 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> You *know* something's wrong when you find yourself envying people who
> use Unix because it can emulate an obsolete VT100... o_O
Not any more! Now I have my simple console application set up so that
the command prompt comes out in a different colour to the command
output. You have *no idea* how much easier this makes it when scrolling
through the programs output!
(Of course, it's still no help if you decide to pipe output to a file...
But for that, there is HTML and other markup languages.)
I'm seriously chuffed now. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Not any more! Now I have my simple console application set up so that
> the command prompt comes out in a different colour to the command
> output. You have *no idea* how much easier this makes it when scrolling
> through the programs output!
...and then he wastes an entire morning agonising over exactly which
colour combinations look the nicest! o_O
The answer: They ALL look like something from the 1980s. (Or Teletext.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Not any more! Now I have my simple console application set up so that
> the command prompt comes out in a different colour to the command
> output. You have *no idea* how much easier this makes it when scrolling
> through the programs output!
Next you'll need colored file listing.
http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/ColoredListing.png
You wouldn't believe how much easier it makes to visualize files by
type.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Next you'll need colored file listing.
>
> http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/ColoredListing.png
>
> You wouldn't believe how much easier it makes to visualize files by
> type.
What, with only 16 possible colours available? ;-)
Actually, I tend to work with files through a GUI instead. And I also
tend to not have very many of them. Distinguishing by icon is almost as
easy as by colour.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> What, with only 16 possible colours available? ;-)
Even 16 colors makes your life a LOT easier with file listings.
> Actually, I tend to work with files through a GUI instead. And I also
> tend to not have very many of them. Distinguishing by icon is almost as
> easy as by colour.
I disagree. Icons are small and often hard to distinguish from each
other, and it's difficult to view at a glance what type of file is
being listed at a certain position. The icon is not any better than
the file extension itself. You may as well look for the file extension.
However, coloring makes it much easier to see the file types at a quick
glance, without having to focus on a specific icon or extension.
In Windows in particular, the icon is actually worse than the file
extension. The icon does *not* represent the file type. It represents
the program which opens that file. This sometimes leads to completely
ridiculous situations where you have two files with the exact same
name (if extension have been disabled, as it's the default in Windows)
and exact same icon. If you are looking at the icon listing (rather
than the detailed listing) there's absolutely no way to visually
distinguish which file is which.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> What, with only 16 possible colours available? ;-)
>
> Even 16 colors makes your life a LOT easier with file listings.
Well it's probably a lot better than just 1.
>> Actually, I tend to work with files through a GUI instead. And I also
>> tend to not have very many of them. Distinguishing by icon is almost as
>> easy as by colour.
>
> I disagree. Icons are small and often hard to distinguish from each
> other, and it's difficult to view at a glance what type of file is
> being listed at a certain position. The icon is not any better than
> the file extension itself. You may as well look for the file extension.
> However, coloring makes it much easier to see the file types at a quick
> glance, without having to focus on a specific icon or extension.
Depends on the icons in question. For example, I'm currently working on
a Haskell program. All the source code files show up as a white page
with a black lambda on them. All the other files (object files,
interface files, etc.) show up with that default Windoze "gee, I don't
know what the hell this file is" icon, which has a lot less white in it.
I can visually scan down a list of files and instantly find the source
files.
> In Windows in particular, the icon is actually worse than the file
> extension. The icon does *not* represent the file type. It represents
> the program which opens that file.
...which means that if I had a folder full of PNG files, some of which
had also been converted to JPEG, I'd have a problem, because they would
all have identical icons.
OTOH, are you really telling me your system has a different colour for
every possible filetype? It only has 16 colours available, remember.
> This sometimes leads to completely
> ridiculous situations where you have two files with the exact same
> name (if extension have been disabled, as it's the default in Windows)
> and exact same icon.
A very stupid default, IMHO. I changed that long ago.
> If you are looking at the icon listing (rather
> than the detailed listing) there's absolutely no way to visually
> distinguish which file is which.
I have mine default to details. Occasioanlly I change it to thumbnail.
(Possibly the *only* genuinely useful feature M$ has ever come up with.
I wonder which competitor they stole it from?)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> A very stupid default, IMHO. I changed that long ago.
>
Incredibly. I hate getting on someone's system and finding that I can't
read the extensions. I know the rationale behind it, but in practice
with Windows the extension is part of the file name. On other (Mac)
systems, the file has a separate fork that has metadata about the file,
files can't share the same name,so you don't get two files that are
practically indistinguishable from each other.
>> If you are looking at the icon listing (rather
>> than the detailed listing) there's absolutely no way to visually
>> distinguish which file is which.
>
> I have mine default to details. Occasioanlly I change it to thumbnail.
> (Possibly the *only* genuinely useful feature M$ has ever come up with.
> I wonder which competitor they stole it from?)
>
ACDSee? ThumbsPlus? hmmm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I disagree. Icons are small and often hard to distinguish from each
> other, and it's difficult to view at a glance what type of file is
> being listed at a certain position. The icon is not any better than
> the file extension itself. You may as well look for the file extension.
> However, coloring makes it much easier to see the file types at a quick
> glance, without having to focus on a specific icon or extension.
Did they never make a Norton Commander that'll work with Windows
consoles? Or a similar app?
--
When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Next you'll need colored file listing.
>>
>> http://warp.povusers.org/snaps/ColoredListing.png
>>
>> You wouldn't believe how much easier it makes to visualize files by
>> type.
>
> What, with only 16 possible colours available? ;-)
...and 16 different backgrounds, so a theoretical 16^2 pssible
combinations (I am of course assuming you can change the default black
as you can on *nixes) though not all are usable
John
--
"Eppur si muove" - Galileo Galilei
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Doctor John wrote:
> ....and 16 different backgrounds, so a theoretical 16^2 pssible
> combinations
If you want to get really picky, subtract out at least 16 combinations.
I don't think you want too many files listed as blue on blue. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
