Suggestion : Multiple TCMD instances in tabbed MDI form.

[Sy]

Who thinks that it would be a handy management feature for Total Commander to have multiple instances displayable on a tabbed MDI form. Like Konqueror.

It would make it much easier to switch between instances and could also restore the layout profiles at subsequent startup. Very handy feature for Programmers and Sys. Admins.

What do you say Christian?

//Sy

[norfie]

[JohnFredC]

Speed Commander implements something quite similar to this idea with the concept of layouts. A layout is any combination of panels toolbars filepaths etc...

Here is a link to a SC layout I put together during it's evaluation period (80k):

http://www.jfcinc.net/Interfaces/sc01a.jpg

It shows that SC supports thumbnail views, treeviews with associated file views in either panel, panel tabs, virtual file tabs ("file containers"), customizable moveable toolbars, and layouts (the combo dropdown toolbar at the bottom of the image. It also does quickviews in the panels as TC does. No central toolbar, though, unfortunately.

I never bought SC because I think it is overpriced (though certainly not as overpriced as DOpus) plus it seems to really s l o w d o w n occasionally, but it would be great to have many features of its interface in TC.

Of course, I am mouse-centric and sense from reading this forum that most TC users are keyboard-centric. Many of the SC enhancements really only work well with the mouse.

[pdavit]

Many of the SC enhancements really only work well with the mouse.

That is probably why its GUI is more sophisticated or configurable or flexible. But all those things come with a price. Which, as you mentioned before, it's the slower speed.

[JohnFredC]

The SC interface seems just as fast as TC's... it's the file operations that are slower, which I would think are probably not related to the interface, per se...

[Sven]

I never bought SC because I think it is overpriced (though certainly not as overpriced as DOpus) plus it seems to really s l o w d o w n occasionally, but it would be great to have many features of its interface in TC.

I don't think it is overpriced. For instance the built-in archive handling offers around the same functionality as WinRAR (35 €) does. Under which circumstances is SC slowing down?

Many of the SC enhancements really only work well with the mouse.

Almost all functions are accessable with keyboard. The nice interface does not mean it is only made for mouse users.

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 25-05-2004 08:46:00 +0000 norfie wrote:

n> What are the advantages of tabbed instances over tabbed
n> interface today?

Well, take a look at DN or Frigate...[/face]

[Clo]

2Sven
Hello !

JohnFredC wrote : "...I never bought SC because I think it is overpriced..."

• I agree; not only for the registration fee, but also for the yearly updates additional cost. It makes that your program - most certainly very good - is too expansive for many users: in some countries, someones don't earn more than 60 € / US$72 per month (that exists in Romania today still, it's quite distressing but it's a fact).

Best regards,
Claude
Clo

[JohnFredC]

Hi Sven

When I was evaluating it, I found that SC seemed to just freeze for a while, especially after copying a large number of files to a network drive. SC's file panel refresh speed seemed quite erratic. Sometimes it was just as fast as TC, sometimes many seconds longer. I couldn't find any pattern to it at the time.

I didn't mean to denigrate SpeedCommander, I am on record elsewhere in this forum as liking it very much. It just seemed to me at that time that TC at 32USD and Salamander at 20USD were more fairly priced against SC's 47.87USD.

30USD is about the limit I'll pay for a file manager since I already have TC. But then 20USD is in the impulse buy range for me (just the psychology of the numbers, I guess). Price SC at 20USD and I'll buy it just for a couple of unique features it has.

But SC needs considerably more "stuff" for me to pay close to 50USD.

[Black Dog]

[face=courier]On 25-05-2004 08:33:35 +0000 Sy wrote:

S> Who thinks that it would be a handy management feature for
S> Total Commander to have multiple instances displayable on
S> a tabbed MDI form.

Well, it was already suggested and discussed before present day interface appears, take a look at this thread for details.[/face]

[pdavit]

The SC interface seems just as fast as TC's... it's the file operations that are slower, which I would think are probably not related to the interface, per se...

I wasn't referring to the speed of the interface as well. I didn't actually know that something like that exists!!!

Anyway, it is a fact though that a fancier interface can degrade the actual functionality of an application speedwise. The fancier it is, the longer the code is, with the known tradeoffs. Not to mention that file operations need the input from the user which can be GUI based and in addition the output needs to be displayed on the GUI too. So, there is a tight relationship between GUI and the core functionality that can have speed implications.

The issue is even more complex if you consider the following real example: I remember someone asking from Christian to include icons on the menus. Now, Christian reported that to make this possible for TC he needs to compile the source code with version 4.0 of Delphi and not v2.0 as is currently. I remember actually Christian saying that he did some tests with v4.0 and he wasn't satisfied speedwise. Of course in the aforementioned case the degradation in speed was not because some icons where present on the menus but because the new compiler was in use. But here is the tricky bit. In order to get a GUI improvement, even a simple one like icons on menus, you are forced to use the newer compiler which results in slower code execution.

Regards,
Panos

PS: By the way, does anyone know on which programming language SpeedCommander is built on?

[JohnFredC]

The point of a "fancy interface" is not to make the interface pretty, but to allow the computer to assume more responsibility for a particular task by making it easier for the user to request and specify it.

I frequently have to show my business clients that the total "cost" of an operation (say, to copy a batch of files, or to retrieve a specific datum) has many parts, including the human part.

If an operator's actions are slowed by a momentary confusion about which item to select in a list (the drive list, for instance) then the total time to complete the task lengthens.

If a lack of significant indicators ( perhaps: icons) causes the operator to pause before selecting (for whatever reason) an item from a list, then the utility of the list is inadequate for that operator, who will be less efficient with the tool even if he works with perfect knowledge and intention.

For a user such as myself, with a fast computer and fast drives, I am the slowest factor. I know, for instance, that if I could specify my own custom icon for my Drive U (and no other drives) in the drive list, then I would be able more quickly to select U from the drive list. Since I select drive U an hundred of times a day or more, the simple addition of my icon to the drive list will make a significant, positive effect.

I do have a drive button for U which is significantly faster to use than the drive list to identify and select drive U. But I am sometimes already in the drive list, so would benefit from the custom icon in it for U.

Everyone is different. That is why the most configurable (and most easily configurable) interface is best, all other factors being equal.

[pdavit]

I respect your ideas John and a follow 90% of them. At the end of the day a GUI is supposed to be the primary factor on what we call the human-to-computer interaction.

But this discussion is becoming a philosophical one, if I may say. Or even more correctly, one that proves that tastes differ. I've covered 1/3 of my life on this planet (hopefully) and one thing I've learned well is that this is not an ideal world. As an extension of that, the best of two opposite elements in 99.9% of the cases just cannot coexist.

[Sven]

PS: By the way, does anyone know on which programming language SpeedCommander is built on?

VC6 with MFC 7.1

[ghisler(Author)]

OK, I can tell you why I will not put multiple instances on an MDI form: These would be all part of the same program, and could therefore hinder each other since they are part of the same program. Just look at Windows as one big MDI form, on which you can run multiple instances of TC. What is the disadvantage of this solution? You can still copy also with the keyboard (Ctrl+C Alt+Tab Ctrl+V) or use drag&drop. The instances are completely independent from each other, so a search or sync in one doesn't affect the others...