Multi Commander > Feature Requests and Suggestions

Make as default FM

<< < (2/3) > >>

sl23:

--- Quote from: Mathias (Author) on March 15, 2015, 13:08:16 ---Found the post

http://forum.multicommander.com/forum/index.php/topic,936.msg2823.html#msg2823

--- End quote ---
Would this work for any File Manager?

Mathias (Author):
Impossible to say. Depends on how the other works and how other manager handles parameters and multiple instances and stuff

sl23:
Ok that's understandable.

It's just that the more I use Mc the more little niggles I'm coming across that make it more awkward for me to use!  :(

Mathias (Author):
There are many types of file manager.
MC do not follow the same way to navigate like Windows Explorer,  MC belong to the Commander styled File manager. (OFM , Orthodox file managers as it is also called..)
All started with Norton Commander on DOS in around 1986 or so
All commander styled manager are optimized for keyboard, speed and efficiently, But if you come from the Windows Explorer world using mouse this can be strange.
MC can be configured to work like WinExplorer in many ways. but not fully.  There are other file manager out there if full Windows Explorer mode is required.

sl23:
To be honest I couldn't look at a file manager and tell which category it belonged. I have tried every one I could find and the best of them,  apart from Mc and Xy, seen to be no longer developed. FreeCommander is the only other option but seem a bit buggy for my liking.

I understand there will be differences and adaptations required but I would have thought things like full row selection and refresh in the context menu should be standard fare from one file manager to the next?!

Mc has some great features and really easy to configure for the most part, so I've tried to persevere with it. Auto update, file types, color filters, and some other stuff all very well implemented and easy to use. I applaud you on the way it's done, but I do find it strange how some simple things have been excluded?

I appreciate Mc is free, and the fact my needs are probably far less demanding,  but don't you want Mc to reach a large audience? What about long term, do you plan on selling a pro version?  You should do, but for both these you'd need to add more customisation options.  Perhaps it's far too early for all that anyway?!

Forgive me if I'm out of line for saying this, I don't mean it as a criticism just an observation, hopefully you are the sort of person that understands what that actually means? But... You seem rather 'closed' when it comes to requests. Do you have your own 'plan' for Mc regardless of users?

Still, I think I may keep trying with Mc as I really like it, despite there niggles!

Kind regards

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page