Windows explorer - Status bar...

[Victor V.]

So, someone actually uses that functionality. I bet they're dying to bring it back, then!

[Rickkins]

So, someone actually uses that functionality. I bet they're dying to bring it back, then!

Actually tons of people do, which you would have known by reading a few other posts on this subject.

Sadly, however, the debacle of vista has done nothing to temper the arrogance coming out of Redmond....

Perhaps that will finally change once Google gets into the OS game.....

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Do you ever do any disc burning of data or ever used a USB stick?

Those who do disc burning or copying to USB sticks. Almost 99% computers have a form of disc burning equipment. There is no CD/DVD or Blu-ray discs to match the sizes of current hard drive. So MS think all we need to do is just drag those files into the disc window when it might NOT FIT. What do you think a novice user going to do when this don't work? "drive broken", "maybe wrong CD or DVD". Many things can confuse users.

So disabling the EASY ability to see the sizes of the files you are draging is actually making Windows harder and more frustrating to use. Maybe I should switch to ubuntu which, like every OS should, have this feature.

Well, if you select a bunch of files it tells you the size in the details pane after you select them. If you're going to move just a specific set of files, you're going to select them anyway.

If you're going to move a folder, then you're going to want to know the size of everything in it, so you'll probably go to the parent folder and hover over it or use the Properties dialog.

If you drag too much data to a disc drive, Explorer will tell you that it won't fit before it even begins copying. I don't think users get confused by this, the message is pretty straightforward...

I'm not saying size is never useful or that we won't look into ways to display it more readily if we can do so without any performance impact... I just think for the 99% case, having a more responsive explorer is better, and that displaying the aggregate size of a shallow enumeration of the folder will confuse most people.

[boogerjones]

Well, I also miss the space calculation in the status bar; I often find myself right clicking on folders when I didn't have to in XP. What's really annoying is that MS doesn't even give us a registry entry to turn back on features that were useful in their previous operating systems.

And it would be so easy for MS to add size information for each folder in explorer; third-party software does it without a hitch. Size information could be added to the metabase as files are added to the folder; there would be essentially no performance hit.

And if "virtual folders" are needed to address performance concerns about opening large files in explorer, then it's time for Microsoft to implement a new file syst...oh, wait.... WinFS. Maybe this could be one of the "pillars" of Windows 8 :rolleyes: .

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Well, I also miss the space calculation in the status bar; I often find myself right clicking on folders when I didn't have to in XP. What's really annoying is that MS doesn't even give us a registry entry to turn back on features that were useful in their previous operating systems.

And it would be so easy for MS to add size information for each folder in explorer; third-party software does it without a hitch. Size information could be added to the metabase as files are added to the folder; there would be essentially no performance hit.

And if "virtual folders" are needed to address performance concerns about opening large files in explorer, then it's time for Microsoft to implement a new file syst...oh, wait.... WinFS. Maybe this could be one of the "pillars" of Windows 8 :rolleyes: .

WinFS wasn't a file system. Virtualized views are not "virtual folders." A virtualized view is any list view that only loads the visible set of data, and loads additional data on-demand (i.e. when the user scrolls down). It has nothing to do with large files... it's for dealing with large numbers of files in a single list, especially when those files may live on a different machine, on the web, etc.

Please tell me what third-party software displays folder sizes without enumerating the contents of the folder.

[Rickkins]

Please tell me what third-party software displays folder sizes without enumerating the contents of the folder.

All of them.(afaik)

I do not know of an explorer replacement that does not.

[GreenMartian]

Well, if you select a bunch of files it tells you the size in the details pane after you select them. If you're going to move just a specific set of files, you're going to select them anyway.

Only when you select less than 16 items.. Then you add a file to the selection, click More Info. Select some more, click More Info.. etc..

If you drag too much data to a disc drive, Explorer will tell you that it won't fit before it even begins copying. I don't think users get confused by this, the message is pretty straightforward...

Oh that's nice, I didn't realise that. :) Haven't done much copying with 7. I never use Vista, and I hate how XP only complains *after* trying to copy the rest of the files. That really is a welcome change.

I'm not saying size is never useful or that we won't look into ways to display it more readily if we can do so without any performance impact... I just think for the 99% case, having a more responsive explorer is better, and that displaying the aggregate size of a shallow enumeration of the folder will confuse most people.

Okay, I can agree with this point. As said, if the improvements are worth more than losing the handy option, then I'll suck it up.

Still nice to have the option though, for some of us that are resistant to change :) (Like how Google allows people to put the "Beta" tag back to Gmail. Sorry, I just had to mention Google. Hope there aren't any chairs around)

Some of us (mostly on PC, not netbooks) have machines that won't take any performance hit whatsoever when enumerating (okay, maybe 1-2 second on folders with excessive contents). It'd be nice if we could turn it back on.

Please tell me what third-party software displays folder sizes without enumerating the contents of the folder.

None, I'm guessing.

[Denis W. Veteran]

All of them.(afaik)

I do not know of an explorer replacement that does not.

A43 does not.

xplorer^2 lite does if you turn on an option, BUT it grinds your disc as if you hit ALT+ENTER on a folder.

As previously mentioned: showing the actual size of a folder does come with a cost, usually unnecessary in most cases.

For the record, the lack of showing file sizes is more than made up for by the amount of information shown per file and metadata editing capabilities in Vista's and 7's Details pane.

Virtaulized views make the Explorer scale far better than before, so you can open a directory containing tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of items (or do a search that returns that many results) and it will be just as responsive as if you opened a folder with 10 files. If we actually had to load file data for that many items it would make browsing less responsive and cause a bunch of unnecessary I/O.

That explains why XP's Explorer chokes on a folder with thousands of archive files on my PC, but not on Vista/7.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

All of them.(afaik)

I do not know of an explorer replacement that does not.

I just installed Xplorer^2 and it certainly doesn't.

I turned on the "Show total folder size" option (which requires you to restart the app!) and it still only shows the size of the files in the immediate folder, not the size of folders. I even went back and checked "Calculate subfolders size automatically" but this appears to have had no effect (it still says "5 item(s) 0B" for a directory with just sub-folders in it and "folder: 0b" when I select a folder).

That latter option has a fun help tooltip:

It doesn't seem to affect the column in details view either... for folders, the size column just says "<folder>" and nothing else.

If I press Ctrl+D it eventually displays the folder size, but it takes a while (on my overpowered dev machine) and doesn't even provide any feedback that it's working.

[Rickkins]

A43 does not.

xplorer^2 lite does if you turn on an option, BUT it grinds your disc as if you hit ALT+ENTER on a folder.

As previously mentioned: showing the actual size of a folder does come with a cost, usually unnecessary in most cases.

For the record, the lack of showing file sizes is more than made up for by the amount of information shown per file and metadata editing capabilities in Vista's and 7's Details pane.

That explains why XP's Explorer chokes on a folder with thousands of archive files on my PC, but not on Vista/7.

Never heard of the first one, so I'll take your word for it.

As to xplorer2, your comment is ludicrous...as I run xplorer2 x64, and it is instantaneous and issue free, just like windows explorer was in XP.

And no, nothing makes up for the loss of it in any way whatsoever.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Never heard of the first one, so I'll take your word for it.

As to xplorer2, your comment is ludicrous...as I run xplorer2 x64, and it is instantaneous and issue free, just like windows explorer was in XP.

And no, nothing makes up for the loss of it in any way whatsoever.

Dude that's the app I'm trying right now... it does no such thing.

I wanted to see how this program would handle enumerating all the files in a directory structure (like typing "*" into Explorer), but I don't even see how I'd do that... It doesn't even have a search box?

[Rickkins]

I just installed Xplorer^2 and it certainly doesn't.

I turned on the "Show total folder size" option (which requires you to restart the app!) and it still only shows the size of the files in the immediate folder, not the size of folders.

Holy crap, are you for real...???

This is what we've been talking about for months now!!!

Freakin' unbelievable... :no:

The total size of the files in the immediate folder is what we are talking about.(although I see now why m$ can't seem to find it's arse with both hands...((but I digress)) )

[Denis W. Veteran]

Never heard of the first one, so I'll take your word for it.

As to xplorer2, your comment is ludicrous...as I run xplorer2 x64, and it is instantaneous and issue free, just like windows explorer was in XP.

And no, nothing makes up for the loss of it in any way whatsoever.

A43's what I use if my Windows install is hosed, off the Ultimate Boot CD for Windows.

Windows Explorer under XP shows you the size of the folder, but just the files only. There was a hack you could download that causes Explorer to enumerate the folders automatically in Details pane... can't remember what it's called.

Yeah, of course it would be instantaneous if it were small folders. What about large folders? What if you tried it on, say, your Program Files folder or your Windows folder?

edit: What we can conclude from this discussion is:

1) The old status bar isn't meant to be used anymore. Nevermind that it looks like an abortion of a UI element if turned on in Explorer.

2) UI designers decided that a good chunk of users don't bother with looking at the combined size of files for just that folder only... but because:

3) if they wanted to quickly parse the entire folder to determine the size of the folder, they would do as what they did in XP: have Explorer read every file before displaying the folder to the user. Good if the folder's not that large, but as I've seen happen many times in XP, it chokes if you're getting into thousands and thousands of files in a single folder.

You could have it both ways: make Explorer read everything if the number of files is less than an arbitrarily selected number - then in this case you could show the number of files in the status bar. Above it, ignore this step. Overall though, this is quite a minor point to be honest in the grand scale of changes done to Explorer since XP.

Edited July 15, 2009 by rm20010

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Holy crap, are you for real...???

This is what we've been talking about for months now!!!

Freakin' unbelievable... :no:

The total size of the files in the immediate folder is what we are talking about.(although I see now why m$ can't seem to find it's arse with both hands...((but I digress)) )

Are you even reading the thread?

Please tell me what third-party software displays folder sizes without enumerating the contents of the folder.

All of them.(afaik)

I do not know of an explorer replacement that does not.

I asked about folder size, not the added up sizes of files in a shallow enumeration of the folder (who the heck ever wants that??? Just select the files and you'll see it in the details pane).

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Only when you select less than 16 items.. Then you add a file to the selection, click More Info. Select some more, click More Info.. etc..

Agree, this might be an area to improve (adding files after you've said Show More Info should probably just do the calculation).

[Denis W. Veteran]

I asked about folder size, not the added up sizes of files in a shallow enumeration of the folder (who the heck ever wants that??? Just select the files and you'll see it in the details pane).

Some people do for various reasons, judging from the responses to this thread and the OP. What I'm not sure of is if by offering an option to do a shallow enumeration of the folder, would it clash with the performance benefit offered by virtualized views (as you put it) of folders in Explorer?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

*sigh*

Are you...??

As I am the topic starter, and this has been my beef all along, and most other people, save the fanboi's, seem to understand it.

I'll certainly make sure the right PMs are aware of your request. But as I said, I don't see how it'd be possible to do that without confusing people and without de-virtualizing the entire selection, causing performance problems. How are you supposed to know what that number is telling you? Most people are going to assume it's either the size of the selection of the size of the folder they're viewing, not some rather arbitrary subset of the folder they're viewing.

It appears this isn't the default behavior in xplorer^2, probably for the same reasons.

[Denis W. Veteran]

I guess there is a performance penalty...

General rule of software development: for large software projects, small changes like these aren't done just for the hell of it. This sounds like the days of Vista's beta period where even small things such as lightening up the blackness of maximized windows required dozens of people to look over and moving up a hierarchical tree of staff to get this change approved and checked.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I wanted to see how this program would handle enumerating all the files in a directory structure (like typing "*" into Explorer), but I don't even see how I'd do that... It doesn't even have a search box?

FYI I tried browsing to some 10,000+ items shares and this app is clearly struggling with it (heck the whole UI even hangs and frosts over! On a 64-bit quad proc, 4GB machine...).

Edit:

Tried a share with a couple million items and the app hung for 2+ minutes and then aborted the navigation, staying in the previous folder.

Explorer navigates there in a fraction of a second.

So clearly this app is designed for small folders...

[Rickkins]

FYI I tried browsing to some 10,000+ items shares and this app is clearly struggling with it (heck the whole UI even hangs and frosts over! On a 64-bit quad proc, 4GB machine...).

Edit:

Tried a share with a couple million items and the app hung for 2+ minutes and then aborted the navigation, staying in the previous folder.

Explorer navigates there in a fraction of a second.

So clearly this app is designed for small folders...

I tried it on a folder with over 1000 items, no probs.

As for "couple million"....I'll take a (huge) leap of faith, and take your word for it...although it changes nothing.

Oh, and fyi...the guy who wrote that app, does this part time, as a second job if you will...and not with the resources of Redmond, so knocking the guy's app makes you look quite churlish.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

He charges $30 for it... so he's open to criticism as far as I'm concerned :)

My only point was that everything Explorer does has to be on a much larger scale. Explorer works with tens of thousands to millions of items (a normal user's Pictures and Music libraries will be huge, and Explorer supports views that display the entire contents of those libraries, where the contents are not broken down by folder). It gets used by a billion people all with different tasks and priorities (and backgrounds and experience). So it's not really feasible to have an option for every fairly obscure usage scenario that a handful of individuals might want. That's not to say we can't make it better, more customizeable, or anything like that... I'm just saying that the implication that it is because we are lazy or incompetent isn't exactly fair. You seem to keep saying things like "all these Explorer replacements can do that" without considering that those apps have very different requirements, scaleability and reponsiveness concerns, localization + testing + security concerns, and so on. It's really apples-to-oranges.

[Calum Veteran]

He charges $30 for it... so he's open to criticism as far as I'm concerned :)

I'm a developer and I agree with this statement.

Rickkins, Brandon was just backing up his point that with very large folders, there will be performance issues.

Are you saying that just because you don't seem to have very large folders, Microsoft should provide this option, even though it would make Windows Explorer perform very badly for others?

Microsoft know what they are doing and they often do research on these types of things. It's evident that this option is only wanted by a handful of people and I'd rather take a couple of extra clicks over a performance nightmare any day.

[Veks]

I'm a developer and I agree with this statement.

Rickkins, Brandon was just backing up his point that with very large folders, there will be performance issues.

Are you saying that just because you don't seem to have very large folders, Microsoft should provide this option, even though it would make Windows Explorer perform very badly for others?

Microsoft know what they are doing and they often do research on these types of things. It's evident that this option is only wanted by a handful of people and I'd rather take a couple of extra clicks over a performance nightmare any day.

But windows explorer still has the option 'view', 'details' where you can see the size of each individual file in the current folder.

I can't imagine how adding those already existing numbers together and display it in the status bar would cause any performance issues.

I also can't imagine how much work it would be to just add an option that does it.

What I miss the most in windows 7 compared to xp, is the 'remaining disk space' information in the status bar. Adding that can't possibly cause any performance issues. You might say 'just have another window open that shows your disk drives', but why should I have to use a 2nd window for such a trivial thing. When working with countless folders on many drives, it saves a lot of time if the information was just down there on the status bar at all times.

The number of items information seems absolutely useless however. I can't think of any reason why 'most people' would need to know how many objects or files are in their current folders fast and often (alternative is always select and alt-enter) more than their total size or remaining disk space.

[soumyasch]

But windows explorer still has the option 'view', 'details' where you can see the size of each individual file in the current folder.

I can't imagine how adding those already existing numbers together and display it in the status bar would cause any performance issues.

You are right, adding the numbers up wouldn't be too much of a performance hit. The hit would come from getting the numbers off the file in the first place.

Irrespective of the number of files in the folder, Windows Explorer deals with only the files in view. It has the sizes of only the files currently in view. As other files come into view, it gets their info "on-the-fly". This is how it limits memory usage and maintains responsiveness for folders with a large number of files. But if it were to show a total size, then it would need to read the info off all files in one go. That would cause serious disc activity when navigating to a folder with large number of files.

[MS Bob 11]

The performance reason is bull**** as it was there since Windows 95 and there was no noticeable/perceived performance hit nor thrashing disk activity due to it calculating total size. And what's the excuse for not displaying free space in every location? (Even Vista did that) Does it eat away the CPU completely? I don't expect anything to change with MS employees denying that there's a problem in the first place. As an example, it is so difficult now as pointed out earlier to view how much space on your HDD, deleted files in the Recycle Bin are taking. The total size is not shown on the status bar or details pane. Plus it is not possible to view the collective Properties of multiple selected items in the Recycle Bin. Do you now select each folder item and add up their sizes? Do they want us to use the Windows 7 Calculator? Is that why they've done this? Please give us the "shallow" computation without the subfolders minus the "Show more details" nonsense for 15+ selected files as they was useful to us. The only place where this feels sluggish in XP is when doing searches, that is in virtaulized views. Well then turn it off for libraries and searches.

The functionality of the status bar has been removed, it has NOT been moved elsewhere. If Windows 95-XP did it, we want Windows 7 to do it as well. What happened to the user in control principle MS? Are users reporting any performance hit? This just seems to be excuse to keep the performance of the sluggish-while-browsing-across-folders Explorer reasonable. The question is not whether there is a performance hit. The question is users are ready to take the supposed fictitious performance hit, they just want a feature that was there from Windows 95-XP and didn't cause them any headaches but is now a major issue in Windows Vista/Windows 7. But there's no hope.

An Explorer clone in-progress called Explorer++ does this with no blocking hit in performance.