15 Feb
2004
15 Feb
'04
1:12 p.m.
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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