<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for WinDirStat propaganda blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.windirstat.info/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.windirstat.info</link>
	<description>per aspera ad astra</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:40:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cleanup actions, who uses them right now? by Oliver</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/comment-page-1/#comment-52012</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/#comment-52012</guid>
		<description>But let me go through your points one by one:

&lt;em&gt;I mainly use WinDirStat for mapping capabilities. It’s a great overall strategic mapping and planning tool for use when nuking excessive stuff. I also use it to get an overview of how to re-allocate and re-purpose drives.&lt;/em&gt;
Cool. That&#039;s the kind of feedback I&#039;d like to have much more. We get the occasional grateful mails or very specific feature requests that do not always make sense to a broad set of people, but this feedback about usage makes it easier to see what to focus on.

&lt;em&gt;I would never use (and properly so) any converter capability, especially ones that convert to a lossy format. Please do not go bloating this program with such items.&lt;/em&gt;
Optipng is an external program. The point would not be to incorporate its code into WDS - that&#039;d be silly. Rather a more powerful scripting facility than is currently built in, would allow more versatile use, including customization of some aspects of the program for uses that you or I cannot even think of right now.

&lt;em&gt;Conversion stuff is best left to existing applications that specialize in such operations. There’s a reason why there’s lossless and lossy filetypes – and going back and forth among them is to be done carefully, especially if you work with media files of any sort. And to automate any of this stuff is just asking for disaster.&lt;/em&gt;
Not with optipng, though.

&lt;em&gt;I also would never use any cleanup routines or scripts or anything. This activity, like file conversion, is best left to other programs that specialize in such operations. CCleaner is what I use, it’s established, it works, it’s highly customizable without learning a script language, and it’s in use on over 500million PC’s world-wide. So for cleanup ops I’d highly recommend that one. You could call CCleaner right from WinDirStat and run it in a silent command-line mode. Think of it as one big extension module. Now you get the best cleaning from the best mapping program! Amazing! eh?&lt;/em&gt;
Well, CCleaner has a different license etc. Also it doesn&#039;t really do the per-file thing but rather has particular locations it checks and cleans. WDS doesn&#039;t have this idea of the system. For WDS it&#039;s all files and folders.

&lt;em&gt;A duplicate search function would be a natural extension of what most folks use WinDirStat for anyways.&lt;/em&gt;
In a sense it would be, but again the actual implementation details should be flexible (i.e. scripted).

&lt;em&gt;It would be a great thing to have duplicates flash on the treemap.&lt;/em&gt;
Eeek :mrgreen: ... alright, you have a point, but perhaps that should be something you have to activate willingly and then deactivate again when you want to ...

&lt;em&gt;While there are plenty of duplicate search &amp; destroy programs out there already – I feel that WinDirStat could get some added value here.&lt;/em&gt;
Well, I was involved in one of them (DFHL), but they all have their caveats. I&#039;ll rather let the user decide (thus the scripting).

&lt;em&gt;And speaking of flashing stuff, what about when clicking on a file – have the outline box flash on the treemap? This would make it immensely easier to find those microscopic files in a sea of monsters.&lt;/em&gt;
Nice idea. Could you please add this to the feature request tracker on SF.net, so I won&#039;t forget it?

&lt;em&gt;Well, that’s about all I gotta say, just, please don’t go bloating this program up with non-related features. I understand your desire to branch out (no pun intended) the program’s functionality, but some things are perfect the way they are, and this is one of them.&lt;/em&gt;
You misapprehend the question in my original post. This is &lt;strong&gt;not&lt;/strong&gt; at all about bloating the core program but rather making it versatile so that users are empowered to implement things themselves that I didn&#039;t anticipate when I was working on it. I think this is what makes great programs - extensibility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But let me go through your points one by one:</p>
<p><em>I mainly use WinDirStat for mapping capabilities. It’s a great overall strategic mapping and planning tool for use when nuking excessive stuff. I also use it to get an overview of how to re-allocate and re-purpose drives.</em><br />
Cool. That&#8217;s the kind of feedback I&#8217;d like to have much more. We get the occasional grateful mails or very specific feature requests that do not always make sense to a broad set of people, but this feedback about usage makes it easier to see what to focus on.</p>
<p><em>I would never use (and properly so) any converter capability, especially ones that convert to a lossy format. Please do not go bloating this program with such items.</em><br />
Optipng is an external program. The point would not be to incorporate its code into WDS &#8211; that&#8217;d be silly. Rather a more powerful scripting facility than is currently built in, would allow more versatile use, including customization of some aspects of the program for uses that you or I cannot even think of right now.</p>
<p><em>Conversion stuff is best left to existing applications that specialize in such operations. There’s a reason why there’s lossless and lossy filetypes – and going back and forth among them is to be done carefully, especially if you work with media files of any sort. And to automate any of this stuff is just asking for disaster.</em><br />
Not with optipng, though.</p>
<p><em>I also would never use any cleanup routines or scripts or anything. This activity, like file conversion, is best left to other programs that specialize in such operations. CCleaner is what I use, it’s established, it works, it’s highly customizable without learning a script language, and it’s in use on over 500million PC’s world-wide. So for cleanup ops I’d highly recommend that one. You could call CCleaner right from WinDirStat and run it in a silent command-line mode. Think of it as one big extension module. Now you get the best cleaning from the best mapping program! Amazing! eh?</em><br />
Well, CCleaner has a different license etc. Also it doesn&#8217;t really do the per-file thing but rather has particular locations it checks and cleans. WDS doesn&#8217;t have this idea of the system. For WDS it&#8217;s all files and folders.</p>
<p><em>A duplicate search function would be a natural extension of what most folks use WinDirStat for anyways.</em><br />
In a sense it would be, but again the actual implementation details should be flexible (i.e. scripted).</p>
<p><em>It would be a great thing to have duplicates flash on the treemap.</em><br />
Eeek <img src='http://blog.windirstat.info/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif' alt=':mrgreen:' class='wp-smiley' />  &#8230; alright, you have a point, but perhaps that should be something you have to activate willingly and then deactivate again when you want to &#8230;</p>
<p><em>While there are plenty of duplicate search &#038; destroy programs out there already – I feel that WinDirStat could get some added value here.</em><br />
Well, I was involved in one of them (DFHL), but they all have their caveats. I&#8217;ll rather let the user decide (thus the scripting).</p>
<p><em>And speaking of flashing stuff, what about when clicking on a file – have the outline box flash on the treemap? This would make it immensely easier to find those microscopic files in a sea of monsters.</em><br />
Nice idea. Could you please add this to the feature request tracker on SF.net, so I won&#8217;t forget it?</p>
<p><em>Well, that’s about all I gotta say, just, please don’t go bloating this program up with non-related features. I understand your desire to branch out (no pun intended) the program’s functionality, but some things are perfect the way they are, and this is one of them.</em><br />
You misapprehend the question in my original post. This is <strong>not</strong> at all about bloating the core program but rather making it versatile so that users are empowered to implement things themselves that I didn&#8217;t anticipate when I was working on it. I think this is what makes great programs &#8211; extensibility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cleanup actions, who uses them right now? by Oliver</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/comment-page-1/#comment-52011</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/#comment-52011</guid>
		<description>Keith, you probably misunderstood. First of all, optipng is not lossy, since it (by brute force) tries to shrink PNG files further.

Secondly, it&#039;s more important whether we could simply abandon the current cleanup actions in favor of a more powerful option. And strictly speaking that more powerful option doesn&#039;t have to be used for &quot;writing&quot; at all, it would just allow more control. And though you have a point with &quot;bloat&quot; in a sense, I think it&#039;s still fine to add features that make the tool more versatile, just not to the core program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith, you probably misunderstood. First of all, optipng is not lossy, since it (by brute force) tries to shrink PNG files further.</p>
<p>Secondly, it&#8217;s more important whether we could simply abandon the current cleanup actions in favor of a more powerful option. And strictly speaking that more powerful option doesn&#8217;t have to be used for &#8220;writing&#8221; at all, it would just allow more control. And though you have a point with &#8220;bloat&#8221; in a sense, I think it&#8217;s still fine to add features that make the tool more versatile, just not to the core program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on WinDirStat 1.3 by Oliver</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20081227/windirstat-13/comment-page-1/#comment-52010</link>
		<dc:creator>Oliver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:27:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20081227/windirstat-13/#comment-52010</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m aware of that attribute, but a program that is handling files should probably be able to distinguish volume mount points, junction points and symbolic links. And IIRC only symbolic link targets don&#039;t have to exist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m aware of that attribute, but a program that is handling files should probably be able to distinguish volume mount points, junction points and symbolic links. And IIRC only symbolic link targets don&#8217;t have to exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cleanup actions, who uses them right now? by Keith Golon</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/comment-page-1/#comment-51929</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Golon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 17:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/#comment-51929</guid>
		<description>I mainly use WinDirStat for mapping capabilities. It&#039;s a great overall strategic mapping and planning tool for use when nuking excessive stuff. I also use it to get an overview of how to re-allocate and re-purpose drives.

I would never use (and properly so) any converter capability, especially ones that convert to a lossy format. Please do not go bloating this program with such items. Conversion stuff is best left to existing applications that specialize in such operations. There&#039;s a reason why there&#039;s lossless and lossy filetypes - and going back and forth among them is to be done carefully, especially if you work with media files of any sort. And to automate any of this stuff is just asking for disaster.

I also would never use any cleanup routines or scripts or anything. This activity, like file conversion, is best left to other programs that specialize in such operations. CCleaner is what I use, it&#039;s established, it works, it&#039;s highly customizable without learning a script language, and it&#039;s in use on over 500million PC&#039;s world-wide. So for cleanup ops I&#039;d highly recommend that one. You could call CCleaner right from WinDirStat and run it in a silent command-line mode. Think of it as one big extension module. Now you get the best cleaning from the best mapping program! Amazing! eh?

A duplicate search function would be a natural extension of what most folks use WinDirStat for anyways. It would be a great thing to have duplicates flash on the treemap. While there are plenty of duplicate search &amp; destroy programs out there already - I feel that WinDirStat could get some added value here.

And speaking of flashing stuff, what about when clicking on a file - have the outline box flash on the treemap? This would make it immensely easier to find those microscopic files in a sea of monsters.

Well, that&#039;s about all I gotta say, just, please don&#039;t go bloating this program up with non-related features. I understand your desire to branch out (no pun intended) the program&#039;s functionality, but some things are perfect the way they are, and this is one of them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mainly use WinDirStat for mapping capabilities. It&#8217;s a great overall strategic mapping and planning tool for use when nuking excessive stuff. I also use it to get an overview of how to re-allocate and re-purpose drives.</p>
<p>I would never use (and properly so) any converter capability, especially ones that convert to a lossy format. Please do not go bloating this program with such items. Conversion stuff is best left to existing applications that specialize in such operations. There&#8217;s a reason why there&#8217;s lossless and lossy filetypes &#8211; and going back and forth among them is to be done carefully, especially if you work with media files of any sort. And to automate any of this stuff is just asking for disaster.</p>
<p>I also would never use any cleanup routines or scripts or anything. This activity, like file conversion, is best left to other programs that specialize in such operations. CCleaner is what I use, it&#8217;s established, it works, it&#8217;s highly customizable without learning a script language, and it&#8217;s in use on over 500million PC&#8217;s world-wide. So for cleanup ops I&#8217;d highly recommend that one. You could call CCleaner right from WinDirStat and run it in a silent command-line mode. Think of it as one big extension module. Now you get the best cleaning from the best mapping program! Amazing! eh?</p>
<p>A duplicate search function would be a natural extension of what most folks use WinDirStat for anyways. It would be a great thing to have duplicates flash on the treemap. While there are plenty of duplicate search &amp; destroy programs out there already &#8211; I feel that WinDirStat could get some added value here.</p>
<p>And speaking of flashing stuff, what about when clicking on a file &#8211; have the outline box flash on the treemap? This would make it immensely easier to find those microscopic files in a sea of monsters.</p>
<p>Well, that&#8217;s about all I gotta say, just, please don&#8217;t go bloating this program up with non-related features. I understand your desire to branch out (no pun intended) the program&#8217;s functionality, but some things are perfect the way they are, and this is one of them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on WinDirStat 1.3 by Doug</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20081227/windirstat-13/comment-page-1/#comment-51914</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 22:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20081227/windirstat-13/#comment-51914</guid>
		<description>Can&#039;t you just use the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT 1024 (0x400) attribute from FindFirstFile to detect linked files?  And if a file is a link, exclude its size from the total?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can&#8217;t you just use the FILE_ATTRIBUTE_REPARSE_POINT 1024 (0&#215;400) attribute from FindFirstFile to detect linked files?  And if a file is a link, exclude its size from the total?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &lt;Unknown&gt; again &#8230; by crown</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20070321/unknown-again/comment-page-2/#comment-51658</link>
		<dc:creator>crown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 02:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20070321/unknown-again/#comment-51658</guid>
		<description>When I used F7 to unhide hidden files it is showing 0 byte Unknown File in my main C drive . 

I am running Win7 64 SP1 

Does the software not like win7 ? 

Thanks , still cool and useful never the less.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When I used F7 to unhide hidden files it is showing 0 byte Unknown File in my main C drive . </p>
<p>I am running Win7 64 SP1 </p>
<p>Does the software not like win7 ? </p>
<p>Thanks , still cool and useful never the less.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on &lt;Unknown&gt; again &#8230; by Chris</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20070321/unknown-again/comment-page-2/#comment-51653</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:08:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20070321/unknown-again/#comment-51653</guid>
		<description>YES! YES!  Spent so many hours on this.  I reinstalled XP and there was not a complete wipe for some reason.  Here is how to see unknown stuff with more complete instructions:

Download this : http://assarbad.net/stuff/localsystem.zip 

Then I found these instructions:

Right click on your WinDirStat shortcut &gt; Properties, on that page &gt; Start in: Copy the info on that line.
Start the executable (as Administrator) named “CMDasSys.exe” after unpacking the archive ( localsystem.zip ) to some temporary location.
Enter this in the dos window:

cd ( space after cd ) paste &amp; hit &gt; Enter.
Now type   windirstat.exe to that line &amp; hit &gt; Enter.
WinDirStat will now fire up.  Run WinDirStat and you&#039;ll see everything.  Delete the crap.
When finished with Command Prompt, close it.

I got rid of 90 Gb of images and music from the previous XP install.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YES! YES!  Spent so many hours on this.  I reinstalled XP and there was not a complete wipe for some reason.  Here is how to see unknown stuff with more complete instructions:</p>
<p>Download this : <a href="http://assarbad.net/stuff/localsystem.zip" rel="nofollow">http://assarbad.net/stuff/localsystem.zip</a> </p>
<p>Then I found these instructions:</p>
<p>Right click on your WinDirStat shortcut &gt; Properties, on that page &gt; Start in: Copy the info on that line.<br />
Start the executable (as Administrator) named “CMDasSys.exe” after unpacking the archive ( localsystem.zip ) to some temporary location.<br />
Enter this in the dos window:</p>
<p>cd ( space after cd ) paste &amp; hit &gt; Enter.<br />
Now type   windirstat.exe to that line &amp; hit &gt; Enter.<br />
WinDirStat will now fire up.  Run WinDirStat and you&#8217;ll see everything.  Delete the crap.<br />
When finished with Command Prompt, close it.</p>
<p>I got rid of 90 Gb of images and music from the previous XP install.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on C&#8217;mon, keep it real guys by Amardeep Singh</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20090707/cmon-keep-it-real-guys/comment-page-1/#comment-51547</link>
		<dc:creator>Amardeep Singh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20090707/cmon-keep-it-real-guys/#comment-51547</guid>
		<description>Dear Oliver,
is there any update on  thing.
I have an unknown file on my drive C in Windows 7 of 54.4. gb.

Cheers..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Oliver,<br />
is there any update on  thing.<br />
I have an unknown file on my drive C in Windows 7 of 54.4. gb.</p>
<p>Cheers..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What is &#8220;&lt;Unknown&gt;&#8221;? by jim mcmurchie</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20061013/unknown-space/comment-page-1/#comment-51101</link>
		<dc:creator>jim mcmurchie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20061013/unknown-space/#comment-51101</guid>
		<description>Anyone have ideas where the problem is occurring on a server machine rather than a desktop?  Running server 2008, so no restore points, not configured to run shadow copies.  Love some help there is currently 170GB unknown.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anyone have ideas where the problem is occurring on a server machine rather than a desktop?  Running server 2008, so no restore points, not configured to run shadow copies.  Love some help there is currently 170GB unknown.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Cleanup actions, who uses them right now? by Daniel</title>
		<link>http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/comment-page-1/#comment-50638</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.windirstat.info/20110205/cleanup-actions-who-uses-them-right-now/#comment-50638</guid>
		<description>I think I once wanted to use it combined with optipng to shrink png files in a bunch of folders. I had a few problems, including that I couldn&#039;t get it to run on more than once file at once (a batch process, as it were).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I once wanted to use it combined with optipng to shrink png files in a bunch of folders. I had a few problems, including that I couldn&#8217;t get it to run on more than once file at once (a batch process, as it were).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

