Total Commander

My suggestions (based on the upcoming Windows Vista) are these:
- It would be convenient to have an address bar similar to the one in Windows Explorer in Vista with drop-down menus after every folder to easily switch between different levels of folders.
- Search integrated with Windows Desktop Search (this should be optional and turned off by default, since not everyone is going to be using it)
- Default icon with higher resolutions (I haven't actually checked what the highest resolution of the TC icon was, though)

2Mirek

- Default icon with higher resolutions

Currently, the main Icon is provided with a maximim size of 48x48 in Totalcmd.exe

@Mirek
Maybe check this out:
http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=11676&highlight=vista+influences

2 StickyNomad: Vista icons have the maximum of 256x256...
2 fenix_productions: Yeah, I missed that. I agree with most of it, but all of the features (including those I suggested) should be optional, since some people like the traditional, old way...

@Mirek
That's why I think the best could be additional View mode, if Christian doesn't want to write exact implementation.
But he has already answered for this proposal.
(see: http://www.ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=12320&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=fenixproductions)

Other way is too big change until TC 8 (in my opinion).

Sorry, a single 256x256 icon takes 256kByte just for the color map! I have no plans to bloat Total Commander like this, sorry.

ghisler(Author) wrote:Sorry, a single 256x256 icon takes 256kByte just for the color map! I have no plans to bloat Total Commander like this, sorry.

Eh, I don't think you'd add it as a regular icon. If I recall correctly, Vista's 256x256 icons are added as a compressed PNGs. Otherwise Windows Vista's own apps would have been even more humongous.

See: What's New with Vista® Icons?

It's 2012, so more than 5 years passed now, and it would be nice to have a 256x256 pixel icon for Total Commander. Today now three operating system can handle that large icon sizes. Windows Vista, 7 and 8. A lot of programs out there already implemented large icon sizes, and it should take up that much space that makes the whole Total Commander bloated.

It's time to reconsider this for version 8 like fenix_productions suggested it, and mnerec replied quoted.

Thanks for your time and consideration, I'm sure many of us would welcome this minor change.

Do you really need 256x256 icon?
Do you enter TC dir every day with very large thumbnail mode turned on in Explorer?
Please tell us where exactly (desktop/folder/which view mode) you want to see 256x256 icon.

Also, I saw some program with size about 3-4 MB and only icon took 1.5 MB... Just stupid waste of space...

MVV wrote: Also, I saw some program with size about 3-4 MB and only icon took 1.5 MB... Just stupid waste of space...

I agree....

if its just for the shortcut on Desktop, then i rather suggest using an external icon file just for this purpose...

I'm using old good 32x32 icons at the desktop to keep it clear. But even if I set max icon size for the desktop (via context menu), it is not greater than 96x96.

MVV wrote:Do you really need 256x256 icon?
Do you enter TC dir every day with very large thumbnail mode turned on in Explorer?
Please tell us where exactly (desktop/folder/which view mode) you want to see 256x256 icon.

Also, I saw some program with size about 3-4 MB and only icon took 1.5 MB... Just stupid waste of space...

It's not that big of a deal, but it would be nice to see it implemented. It's 2012, so it's not big of a deal, but it's still missing.
Also yes I do use Total Commander every day, along with XYplorer. So yeah, I'm a licensed user for both of the products. And I use both of them on a daily basis. I don't use Explorer, only to launch these 2 programs.

Here are some example applications that do use 256x256 pixel icons.
http://i39.tinypic.com/25zi5ok.jpg

Also I don't know from where you pulled out those huge numbers, about a 1.5MB icon file, that's just stupid. That means that icon it's not optimized for size. It's not compressed. It's like you take a RAW image convert it to JPEG with no compression at all. If you were mentioning at least 400-500KB for all the icon sizes I wouldn't complain man. I'm just saying. And also if 1.5MB of data matters for you that much, it's means you are very very paranoid about drive space. You obviously have more than enough of them, and most likely that you will not fill it with legal content. Even on a 20GB hard drive would not be noticeable at all.

Currently Total Commander doesn't have the executable file compressed, because of the stupid antivirus engines that sometimes flag UPX packed files as malware, and can cause the application to start with a little delay.

The setup file now doesn't fit on 3,5" high density diskette anymore, so I don't see the point that why it's a waste of space. Even if you are downloading Total Commander from the internet, a couple megabytes doesn't waste your bandwidth. It's not like you are downloading a Linux distribution ISO file. Just clean up your browser cache or your temp directory and you waste no space. Or better delete some system restore dates, empty the recycle bin, delete some useless logs, maybe some old version setup files that you don't need anymore and just sits on your hard drive.

Here are some examples of application sizes with big icons. And some of them are not even have the executables compressed. For example if you check XYplorer and Winamp in PEiD you will see that you can't find any compression there. And the file size is already small. Sure it's coded in other programming language, and have some external modules, but still it seems to be very optimized. Check the VLC executable file size. It's compiled with GCC, and the file it's very very small. It's 106KB. This is a great example for you. But it's different code, different structure, but still, it will not hurt and will not make the code or the application bloated.

http://i.imgur.com/NSGZo.png
http://i.imgur.com/zgx8o.png
http://i.imgur.com/dyBVE.png
http://i.imgur.com/SBCrY.png
http://i.imgur.com/3c864.png
http://i.imgur.com/zPXzy.png
http://i.imgur.com/x7Q5Y.png
http://i.imgur.com/U033G.png

It's just a matter of adding another icon size to the code, the old ones would stay in place so they will not be lost, or changed. The same icon would be used as before on older machines like Windows XP or heck even 2000 or older than that, but I'm confident that some hardcore retro gamers or geeks use very outdated operating systems.

The Total Commander icon is not that complex like for instance the Firefox or the Thunderbird icon, it just contains a few colors like blue, red, gray, white and other color variations, so the 256x256 icon can be optimized for size. And the original author of the new design can be asked if he can make one just one for us.

If Christian still thinks it's still not possible, because of some limitations, then fine, just move this topic to the "TC Behaviour which will not be changed", but please stop arguing with false statements about icon sizes. Show us some proofs, please, because I'm very curious about that 1.5MB icon you are talking about.

2sztihamer
Just a note about VLC. The reason why is vlc.exe so small is that it's not the actual program, just a wrapper that loads the real program from other dll files. Plus it stores icons - they are taking a half of its size (the 256x256 one is 50KiB large).
I'm not saying that having such a big icon is bad. But since most of the other programs don't have such icons, TC would be just one of a few exceptions.

sztihamer, I'm really sure that icon took 1.5 MB in mentioned by me piece of software, it doesn't matter if it is compressed or not, its just a fact.

I don't see any need in 256x256 icons. Why icons must be big? Icon is a small picture that allows to identify an application, I don't understand 256x256 icons at all, even 48x48 is quite enough to identify an application. The only legal place for big icons is huge thumb view in Explorer, but it is useful for folders with images or videos, but not for folders with applications or links. So why do we need such huge icons?

And yes, I really like small programs. I don't like programs that take GBs of space and allows less than ones that take much less space. Just remember that large EXE/DLLs require both HDD and memory.

umbra wrote:2sztihamer
Just a note about VLC. The reason why is vlc.exe so small is that it's not the actual program, just a wrapper that loads the real program from other dll files. Plus it stores icons - they are taking a half of its size (the 256x256 one is 50KiB large).
I'm not saying that having such a big icon is bad. But since most of the other programs don't have such icons, TC would be just one of a few exceptions.

Yup that's right, it's a wrapper, I just wanted to show it to MVV that he is just talking about unreal things. He stated that he saw a some program that has 1.5MB sized icon file. I would love to see that, and I'm totally fine with that. But please note that Total Commander already includes the small icons already, so there's no need to add a second one if it's already there. Just the sizes that are missing. And that icon file cannot take up that much space, that would make the .EXE much bigger. It's just the matter of, lets say 100KB or maybe 150KB to be safe.

I don't know how that would make the entire program bloated, or wasting space, browser cache or the temp directory has more wasted space then an icon file. I feel like I live in the MS-DOS days where every bite counts. Don't we have big enough hard drives to handle files?

That's my honest opinion, it's Christian's choice. If he decides it he will implement it. This topic was started in 2006, now it's 2012.