New file management software

[boatman312]

> If he is so ignorant he can't use Windows Explorer, he doesn't deserve to
> use a computer.
>
> Total Commander is more bloatware. I suppose you liked Norton Commander?
>
Bloatware??? Have you ever tried it? Up until the last version, it fit
on a friggin'
floppy disk. On my computer, it loads in under a second. With 10 drive
tabs open.
Yes, it's powerful, but the simple operations are easy, with mouse or
keyboard shortcuts.
A lot easier than with Windows Explorer.

 

[Bob CP]

On 2/11/2010 3:14 PM, Bill in Co. wrote:
> boatman312 wrote:
>>> If he is so ignorant he can't use Windows Explorer, he doesn't deserve to
>>> use a computer.
>>>
>>> Total Commander is more bloatware. I suppose you liked Norton
>>> Commander?
>>>
>> Bloatware??? Have you ever tried it? Up until the last version, it fit
>> on a friggin'
>> floppy disk. On my computer, it loads in under a second. With 10 drive
>> tabs open.
>> Yes, it's powerful, but the simple operations are easy, with mouse or
>> keyboard shortcuts.
>> A lot easier than with Windows Explorer.
>
> How difficult is it to use Windows Explorer to do basic file management?
> Yes, I think I tried it (and Norton Commander) some time back, and said,
> thanks, but no thanks.
>
> If you're going to use another file manager on those rare occasions where
> you may actually "need" it, I'd recommend XYplorer or xplorer2.
>
> Or we could go back to the days of Xtree and Ztree...
>
>
I find Explorer a pain in the butt for what I do constantly: Create and
expand zip files. FTP to a web server. Search within thousands of
files for text to match. Create lists of files that I can act on
individually. Rename multiple files in a batch process, including
finding certain characters and adding numbering. And a lot more. Sure,
I could do all that with free programs, but it would take a lot more
work and time. They pay me to work efficiently.

 

[thanatoid]

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:ettFOVtqKHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

> If he is so ignorant he can't use Windows Explorer, he
> doesn't deserve to use a computer.

A monkey could use WE. And wouldn't know it's better not to.

> Total Commander is more bloatware. I suppose you liked
> Norton Commander?

I used XtreeGold, I never used NC but I know that it was a
considerable improvement over the MS-DOS command line AFA file
mgmt - you obviously have no clue what that even is. How many
partitions do you have? Do you even know what a partition IS?

You are a perfect example of the morons XP and 6/6.1 (AKA Bob
2/2.1) were designed for.


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

 

[thanatoid]

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
newsZde3lDrKHA.1800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:

<SNIP>

>> A monkey could use WE. And wouldn't know it's better not
>> to.
>
> Nonsense.

No, it's true. Monkey being used figuratively, of course.

> It's just a matter of being flexible enough to be able to
> fully use the right tool for the right job. Just like
> when I explained about using ERUNT vs System Restore, but
> you probably didn't understand that.

I did but I prefer Acronis.

>>> Total Commander is more bloatware. I suppose you liked
>>> Norton Commander?
>
>> I used XtreeGold, I never used NC but I know that it was a
>> considerable improvement over the MS-DOS command line
>
>
> I've used Xtree and XtreeGold. Xtree came before
> XtreeGold, but that may have predated your experience. As
> for NC, that's another story.

YOU brought it up. And I know Xtree came before XTG, I've used
almost all of them IIRC. Once it became a Win 3.1 program, it
became garbage. I still use the last DOS version and it is one
of the best programs I've ever used.

>> AFA file mgmt - you obviously have no clue what that even
>> is.

> As much - if not more so - than you, I'd bet.

No one who has any idea what file mgmt involves can use WE and
be happy with what it claims it does - which isn't much to begin
with.

> Have you
> ever done any programming in machine or assembly language,
> or even worked with the hardware? I've also worked a lot
> in DOS too.

I am SO impressed, O Learned One. Guess what? None of that is
relevant, you're still stupid, and WE is still NOT a file
manager.

> But, unlike you, find Windows Explorer does a
> lot of what I need.

See above paragraph.

> I don't always need third party
> "helper apps" to do most of the basic file management.

Because you don't know what file mgmt is.

> (But there are some notable exceptions, however, like for
> multiple file renaming, or tagging directories, and
> selective copies, deletes, and moves, etc, but again,
> that's another case)

Ah. /THAT'S/ another case, huh? Guess what? THAT'S file mgmt.

> That still doesn't negate the fact
> that Windows Explorer IS a decent file manager, contrary to
> your statement.

Whatever. No cure for ignorance and stupidity - no offense.

>> How many partitions do you have?

> 4 on this drive (main one is NTFS, the other three are
> FAT32), one partition on my secondary internal SATA with
> unallocated space on the rest at this point, two equal size
> FAT32 partitions on an external USB enclosure drive, and
> two partitions on another external drive, with one being
> NTFS and the other being FAT32, assuming you can follow and
> understand that.

Yes, but I would like to see how long it takes you to
create/delete dirs and move stuff around and see stuff in branch
view and compare files by content with WE.

(BTW, you don't have enough partitions on all those drives - I
doubt they're 40GB drives, too.)

<SNIP>

> Weren't YOU the one who had the "problem" of where programs
> installed themselves in XP, and are still trying to handle
> that?

If I install in/from the XP partition, of course they install
themselves there. And I don't recall having that "problem". I DO
have a problem with all the "user accounts", idiotic
redundancies, general incomprehensibility and "shut your eyes,
MS will take you to heaven" attitude of XP+ but as you like to
say "that'another matter".


--
The lonely child plays with eternity, while a gang of children
plays with time.
Karel Capek

 

[Bill in Co.]

thanatoid wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> newsZde3lDrKHA.1800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> A monkey could use WE. And wouldn't know it's better not
>>> to.

snipped out: your statement: "Windows Explorer is not a file manager"
(which it is)
a little selective editing there, eh?? Kinda reminds me of ... Sarah
Palin...

>> Nonsense.
>
> No, it's true. Monkey being used figuratively, of course.
>
>> It's just a matter of being flexible enough to be able to
>> fully use the right tool for the right job. Just like
>> when I explained about using ERUNT vs System Restore, but
>> you probably didn't understand that.
>
> I did but I prefer Acronis.

I use ALL three, as prudent. IOW, the most appropriate tool for the job at
hand. (I know, it's a difficult concept...).

>>>> Total Commander is more bloatware. I suppose you liked
>>>> Norton Commander?
>>
>>> I used XtreeGold, I never used NC but I know that it was a
>>> considerable improvement over the MS-DOS command line
>>
>>
>> I've used Xtree and XtreeGold. Xtree came before
>> XtreeGold, but that may have predated your experience. As
>> for NC, that's another story.
>
> YOU brought it up. And I know Xtree came before XTG, I've used
> almost all of them IIRC. Once it became a Win 3.1 program, it
> became garbage. I still use the last DOS version and it is one
> of the best programs I've ever used.
>
>>> AFA file mgmt - you obviously have no clue what that even is.
>
>> As much - if not more so - than you, I'd bet.
>
> No one who has any idea what file mgmt involves can use WE and
> be happy with what it claims it does - which isn't much to begin with.

What it "claims it does"???? What, is Bill Gates saying something in here?
It does the basic stuff.

>> Have you
>> ever done any programming in machine or assembly language,
>> or even worked with the hardware? I've also worked a lot
>> in DOS too.
>
> I am SO impressed, O Learned One. Guess what? None of that is
> relevant, and WE is still NOT a file manager.

Nonsense. What do you think it is??? A media player?

>> But, unlike you, find Windows Explorer does a
>> lot of what I need.
>
> See above paragraph.
>
>> I don't always need third party
>> "helper apps" to do most of the basic file management.
>
> Because you don't know what file mgmt is.

Actually, I do, but I don't see it from such a limited viewpoint as you do,
as all or nothing.

>> (But there are some notable exceptions, however, like for
>> multiple file renaming, or tagging directories, and
>> selective copies, deletes, and moves, etc, but again,
>> that's another case)
>
> Ah. /THAT'S/ another case, huh? Guess what? THAT'S file mgmt.

It's ALL file management: file copies, deletes, moves, whatever. And yes,
Windows Explorer is a "file manager".

>> That still doesn't negate the fact
>> that Windows Explorer IS a decent file manager, contrary to
>> your statement.
>
> Whatever. No cure for ignorance and stupidity - no offense.

Projection, it seems. One size fits all? You're not a Tea Partier, are
ya?

>>> How many partitions do you have?
>
>> 4 on this drive (main one is NTFS, the other three are
>> FAT32), one partition on my secondary internal SATA with
>> unallocated space on the rest at this point, two equal size
>> FAT32 partitions on an external USB enclosure drive, and
>> two partitions on another external drive, with one being
>> NTFS and the other being FAT32, assuming you can follow and
>> understand that.
>
> Yes, but I would like to see how long it takes you to
> create/delete dirs and move stuff around and see stuff in branch
> view and compare files by content with WE.

As I said, I'll use the right tool for the right job, and not just the "one
tool fits all" (I know, it's such an advanced concept). That's why I also
have XYplorer and xplorer2. I like having various tools at my disposal.

> (BTW, you don't have enough partitions on all those drives - I
> doubt they're 40GB drives, too.)

Actually, a couple of them (my older ones) are indeed about that size. So
your doubts were misplaced.

> <SNIP>
>
>> Weren't YOU the one who had the "problem" of where programs
>> installed themselves in XP, and are still trying to handle that?
>
> If I install in/from the XP partition, of course they install
> themselves there. And I don't recall having that "problem". I DO
> have a problem with all the "user accounts", idiotic
> redundancies, general incomprehensibility and "shut your eyes,
> MS will take you to heaven" attitude of XP+ but as you like to
> say "that'another matter".

Then go back to Win98SE. I still have it on my second computer, if you
want it.
No not really - I still want it). But: "when in Rome..." THATs the way
Windows XP operates, whether you like it or not. You have to give up *some*
of the control you had in Win98SE. If you still believe otherwise, you
being quixotic. But that said, I've tamed WinXP down quite a bit from its
dumb default install look and feel.