- Too many 'ways' to browse a users computer.
What's the Shell button for BTW? I don't understand it's purpose as it seem to do the same as the Explorer button?
and by all means winefile and explorer should be seperate applications
As i see it, the ros file-explorer is currently a winfile clone. I would rather have a ros file-explorer that is similar to NT4/Win2000 and have the (more advanced and full featured) winfile-like file-explorer as a separate app. So i guess i agree?
Registry browser, NT Object File System or whatever the hell it's
called
In any case, it would be easy to provide this functionality in separate/optional shell namespace extension contained in explorer.exe/shell32.dll image (or maybe this is how it works allready?).
The Interface shouldn't be MDI, as microsoft's is not.
I agree.
- The toolbar has nothing useful. The windows explorer toolbar has
back, forward, and up buttons for example, to browse the users computer. Our explorer has none of these.
Yeah, we need that.
- The web support needs to go. I don't know what all was done, but
web support causes alot of potential vulnerabilities. Just look at microsoft's windows, and even IF it didn't, loading IE/mozilla every time explorer starts is a WASTE.
I agree. I loved the old NT4 explorer. Nothing fancy but does what it's supposed to and super fast.
Solution: I really think we should clone the Windows NT 4.0 explorer, with quicklaunch, but nothing more.
Yes!
Make everything else addins or compiletime options.
I prefer addins contained in the explorer.exe/shell32.dll/etc. image. I HATE compiletime options! Compiletime options is what ros/windows is NOT about!
The interface really should be more similar to the windows version of explorer, with nothing new to confuse users, etc. This will make explorer less buggy and faster, it will also consume less RAM.
I agree.
-Gunnar