Comments on: Poll about the future of WinDirStat http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/ News and discussions around WinDirStat Thu, 28 Aug 2008 06:27:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: jimmy http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10339 jimmy Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:12:20 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10339 It would also be great to be able to save out reports. Right now I end up taking a screen cap of as much of the window as I can. It would also be great to be able to save out reports. Right now I end up taking a screen cap of as much of the window as I can.

]]> By: fowl http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10281 fowl Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:18:27 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10281 Oh if it's faster, I'm all for it! (need an excuse to load a 64-bit on this box anyway... :P) Oh if it’s faster, I’m all for it!

(need an excuse to load a 64-bit on this box anyway… :P)

]]> By: Oliver http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10275 Oliver Wed, 21 May 2008 00:24:15 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10275 Good point, it might be additional hassle indeed. But I'll decide after actually checking the performance differences. I can imagine that particular operations would be faster natively. Good point, it might be additional hassle indeed. But I’ll decide after actually checking the performance differences. I can imagine that particular operations would be faster natively.

]]> By: fowl http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10274 fowl Tue, 20 May 2008 10:15:14 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10274 I don't see the point of a x64 release, there are api's to allow 32bit apps to see an unvirtulised view of the filesystem. A 64bit build seems an unnecessary complication for both you and the potential downloader. Oh and awesome app btw! Looking forward to see how you deal with the hardlink problem. I don’t see the point of a x64 release, there are api’s to allow 32bit apps to see an unvirtulised view of the filesystem.

A 64bit build seems an unnecessary complication for both you and the potential downloader.

Oh and awesome app btw!

Looking forward to see how you deal with the hardlink problem.

]]> By: jimmy http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10262 jimmy Thu, 08 May 2008 01:28:00 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10262 You could do a fileid lookup, those that are under winsxs with a linkcount > 1 could have other links hidden. If only they'd hardlinked the "real" copy and junctioned the others it would be a bit easier. AV/backup apps would've hit issues tho... Great app - glad to see you're continuing to refine it. Thx much. You could do a fileid lookup, those that are under winsxs with a linkcount > 1 could have other links hidden.
If only they’d hardlinked the “real” copy and junctioned the others it would be a bit easier. AV/backup apps would’ve hit issues tho…

Great app - glad to see you’re continuing to refine it. Thx much.

]]> By: Oliver http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10260 Oliver Wed, 07 May 2008 23:39:41 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10260 So you suggest hiding everything outside that place? What about MKLINK and other tools which I like to use to create hardlinks (e.g. DFHL)? Those hardlinks will be hidden as well. I think you certainly have a point here, but they shouldn't be hidden either way. Instead WDS should handle this properly. So I'll work on this. There is another problem on 64bit, btw, which prevents it from seeing the "redirected" files (such as those under system32), causing wrong results on any Win64. So you suggest hiding everything outside that place? What about MKLINK and other tools which I like to use to create hardlinks (e.g. DFHL)? Those hardlinks will be hidden as well.

I think you certainly have a point here, but they shouldn’t be hidden either way. Instead WDS should handle this properly. So I’ll work on this. There is another problem on 64bit, btw, which prevents it from seeing the “redirected” files (such as those under system32), causing wrong results on any Win64.

]]> By: jimmy http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10259 jimmy Wed, 07 May 2008 22:00:38 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10259 For the most part tho, the file under \winsxs is the "real" file on Vista. Toggling to hide hardlinks then would hide hardlinks not under that path. For the most part tho, the file under \winsxs is the “real” file on Vista. Toggling to hide hardlinks then would hide hardlinks not under that path.

]]> By: Oliver http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10257 Oliver Wed, 07 May 2008 09:55:04 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10257 Well, which one should be shown and which not? That's the trouble with hardlinks: there is no only legit "base"-link. Well, which one should be shown and which not? That’s the trouble with hardlinks: there is no only legit “base”-link.

]]> By: jimmy http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10256 jimmy Wed, 07 May 2008 03:06:53 +0000 http://blog.windirstat.info/20080427/poll-about-the-future-of-windirstat/#comment-10256 Please add support to not show duplicate hardlinks. On Vista+ systems, the space displayed is primarily doubled due to hardlinks against the "actual" file contents under %windir%\winsxs. A toggle to show/hide these types of duplicate files would be great. Thanks. Please add support to not show duplicate hardlinks. On Vista+ systems, the space displayed is primarily doubled due to hardlinks against the “actual” file contents under %windir%\winsxs. A toggle to show/hide these types of duplicate files would be great. Thanks.

]]>