter hand I think Icfu is completely right, that a newbie would (and could) not change the shortcuts. His suggestions 
I will continue to read and answer threads I am already involved in (like this one) and will continue to propose alternatives and workarounds for the ever growing list of feature lacks and bugs ignored by ghisler.Knowing it's not my business I'm curious if you're really retired
norfie wrote: The point is: you wanna change something
I think it would be a good idea to make TC more attractive for newbies, and I think it is the interest of @ghisler to do so.norfie wrote: Therefore I don't understand the reason that you force another person (Christian) to change something, what this person don't want to change.
I agree. If TC would be really attractive for newbies then I imagine that TC could become a standard tool in large companies. So Mr. Ghisler could sell many thousands of copies of TC to large companies and write success news for example similar to those of "FinePrint Software". Currently my observation is that many users don't feel comfortable with TC because its default configuration is awful and it looks ugly.Sheepdog wrote:I think it would be a good idea to make TC more attractive for newbies, and I think it is the interest of @ghisler to do so.
This is exactly my experience. I get really excited and promote TC to everyone who will listen. Those that actually understand what file management is about will at least try TC, but only the real power users can see past the lack of visual appeal and lack of GUI niceties to the real power hidden inside it. The rest say "that's nice" and go back to Explorer.Currently my observation is that many users don't feel comfortable with TC because its default configuration is awful and it looks ugly.
Speed is surely a key factor and size is no longer that important. The 1.44MB barrier must fall anyway. But I doubt whether a more user-friendly configurability and better default values would affect speed considerably if TC stays more or less within the current visual possibilites. The suggestion was NOT to support every new bell and whistle of the Windows XP GUI.pdavit wrote:Well, let's hope that making TC more visually appealing won't affect its speed which is, for most users, the highest factor for preferring TC instead of Explorer. In addition we all know how much Christian loves the small size as well. The forum has proven that the latter aspect is not really a problem for TC users but the first one is!
I guess more advanced visual configurations will need a newer compiler than v2.0 of Delphi which is currently in use for TC. Christian has made some attempts before (with v4.0 if I'm not mistaken) reporting a huge drawback in performance!
So you'd want to wait for two years so that you get the same program in another language?Apart from that now may be good time to switch to standardized C++ and reimplement TC completely.
