Look at IDEs like IntelliJ IDEA, NetBeans, Eclipse, Atom, Sublime: All of them use icons intensively. But icons' height is the same as text height. The lists of file names are very condensed in all these IDEs. They want that user gets as much information as possible at _one_ glance. Where as DC now _hides_ 50% of information because of huge icon size. Look at the Configuration -> Options dialog in DC: The icons have same size as texts. Why don't you use 32x32 also there? I think you understand this would be bad. Then why do you use 32x32 or 40x40 in the file list? Be consistent, use same rules across the whole application. Currently it looks like absolutely different developers with absolutely different design concepts worked on the file list and on options dialog. ![]() Use small icons by default in the whole application. DC is in many aspects better than Windows Explorer, Thunar, Dolphin etc. But even Windows Explorer uses small icons in the directory tree. Why do you make DC worse than all these File Managers? User gets much more information at _one_ glance. What was the motivation behind changing the default size to such a huge size? It would be normal, if such huge size was used in the "Thumbnails View" mode. But it destroys the layout in the "Columns View" mode. If somebody really needs huge icons, add a toolbar button for them, so that they can see huge icons per single mouse click. But let the most users be productive in their work and keep the small icon size by default. Just because you do not need any twin-panel file-managers, this does not imply that they are useless.Īnd using twin-panel file-managers is absolutely independent of the preferred DE.I suggest you to improve user experience in DC and to use smaller icon size by default.One area of Microsoft Windows that really hasn’t changed that much over the years is file management. + synchronize directory trees with archives (symmetric and asymmetric)Īs I had already stated some posts before, whether you personally have got use for the really powerful Swiss army knives like Double Commander or Krusader, or whether you prefer using the Explorer like file-managers like Nemo, Caja and Thunar, this depends on your personal preferences and your personal work flow and on what exactly you do with files and folders. + synchronize directory trees (symmetric and asymmetric) They simply are specialized on file and folder management.Īs mentioned before, and for me this is one of the most used "cannot do without it" features: This is the job, which some twin-panel file-managers like Double Commander or Krusader, do in a much more professional way. On the other hand, they can be used to manage files and folders.But really, this is not managing files and folders, this is desktop managing. On the one hand, they manage the desktop.Hi, Hoser Rob and other defendants of Nemo, Caja, Thunar or Dolphin.Īctually these file-managers are chimaeras, like Windows explorer: compare files by content, synchronize directory trees etc, which really make your life easier. ![]() It is the long list of very handy functions like e.g. Then you want and need both, two full panels side by side and folder tabs inside the panels.Ībout Total Commander and Double Commander specifically: Then you prefer Windows explorer, Nemo, Caja and Thunar. Norton Commander story:Įither your on the xtree side. In the end, it depends on your personal work flow. ![]() + two fully functional file-manager panels side by side On twin-panel file-managers like Total Commander and Double Commander you have both: Having a genuine twin-panel file-manager is pretty different from having several tabs like in Nemo, Caja and Thunar. On Linux it is xfe and maybe in future Double Commander. On Windows, for me it is clearly Total Commander. Have you ever really used a genuine twin-panel file-manager for period of time long enough to get used to it and to find out about its advantages? Smurphos wrote: ⤴ Wed 12:50 amI've go no idea why folks get excited by the Commanders.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |