Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >   Apparently Microsoft's idea of "easy to use" is to make it as hard to use
> > as possible if you want to do anything even slightly more complicated.

> More like "works well even for people who don't know how it works."

> Combine that with "don't want to re-write code that's already available as a 
> free download", and you're set to understand what's going on.

  I don't really.

  What would be the problem of, for example, supporting soft links natively
in Windows Explorer? If they are so scared of newbies getting confused, make
it an option somewhere.

  What would be the problem of adding an option to Windows Explorer to show
exact byte sizes of files? I really can't think of any drawback. If someone
wants to use the current mode, go ahead, but why not offer exact byte counts
for people who want them? What would be the problem?

  (That's actually something I really hate in MacOS X Finder. There's no way
to make it list the actual size in bytes of files. Instead, it shows a rounded
size like Windows... but of the disk space the file is taking rather than the
actual size of the file. This means that if you have eg. 50 small png files
in one directory, it might report them taking 300 kilobytes of space... Which
is true, because that's the amount of *disk space* they are using. However,
that's not the summed size of the files, which might be eg. 30 kilobytes.
You can get this info from a context menu the hard way, but it's very
inconvenient.)

  Why is it so hard to show exact byte counts in graphical file browsers?
Even Konqueror (the default file browser in OpenSUSE) is able to show them
easily.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message