Total file size.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

auser - 21 Dec 2006 12:23 GMT

Anyone notice that when you open a folder, the bottom right hand corner does
not show you the total size of all the files in the folder when you have the
status bar turned on? If you select a file, it will show you the size of the
fie in that spot, but not the total when nothing is selected. Why they got
rid of this in vista, I have no clue.

workaround: If you do a ctrl-a (selecting everything) it will show you the
total size.

Reply to this Message

Bill - 22 Dec 2006 23:10 GMT

> Anyone notice that when you open a folder, the bottom right hand
> corner does
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> they got
> rid of this in vista, I have no clue.

It's another one of the backwards steps they took.

I'm more upset about the lack of tools in the toolbar, such as cut,
copy, paste, delete, etc., and the lack of customization.

> workaround: If you do a ctrl-a (selecting everything) it will show
> you the
> total size.

Sucks...I know.

Signature

Happy Holidays!

Reply to this Message

Colin Barnhorst - 22 Dec 2006 23:46 GMT

When that was discussed in TechBeta with the Vista Team the answer was that
it caused a serious performance hit.

> Anyone notice that when you open a folder, the bottom right hand corner
> does
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> workaround: If you do a ctrl-a (selecting everything) it will show you the
> total size.

Reply to this Message

Chris Altmann - 23 Dec 2006 00:57 GMT

Which doesn't make sense as that number displays instantly on my XP machine
with rather large directories. Just how many files does it take for the
performance hit to register? Or is it only a problem with network shares or
other non-file Explorer namespaces (in which case it could be disabled for
those)?

> When that was discussed in TechBeta with the Vista Team the answer was
> that it caused a serious performance hit.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>> the
>> total size.

Reply to this Message

Colin Barnhorst - 23 Dec 2006 02:36 GMT

I am trying to remember, but now that you mention it bandwidth did come up
in the discussion so maybe that's it.

> Which doesn't make sense as that number displays instantly on my XP
> machine with rather large directories. Just how many files does it take
> for the performance hit to register? Or is it only a problem with network
> shares or other non-file Explorer namespaces (in which case it could be
> disabled for those)?

Reply to this Message

cerveaupro - 31 Aug 2007 19:00 GMT

Colin Barnhorst;133278 Wrote:

> I am trying to remember, but now that you mention it bandwidth did come
> up
> in the discussion so maybe that's it.

Not sure of that, as I get a folder size (but subfolders included) just
moving my mouse over before I get into it. Talking a step backward to
serious performance hit, all new layout panes lag anyways. Also no file
size information at all is given in a User folder from the Desktop, but
when you go to that same folder from Computer, you get that information
once you click in a folder inside that User folder and then going back.
Also refreshing the folder doubles every files size. Only because I just
prefer to use the status bar than the Details Pain for quick non-moving
information about the file sizes.

Talking about refreshes, the "Wow" Microsoft was marketing about was
probably for things like that: you rename a folder, all customizations
data doubled. You get a favorite that has the same name than another one
already had, it substitutes the old url association in cache. You feel
you'd rather like to work without an annoying Details bar? No you can't.
Aero List View columns are too large compared to Classic View? Sorry.
What about smaller shortcut icons? What about zoom fades as the only
detail I'd prefer not have with Aero whereas the classic theme is quite
a bad option for such details?

Report and do with it meanwhile. I enjoy that Windows cleaned a lot of
its obscure settings in Vista, but the price to pay is a less-intuitive
OS than XP. Havs anyone teached to programmers about being
conscientious? Or maybe that it was some revenge over bad treatment?
Even MSN looked more friendly than Windows Live. Being lovely looks to
be way out of Microsoft, and this only makes me feel less confident that
my data are safe with the OS programmation code, if there is any,
whatever the big security features Microsoft announced, if they can't
even get the simple programmation details right.

Signature

cerveaupro

Reply to this Message