Show TC's beauty & power by default – Config Schemes

English support forum

Moderators: white, Hacker, petermad, Stefan2

jb
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 412
Joined: 2003-02-09, 22:56 UTC
Location: Switzerland

Show TC's beauty & power by default – Config Schemes

Post by *jb »

TC is a pearl of software, but strangely its default configuration is quite poor in my opinion. Then and again I encounter people working with the initial settings. They use only a small fraction of the benefits because they don't know what is configurable or don't want to spend their time to investigate the possibilities. Even for curious people like me it takes quite a time to streamline TC, in particular the button bar.
That's a pity. I think the customer base of TC could grow considerably if the default configuration was overhauled well. In my opinion one important point would be the introduction of configuration schemes. In particular there could be a native 'Total Commander Scheme', an emulating 'Windows File Explorer Scheme' and perhaps an emulating 'Norton Commander Scheme'. The latter two should be as compatible as possible to the competing products to make newcomers feel at home. Of course the user should be able to define his/her own schemes.
User avatar
lzvk25
Member
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 2003-02-09, 04:28 UTC
Location: Collierville, TN

Post by *lzvk25 »

I agree, sometimes I have a hard time convincing people to use TC, because when they download and install it, the very first thing they see is one of the ugliest presentations I have ever seen. So, many times I give them a copy of my configuration, and only then, they agree to start using it.

I know, TC shold be used only by expert users, but with just a small change, ie no bold fonts and better default icons, it would attract a lot of new customers. :cry:
Memo to Boss : No TC, No Work
User avatar
ghisler(Author)
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 48021
Joined: 2003-02-04, 09:46 UTC
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Post by *ghisler(Author) »

My fear is that if I change the default look, I will get a lot of negative support e-mails were people want the old look back - although they could change it themselves! You know, people are getting used to something which they have used for many years...
Author of Total Commander
https://www.ghisler.com
User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit »

First of all TC is not ugly, it has a GUI that sets functionality higher than appeal to kids and users that have never touched a computer!

Changing the configurations does not have a big effect on the aesthetics of TC and it’s not the default settings that makes introduced users to step back but the fact that TC is a totally new approach of file managing in comparison to Explorer, it’s a whole new experience for those users.

It’s up to as to give them a quick introduction to the magic of TC pointing out its strengths and believe me they will follow. I know three friends of mine (by the way two of them females where technophobia is usually present) that know only the basic file operations with TC and after using it for some time they now find Explorer extremely hard to follow and slow.

It’s true that TC’s presentation can be improved but did you ever think what’s the catch in order to achieve that? Well, bigger file size (not so important for most users) but at the same time slower operation. If a GUI improvement can be achieved without a reduced reliability that’s fine by me. But I doubt this is feasible so I’m quite happy with TC as it is now!

IMHO, configuration schemes are not very important…

Here is a captured screenshot of my TC for those who believe it’s ugly! (http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/pdavit/capture.png)
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!
User avatar
bago
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:18 UTC
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by *bago »

pdavit wrote: It’s true that TC’s presentation can be improved but did you ever think what’s the catch in order to achieve that? Well, bigger file size (not so important for most users) but at the same time slower operation. If a GUI improvement can be achieved without a reduced reliability that’s fine by me. But I doubt this is feasible so I’m quite happy with TC as it is now!
pdavit wrote: Here is a captured screenshot of my TC for those who believe it’s ugly! (http://www.angelfire.com/theforce/pdavit/capture.png)
I think these two sentences are not in the same direction :!:: look at your screenshot! sure your "skinning" software will slow more that a cleaner and refactored interface in TC. I mean that adding icons to menu, and changing the default icon set to be more attractive does not mean to increase the size of TC and slow it!... your skinning software surely slow it! :mrgreen:
License #55385
User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit »

The skinning software is WindowBlinds which is part of the core of WinXP. There is no such thing as no skins in WinXP. The classic look is a skin of the old classic look of Windows.

If I had another Windows version installed probably TC would have been faster as you say. ;)
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!
User avatar
lzvk25
Member
Member
Posts: 183
Joined: 2003-02-09, 04:28 UTC
Location: Collierville, TN

Post by *lzvk25 »

Like i said before, with only getting rid of the default bold fonts and using one of the many icon libraries already made for TC the look would improve a lot without increasing TC's size or code. 8)

BTW : Using WindowBlinds is cheating and will also slow your PC.
Memo to Boss : No TC, No Work
User avatar
bago
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:18 UTC
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by *bago »

pdavit wrote:The skinning software is WindowBlinds which is part of the core of WinXP. There is no such thing as no skins in WinXP. The classic look is a skin of the old classic look of Windows.
You are wrong, I think: skins in windows XP are not a collection of images but libraries. I personally verified that the default skin is already a lot slower and more memory consuming that the "old windows like" one.

Try it on a P2-350 and 128MB of RAM and you'll see the big difference :!:
License #55385
Innuendo
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 2003-02-09, 04:07 UTC

Post by *Innuendo »

First of all, Window Blinds does not use the same skinning technology that is in XP although MS consulted with Stardock (the makers of WindowBlinds) on how best to implement skins in XP.

It uses a superior technology that allows you to do more than what is normally possible with XP skinning.

Anything before WindowBlinds v3 is much slower than no skinning or default XP skinning.

WindowBlinds v3 through v3.5 performs some functions faster than XP's skinning and some things slower.

However, things are starting to get interesting in the land of Beta. Beta versions of WindowBlinds v4 are being released and it's promising to turn the prospect of skinning on its ear. It's looking like it will do everything faster than XP's skinning technology & may even be a rival for XP Classic's speed and responsiveness.

WB4 is only available through Stardock's Object Desktop currently. Final release is supposed to be in the next couple months.

And to bago, you are 100% correct regarding performance. On a rig like that XP Luna is going to be much slower than classic. Boost that RAM above 256K and you will see Luna's performance become more of an equal for Classic.

On my PC (P3-1GHz w/ 384 MB RAM) XP's Luna is much faster than Win2K's classic look on the same PC.
User avatar
bago
Member
Member
Posts: 102
Joined: 2003-02-05, 12:18 UTC
Location: Italy
Contact:

Post by *bago »

Innuendo wrote:On my PC (P3-1GHz w/ 384 MB RAM) XP's Luna is much faster than Win2K's classic look on the same PC.
Faster? How should this be possible?
License #55385
User avatar
pdavit
Power Member
Power Member
Posts: 1529
Joined: 2003-02-05, 21:41 UTC
Location: Kavala -> Greece -> Europe -> Earth -> Solar System -> Milky Way -> Space
Contact:

Post by *pdavit »

>bago
>Faster? How should this be possible?

As I said before even the classic look in WinXP is treated by the OS as a skin. It’s like having Media Player v9 with the old look. Even in that case Media Player uses a skin. Now, you can have an add-on skin which simply is more abstemious than the classic one and that is not only visually.

Skins are more complicated than we think sometimes. A skin that has let’s say a top bar coloured blue and a bottom bar yellow can look in the eye more hungry in terms of system resources than one that has both bars grey while practically both are equal.

I personally didn’t observe any slow-down from my skin in use (I have WindowBlinds v3.50a installed) and if you observe more closely you will see no fancy elements. It’s a pretty basic skin. Of course it didn’t improve the performance but let’s hope v4 of WindowBlinds can do what promises! ;)

As I said before, if a GUI improvement on TC can be achieved without a reduced reliability that’s fine by me. Let’s not forget also that technology improves and a double hungry GUI on a double fast CPU can look the same as the previous generation. It seams though that Christian wants to have all users satisfied and doesn’t take the step because users of older operating systems and machines will “suffer”. I do respect that and I do back off.
"My only reason for still using M$ Window$ as an OS is the existence of Total Commander!"
Christian Ghisler Rules!!!
Raymond
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 2003-02-08, 15:43 UTC

Post by *Raymond »

lzvk25 wrote:Like i said before, with only getting rid of the default bold fonts and using one of the many icon libraries already made for TC the look would improve a lot without increasing TC's size or code. 8)
Totally agree with lzvk25. :)
When I tried TC(it was Windows Commander then ) the very first time I gave up just because of it's interface. How stupid I were not figured out the power of TC earlier! :( AFAIK some people around me don't want to use TC till now only because of its not_so_attractive presentation. It's pity, just for this reason, isn't it?

Only a tiny change, as lzvk25 said, with regular fonts instead of default bold fonts and more attractive icons, or several predefined theme options, will make TC more inviting for new comers. This no_coding default change will improve the first impression of TC a lot.

BTW, Christian, IMHO it's unnecessary to worry about the complaint of old TC users, they already know how to change the presentation to fit their own taste. :D
TucknDar
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 2003-02-07, 09:44 UTC
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by *TucknDar »

How about voting for the best representation of TC among the users? That way the most popular SS could be used on ghisler.com and as a default setup for TC.

(forgive me for posting something similar in another thread ;) )
license #76904
Raymond
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 2003-02-08, 15:43 UTC

Post by *Raymond »

2TucknDar

It's a good idea and I'm curious about how the appearance of u guys'(or ladies) TC looks like. Only that so pity image posting is disabled in this forum and I always get trouble on accessing some URLs. :(
TucknDar
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 2003-02-07, 09:44 UTC
Location: Oslo
Contact:

Post by *TucknDar »

Genereally it would be a bad idea to post ss' in the forum, it'd take up to much space and make loading slow. So ppl should just upload their ss' to some external server and link to it.

But as was pointed out to me in another thread, this sort of thing was done in the previous forum (although it didn't seem to affect the ss on ghisler.com, hehe).

Anyways... I'm happy with TC as it is, and I tweak it to look like I want, so it doesn't really matter what the ss on the official site looks like. Just would be a pity if ppl were put off by it!
license #76904
Post Reply