Dual (side-by-side) browsers is probably a dead (or at least moribund) issue for XnView itself, and I don't want to "beat a dead horse"... but yet again I have encountered a project where two thumb panels side-by-side, looking at different folders, would be extraordinarily helpful.
Since XnView MP is still in early stages of development, here is a repeat request for some form of dual browser functionality in the XnView interface.
Since I work in the tabbed view exclusively, it would be important for the implementation to enable dual browsers in a single tab or via automatically tiling two XnView sessions side-by-side (see this recent request for discussion of an approach to the latter).
Most file managers (TC, Salamander, Dopus, SpeedCommander, AccelMan, etc., I have them all) do dual thumbnail panels, but using them to substitute for XnView is an exercise in inefficiency and futility...
I am aware that there may be difficult technical (coding/memory management, database management, etc) issues associated with developing the dual browser functionality, but the positive benefits of such a capability to my workflow with XnView would be "off the scale", extraordinary.
Not to mention unique to the industry!
Reviving Dual Browser Request
Moderators: XnTriq, helmut, xnview
Re: Reviving Dual Browser Request
Dual browser is possible with MP, something like a splitter in current browser to allow to have a second folder & thumbnail view? Or only a second thumbnail view?
Pierre.
Actually, my previous post was incomplete and not helpful.
Adding yet more freely re-locatable panels to the current XnView MP Browser is problematic. Here are some reasons why:
***
IMO, just adding one more file panel (and possibly one more tree) is not a viable solution in that problem #3 and #4 become serious issues. Therefore, the only viable solution is two complete self contained browsers in a tab. Otherwise there will be too much UI confusion/complexity.
So, I say: a full implementation or nothing:
Adding yet more freely re-locatable panels to the current XnView MP Browser is problematic. Here are some reasons why:
- 1. Too many tiled windows can be confusing, both visually and logically.
2. Greater effort needed by the user to position the splitters into a meaningful/useful configuration.
3. Confusion about which tree goes with which file panel.
4. Confusion about which Preview/Info etc. goes with which file panel
- 1) dual browsers in a tab could be very useful
- 2) dual browsers in a tab adds complexity and possible user confusion,
***
IMO, just adding one more file panel (and possibly one more tree) is not a viable solution in that problem #3 and #4 become serious issues. Therefore, the only viable solution is two complete self contained browsers in a tab. Otherwise there will be too much UI confusion/complexity.
So, I say: a full implementation or nothing:
- Each browser needs a title/path bar at the top and its own mini toolbar.
Inside its panel, each browser would behave just as the current XnViewMP browser behaves. For instance: each file panel would parent its own "helper" panels: tree, preview, info.
Some indication of which is the "active" browser is essential.
Each browser would remember its own previous layout.
The current splitter appearance and behavior would need revision/improvement.
Toolbar controls to hide/show the 2nd browser and to switch between horizontal and vertical layouts would be essential.
And of course, drag and drop between the two browsers is de rigeur...
John
Yes, fully customizable dual-view would be perfect, anyone could hide anything he doesn't need (second preview, folder tree...).JohnFredC wrote:A complete replication of the (tree, thumbs, preview, etc) browser would be the best thing for me.
But just tree and thumbs/files would be incredibly useful!
Some basic dual pane options would be also useful - shortcuts F5-copy, F6-move, Tab-toggle panels - perhaps as option, also the 'splitter' bar (between the panels) with buttons (copy, move...) similar to FreeCommander, or Altap Salamander.
BTW this is one of most important (if not the most important) features for me!
Dreamer
I might be totally off base here, but what about just using 2 instance of the browser ? for all of you alternative file manager maniacs.
for what it's worth this is probably the very very last feature I would want in xnview.
I totaly understand that once you guys see a file browser in any app you want it to have the features of your file manager.
But I believe the core functionality of xnview is in the viewing part.
and there is quite a lot of aspect in that regard that could be seriously consolidated.
like:
1. Performance.
2. Stability.
and THAT would really make it unique to the industry!
for what it's worth this is probably the very very last feature I would want in xnview.
I totaly understand that once you guys see a file browser in any app you want it to have the features of your file manager.
But I believe the core functionality of xnview is in the viewing part.
and there is quite a lot of aspect in that regard that could be seriously consolidated.
like:
1. Performance.
2. Stability.
and THAT would really make it unique to the industry!
I fully second your thougths, thibaud. At the moment we have people asking for dual panel support. I'm sure if XnView would support dual panel, only, we would have many people asking for single pane (i.e. the same behaviour as MS Explorer).
A second instance might solve or reduce the need for a dual-pane XnView. And suggestions like "Browse here" in folder tree can make handling with multiple instances easier.
A second instance might solve or reduce the need for a dual-pane XnView. And suggestions like "Browse here" in folder tree can make handling with multiple instances easier.
No one has asked for that! I certainly don't want it "only". My request is for an optional second browser in a single tab, some of the time, and only at the user's request OR a mechanism to simplify tiling/managing two (or more) XnView sessions. Perhap my post wasn't sufficiently clear about that.helmut wrote:I'm sure if XnView would support dual panel, only
That's how XnView already behaves now! One tree, one file panel! That should remain the default configuration.many people asking for single pane (i.e. the same behaviour as MS Explorer).
That is my alternative option. See my original post and the link to my post where I recently proposed a mechanism to support that very approach! There are a couple of things about how XnView currently behaves that prevent utility with multiple sessions.A second instance might solve or reduce the need for a dual-pane XnView. And suggestions like "Browse here" in folder tree can make handling with multiple instances easier.
My point above was that if a second browser is implemented in a tab, then a half-way approach (only file panel, or only tree+file panel) was worse than the status quo of not having a second browser in a tab!
John
-
ghost zero
- Posts: 357
- Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:26 pm
