FileManager

[G-21]

Old and great Filemanager, V95.0.b (1995) from Symantec, it´s not be able
with HD parts. >3GBytes.
The best from Filemanager (for me) it´s the files order: Dirs, Zips,
Files!!!
Nothing can do it this one, PowerDesk, EF Commander, etc.,
Could be something over there, sorting Dirs, Zips, Files???
TIA

 

[Wim]

Could be something over there, sorting Dirs, Zips, Files???

Gyula's Navigator can do this.
www.wanari.com/products/gynav/

 

[Sweet Andy Licious]

Gyula's Navigator can do this.
www.wanari.com/products/gynav/

Dude, Gyula is the best. I second that.

 

[Rob]

Dude, Gyula is the best. I second that.

What about PowerDesk? How does Gyula compare?

Rob

 

[My Name]

www.wanari.com/products/gynav/

Not best viewed with any browser compatible.

 

[G-21]

Thanks Andy
Testing Gyula... Sort like wanted, but panel left it´s panel left only. Same
panel right.
snif!!! I'll never find another FileManager like Norton Filemanager...
G-21

 

[digitalMOSQUITO]

Gyula's Navigator can do this.
www.wanari.com/products/gynav/

This is really funny. The following is the only thing i see on the site:

"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x or
higher!"

I'm using Mozilla v1.5 (daily build).

Why these idiots do this?

dM

 

[Luigi M Bianchi]

Don't forget that you can configure Mozilla to introduce itself
as
almost anything (Nestscape, IE). Get the PrefBar extension at

<http://prefbar.mozdev.org/>

/luigi

This is really funny. The following is the only thing i see on the
site:

"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x
or higher!"

I'm using Mozilla v1.5 (daily build).

Why these idiots do this?

dM

--
Luigi M Bianchi
Science and Technology Studies
Room 2048 TEL Building
York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J-1P3
phone: +1 (416) 736-2100 x-30104 fax: +1 (416) 736-5188
mail: (e-mail address removed) http://www.yorku.ca/sasit/sts/

 

[digitalMOSQUITO]

Don't forget that you can configure Mozilla to introduce itself
as
almost anything (Nestscape, IE). Get the PrefBar extension at

<http://prefbar.mozdev.org/>

/luigi

Yes, i know that i can fake Mozilla to be whatever. But, It shoudn't be
necessary. I only reply to let others know the stupidity and arrogance
of webmasters.

And please don't top post. Thank you.

dM

 

[russ]

This is really funny. The following is the only thing i see on the site:

"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x or
higher!"

I'm using Mozilla v1.5 (daily build).

Why these idiots do this?

dM

I use Opera and i couldnt get to that site either
try this site
http://www.iron.dynip.com:8000/explorerreplacements/winexplorer.htm
to many to name for explorer replacements (filemanagers)

 

[Michael]

Yes, i know that i can fake Mozilla to be whatever. But, It shoudn't
be necessary. I only reply to let others know the stupidity and
arrogance of webmasters.

I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from proxmitron and the page would
not load in any reasonable way for me. Wanted to give the Gyula file manager
a look but if they can't write a decent website they can't write a file
manager.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 21:54:32 +0100, "Michael"

I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from proxmitron and the page would
not load in any reasonable way for me. Wanted to give the Gyula file manager
a look but if they can't write a decent website they can't write a file
manager.

Added to that they are probably the sort of people who wouldn't
respond well to bug reports and/or suggestions for improvements.

Regards, John.

 

[BillR]

dM, Michael, and John F.,

Any other authors providing personal freeware you want to insult
gratuitously?

1. digitalMOSQUITO wrote

Yes, i know that i can fake Mozilla to be whatever. But, It shoudn't
be necessary. I only reply to let others know the stupidity and
arrogance of webmasters.

You and I may not like that 90+% of web visitors use IE (as do I),
that MS achieved this via illegal tactics, and that Mozilla was
unusable for years, but that's life. Oh, "the stupidity and
arrogance" of a digitalMOSQUITO upset because a small business hasn't
updated its website logic to account for a dM's browser choice.

2. Michael wrote

I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from proxmitron and the page
would not load in any reasonable way for me. Wanted to give the Gyula
file manager a look but if they can't write a decent website they can't
write a file manager.

Loaded fine for me in IE6.0 with Flash disabled (in multiple places,
but probably blocked by Norton IS firewall). What should I conclude
from "If you can't manage your setup, ...."?

3. John Fitzsimons wrote

Added to that they are probably the sort of people who wouldn't
respond well to bug reports and/or suggestions for improvements.

And John F. is "probably the sort of [person] who wouldn't respond
well to ... suggestions for improvements." (Actually, this is a
sometimes response.) My conclusion is based on personal experience
and observation. Yours is based on?

Come on guys. I know that visiting a site that doesn't work with your
personal setup is frustrating, but the assumptions and gratuitous
insults won't encourage more freeware to be written or used.

BillR

 

[Michael]

Any other authors providing personal freeware you want to insult
gratuitously?

2. Michael wrote

Come on guys. I know that visiting a site that doesn't work with your
personal setup is frustrating, but the assumptions and gratuitous
insults won't encourage more freeware to be written or used.

In a post which asks us not to gratuitously insult unknown people you
gratuitously insult unknown people. Not much response needed here for that
reason. If a program's website can not achieve certain basic cross-browser
viewability then it is reasonable to have concerns about that program and
right to report those concerns to the ng. This in no way negates the
altruism of freeware writers but is said in that spirit and as a plea to web
designers to keep things simple and open to everyone.

 

[Pepper]

This is really funny. The following is the only thing i see on the site:

"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x or
higher!"

I'm using Mozilla v1.5 (daily build).

Why these idiots do this?

dM

No problem here with accessing the Wanari site and I'm using Win95, IE5.5 with
no AxtiveX allowed. No mention at site of any restrictions on viewing, seems
pretty straightforward with adequate descriptions of the software available.

Pepper

 

[John Fitzsimons]

BillR wrote:

In a post which asks us not to gratuitously insult unknown people you
gratuitously insult unknown people.

Kind of like someone writing impolite comments in an anti-FAQ and then
complaining here that people make impolite comments.

Not much response needed here for that
reason. If a program's website can not achieve certain basic cross-browser
viewability then it is reasonable to have concerns about that program and
right to report those concerns to the ng. This in no way negates the
altruism of freeware writers but is said in that spirit and as a plea to web
designers to keep things simple and open to everyone.

Added to that not all freeware authors are altruistic. Some freeware
is used as "bait" and/or as way to to harvest email address'.

Regards, John.

 

[BillR]

In a post which asks us not to gratuitously insult unknown people you
gratuitously insult unknown people. Not much response needed here for that
reason. If a program's website can not achieve certain basic cross-browser
viewability then it is reasonable to have concerns about that program and
right to report those concerns to the ng. This in no way negates the
altruism of freeware writers but is said in that spirit and as a plea to web
designers to keep things simple and open to everyone.

Michael (and also John F.),

I disagree with _why_ "not much response [is] needed". Specifically
my comments were not gratuitous and did not insult unknown people:
they were a direct response to your post and attempted to make a point
by applying your logic.

Michael, you wrote that "I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from
proxmitron and the page would not load in any reasonable way for
me.... if they can't write a decent website they can't write a file
manager."

I use IE6.0 with Flash disabled. Others with IE also had no problem.
I then wonder "What should I conclude from 'If you can't manage your
setup, ....'?" Notice the parallelism?

I agree that "open" sites are desirable. Personally I am less
demanding of a site tracking the latest alternative browser than I am
of it keeping its content current.

BillR

 

[BillR]

Kind of like someone writing impolite comments in an anti-FAQ and then
complaining here that people make impolite comments.

I rather expected you to draw some such an analogy. I think both your
analogy and Michaels summary are a bit flawed as stated. I do
appreciate your compliment (err, "insult") in comparing my post to the
Anti-FAQ.

I did attempt to be slightly lighter by pointing out the problem by
extending the logic in a patently absurd fashion rather than simply
concluding the obvious. Oh well, however clumsy the messenger, all is
well as long as the message was internalized.

Added to that not all freeware authors are altruistic. Some freeware
is used as "bait" and/or as way to to harvest email address'.

Are you implying that of this site? If so, your conclusion (to repeat
myself) "is based on?"

I certainly object to "bait and switch" but this vendor offers all
features as personal freeware and charges a quite modest fee for
commercial use. Downloading doesn't require a valid email, but I
don't know about use. I also haven't seen references to spam, but to
be honest I haven't looked except in this thread. Perhaps the
favorable opinions were plants.

BillR
-----

3. John Fitzsimons wrote

Added to that they are probably the sort of people who wouldn't
respond well to bug reports and/or suggestions for improvements.

And John F. is "probably the sort of [person] who wouldn't respond
well to ... suggestions for improvements." (Actually, this is a
sometimes response.) My conclusion is based on personal experience
and observation. Yours is based on?

 

[digitalMOSQUITO]

Any other authors providing personal freeware you want to insult
gratuitously?

1. digitalMOSQUITO wrote






You and I may not like that 90+% of web visitors use IE (as do I),
that MS achieved this via illegal tactics, and that Mozilla was
unusable for years, but that's life. Oh, "the stupidity and
arrogance" of a digitalMOSQUITO upset because a small business hasn't
updated its website logic to account for a dM's browser choice.

I didn't insult anyone. Or it wasn't intended as a insult. I was
critisizing their pratices. Their message:
"To view the site, please, use Internet Explorer 6.x or Netscape 6.x or
higher!" is stupid. Netscape 6.x or Higher is Mozilla. The only
differences are name changes. I'm using Mozilla for more than 18 months
and I have never had this kind of problems with other sites. I can't
even access it.

And other thing: I now can't criticize someone (people or company)
because they offer something for free? Something that I don't know
because I can't access their site.

To a client this is even worse. In this way they are losing customers.

I was in my right to say what I said and inform others.
Some people might be ofended by what i said, but i was too by that message.

dM

 

[Michael]

I disagree with _why_ "not much response [is] needed". Specifically
my comments were not gratuitous and did not insult unknown people:
they were a direct response to your post and attempted to make a point
by applying your logic.

Just because your post was a 'direct' reponse to mine (what other could it
be as a reply), it does not negate the possibility of it being both
gratuitous and insulting, which it managed very easily to be.

Michael, you wrote that "I am using ie6 but with flash disabled from
proxmitron and the page would not load in any reasonable way for
me.... if they can't write a decent website they can't write a file
manager."

I use IE6.0 with Flash disabled. Others with IE also had no problem.
I then wonder "What should I conclude from 'If you can't manage your
setup, ....'?" Notice the parallelism?

I agree that "open" sites are desirable. Personally I am less
demanding of a site tracking the latest alternative browser than I am
of it keeping its content current.

Your baseless and outrageously superior mode of speech is both an insult and
gratuitous and I did manage to decipher your parallelism - wasn't
particularly subtle. Because we both use IE6 with flash disabled it does not
follow that our systems are identical and it certainly does not follow that
because my configuration does not display this site it is in some way inept.
Which was your inference. My system is perhaps overtly tight but this or any
site should not expect me to have insecurities running in order to view
content. My argument was that a developer should know this better than most
and a low compatibility host site can colour and indicate the value of a
program.