Warp wrote:
>   I expect Windows to support such a *basic* feature as showing the sizes of
> files in bytes. 

It does. It just doesn't show it *where you want it*.  It has shown file 
sizes in bytes since before there were windows involved.

> I'm sure someone at MS could add the feature in 5 minutes. 

Uh, no. Nothing happens in five minutes in MS.  How long do you think it 
takes to even translate the help files and header text into 105 different 
languages?

>   But they don't. Why not? I have no idea.

Did you ask them?

>> More trivial than rewriting the shell. A 50-line program is pretty trivial, yes?
>   No. Trivial is "click here and here, and you are done".

And you can do that too. Click "open command window here" then click "d" and 
then click "i" and then click "r" and then click "enter."

>   You have a rather odd definition of "trivial". It still sounds like "not
> impossible".

No, I mean adding your own extensions is well supported and well documented. 
A small extension is short.

But no, it's not in there by default, and they could add it as easily as 
they add any other trivial feature, but they haven't.

>>>>>> And which byte count do you want?
>>>>>   The size of the file. How many bytes it contains. If I opened it with a
>>>>> program and started reading bytes, how many I would get before EOF.
>>>> Open it raw, or processed, or for backup?
>>>   You are nitpicking, and you know it.
> 
>> You're nitpicking. You want exact byte counts in one window but not the 
>> other.
> 
>   What? What window? What other window? I have no idea what you are talking
> about.

The properties window or the cmd.exe window.

>   The only thing I want is an option somewhere that, when checked, will make
> Windows Explorer to show file sizes in bytes instead of rounded to kilobytes
> or megabytes. That's it. Nothing less, nothing more.

I understand that.

>   It's extremely inconvenient and slow. I want a full list of a directory
> with file sizes in bytes. That's all.

09/24/2009  18:39           231,936 XpsRasterService.dll
09/24/2009  19:00         3,068,416 xpsservices.dll
01/20/2008  19:48           942,592 XPSSHHDR.dll
01/20/2008  19:49         2,935,808 xpssvcs.dll
12/31/2006  21:00           625,152 xvidcore.dll
12/31/2006  21:00           120,320 xvidvfw.dll
09/18/2006  14:39             2,650 xwizard.dtd
01/20/2008  19:50           353,280 xwizards.dll
11/02/2006  04:19            94,208 xwreg.dll
01/20/2008  19:49           111,104 xwtpw32.dll
11/08/2008  17:38    <DIR>          zh-CHS
11/08/2008  17:30    <DIR>          zh-CHT
02/24/2010  16:09    <DIR>          zh-CN
12/10/2009  20:05    <DIR>          zh-HK
02/24/2010  16:09    <DIR>          zh-TW
08/29/2007  17:06            61,952 ZIMF.DLL
04/11/2009  00:11           387,072 zipfldr.dll
08/29/2007  17:06           127,488 ZSPOOL.DLL
08/29/2007  17:06            52,224 ZTAG.DLL
             2344 File(s)  1,122,038,817 bytes
               98 Dir(s)  57,167,736,832 bytes free

>> Plus, you can't even clearly define what it is you want to see.
> 
>   You know *perfectly* what I mean, so stop acting stupid. You are just
> arguing for the sake of argument.

I know what *you* mean.  I'm just saying that it's not as simple as you 
think if you want it usable by more than just you.  Perhaps you're just used 
to open source, where you can scratch your own personal itch *and* get it 
into the official distribution?

>> I already agreed. You kept bashing at it.
> 
>   "you can't even clearly define what it is you want to see" doesn't sound to
> me like agreeing.

I agreed it would be trivial to put something like this in Windows. I didn't 
agree that you can clearly define what you want. ;-)

>   You have an odd definition of "one extra step".

If you want sizes for multiple files, then yes, it's maybe five seconds of 
work instead of two extra clicks.  Maybe four or five mouse clicks, and then 
four button presses.

>> OK, now I ask you "how big is the directory? What's its size? How many bytes 
>> in that Linux directory? What's so damn hard to understand? I just want to 
>> know how many bytes are in it."
> 
>   I'm not interested in the size of a directory. I interested in seeing the
> sizes of the files in bytes, that's all.

And I'm explaining why, under Windows, that question is ambiguous, by 
providing an analogy that shows "how big is it" doesn't always have a 
trivial answer.

>> "How big is that process? How many bytes does it take in memory? What's so 
>> hard to understand about that?"
> 
>   I'm not interested in that in this context.

It was an analogy to explain why what *you* want isn't what everyone else 
wants. You want "how big would this file be if the only access was 
UNIX-style access".

>   So what? I'm not interested in how much disk space the file is taking.

But most other people are. Hence the default UI.

> I'm interested in its size in bytes. If disk usage is what one wants, *that*
> can be put in some info dialog or whatever you want.

Indeed, it is.

>>>   The amount of bytes in the file. What's so damn hard to understand about
>>> that?
> 
>> Because first you ask for the amount of bytes in the file, then you ask for 
>> the amount of bytes you'd read if you opened and read the file. And that's 
>> two different numbers.
> 
>   Why do you keep nitpicking? You understand perfectly what I'm talking about.

I'm nitpicking to show that what *you* ask for is different than what many 
other people might ask for, even tho they'll all describe it the same way.

I *do* understand what you ask for. Then you ask me "why can't Microsoft do 
that?"  And I'm explaining that what you ask for isn't general enough to 
sell to hundreds of millions of people, and then you get mad for trying to 
explain that.

>   If Windows Explorer showed sizes in bytes for each individual file *and*
> for the total (in the status bar), then it would solve both problems at
> once, without the need to open any info dialogs. See? Easy.

Indeed it would!

>> I'm not defending Microsoft per se. I'm just saying you seem to think 
>> there's some big important reason for this feature not to be here.
> 
>   Well, I have yet to see a good reason for it to not to be there.

The same reason there's no future value calculations in the calculator. It's 
a lot of work for Microsoft to put features in.

>   There are tons of way more useless features in Windows than this. Features
> which almost nobody uses. They didn't have resource problems for those.

And you have good statistics for what features get used most on Windows? 
Really? Where can *I* see those?  Or did you work for that department in 
Microsoft or something else proprietary?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message