No Folder Size in Details Pane or Details View ?!

No Folder Size in Details Pane or Details View ?!

Did Microsoft not allow this to piss me off or what?

ss.

At first i would have said performance reasons, but the tool tip on the
folder has the info on folder size. I assume it is done for network perf
reasons? Sure seems by design though

Mr. Synapse--

Absolutely there is and much more.

I don't doubt there are a couple thousand at Redmond feverishly trying to
piss you off--and they are obsessed with nothing else. I saw a lot of those
pics at Building 26 with those wild and crazy PMs running around with signs
that said "Piss the synapes off at all costs."

Meanwhile you can organize explorer folders in Vista dozens of ways, and
size is available in any view but you're looking for it in the wrong area.

Open a folder>right click on the lower left square where the folder is
pictured or the icon you have subbed for the folder (with the number of
items listed to the right of it)>in the context menu>sort by/group by/stack
by(size, etc.)/ and if you click the listing "more" at the bottom of the
context menu, there are well over 100 criteria including size.

CH


"Synapse Syndrome" <synapse@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote in message
news:ubHKxcQEHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> No Folder Size in Details Pane or Details View ?!
>
> Did Microsoft not allow this to piss me off or what?
>
> ss.

1) I have hundreds of folders within folders, files within those folders,
and files within the larger folders that house more folders. I have
thoroughly integrated them since the first time I used a flavor of Windows
years ago. In Vista and XP the size is a category in ANY VIEW offered--I
could easily screenshot--and both FILES and FOLDERS have their size given in
a size category in ANY view and on mouseover and they are not just files.

2) It is simply not correct that there is no folder or file size in any
view.

3) It is simply not true that whatever view you choose in explorer the "List
view columns show." On the contrary. Whatever columns show IN ANY VIEW is
completely determined by this and if you say that, you haven't tried it or
found it:

This is the way you tailor what columns show in any view and it has NOTHING
to do with a persistence in ANY VIEW INCLUDING LIST:

1) Go to the bottom of the folder on the left where if you create a new
folder on your desktop there will be a new folder icon in the lower left
corner or if like I always do you substitute one of thousands of favicons in
your favicon collection or one of thousands of icons native to Windows
Vista, it's .dlls, .exes, and its downloaded programs and zip files via the
Change or Modify Icon dialogue box. If you have named the folder it will
have the name of the folder. If you have subbed an icon for the folder,
that icon will be there.

2) Right click that folder or icon and in the categories listed there that
look like this:

Sort By
Group By
Stack By

Name
Date Modified
Type
Size
Ascending
Descending

More

Click MORE and you will have the opportunity to customize and choose and
TAILOR WHICH OF OVER 120 column headings you want to confer on whichever
view you then choose and whichever way you choose to sort, group, or stack.

The way I do it because it works for me and is analagous to the Show in
Groups that was brought in during Windows XP is to go up to name where y ou
can choose

Sort
Group
Stack by Name

and I choose Stck by Name because this is analagous to the bold headings of
an index in a book except that they are headings now in Vista and I would
have made them more bold. By name means they will be grouped alphabetically
and then for the column headings I want, I do what I described above.

For my downloads folder, I choose Sort by "Date Modified" or I just do that
after a download so that I can easily locate many of the non-ituitively
named downloads with characters and less obvious names on them. Everyone
knows what I mean by that, because everyone sees those.

On 26/11/2006 in message <e7Abo6WEHHA.3660@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Chad
Harris wrote:

>1) I have hundreds of folders within folders, files within those folders,
>and files within the larger folders that house more folders. I have
>thoroughly integrated them since the first time I used a flavor of Windows
>years ago. In Vista and XP the size is a category in ANY VIEW offered--I
>could easily screenshot--and both FILES and FOLDERS have their size given
>in a size category in ANY view and on mouseover and they are not just
>files.

I have just checked in XP and there is no entry in the 'Size' column for
folders, never has been. I turn off the pop up stuff, it just gets in the
way.

>2) It is simply not correct that there is no folder or file size in any
>view.

It's certainly true for me, in W2K, XP and Vista.


>3) It is simply not true that whatever view you choose in explorer the
>"List view columns show." On the contrary. Whatever columns show IN ANY
>VIEW is completely determined by this and if you say that, you haven't
>tried it or found it:

I select the view from the drop down menu, if I switch views the columns
are still there.

>This is the way you tailor what columns show in any view and it has
>NOTHING to do with a persistence in ANY VIEW INCLUDING LIST:

[snipped]

I don't use custom views, I always use details view. It was when I was
experimenting I discovered the column headers still show whatever view I
choose.

--
Jeff Gaines

Jeff --

If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that you can modify those column
heads by going to that icon/folder at the lower left of your explorer folder
window and right clicking>and highlighting sort by/group by/stack by/and by
clicking on any of those menu choices click "more" which gives you over 120
choices for COLUMN HEADERS which will apply whichever view you use including
DETAILS. It's working for me.

On 26/11/2006 in message <OQnkgYYEHHA.992@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl> Chad
Harris wrote:

>Jeff --
>
>If I'm understanding you correctly, I think that you can modify those
>column heads by going to that icon/folder at the lower left of your
>explorer folder window and right clicking>and highlighting sort by/group
>by/stack by/and by clicking on any of those menu choices click "more"
>which gives you over 120 choices for COLUMN HEADERS which will apply
>whichever view you use including DETAILS. It's working for me.

The only problem with choice is you have to make a decision :-)

I still don't believe there is an entry for folder size though which is
what the OP was implying.

Have you noticed the column headers still show even when you're not using
details view?

--
Jeff Gaines

Jeff--

The only column headers that show are the ones I choose to have show and I
can change that in any view the way I said or I can make them go away
completely by right clicking that folder icon or other icon on the lower
left. John Barnes pointed out how you can get a size assessment but I am
talking columns that show or don't show according to what I select in the
heading "MORE" as I said.

If I go to the ole list of columns and take out the checkmarks and all the
columns go bye bye regardless of the View.

CH

"Jeff Gaines" <whitedragon@newsgroups.nospam> wrote in message
news:xn0eu6nxs2zrf0003@msnews.microsoft.com...
> On 26/11/2006 in message <OuTLu#XEHHA.4048@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl> John
> Barnes wrote:
>
>>If you right click on any folder and select properties you will get the
>>size and size on disk as well as sub file and folder count.
>
> I appreciate that but what the OP said was :
>
>>No Folder Size in Details Pane or Details View ?!
>
> And I replied that I had never seen an entry for Folder Size on Explorer -
> folders don't have a size.
>
> --
> Jeff Gaines

On 26/11/2006 in message <OpSW9DaEHHA.3524@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Chad
Harris wrote:

>Jeff--
>
>The only column headers that show are the ones I choose to have show and I
>can change that in any view the way I said or I can make them go away
>completely by right clicking that folder icon or other icon on the lower
>left. John Barnes pointed out how you can get a size assessment but I am
>talking columns that show or don't show according to what I select in the
>heading "MORE" as I said.

This is getting a bit convoluted!

The standard behaviour for a ListView is that columns are only shown in
details view. Have a look at Explorer in XP, you shouldn't see any column
headers in any other view except details whatever column choices you have
made. They don't make sense since the data in the ListView is not lined up
with the columns. If I switch to an icon view in Vista the headers are
still there and one icon is in a column called 'Name' and the next icon is
in a column called 'Date Modified' and so on, it doesn't make any sense at
all. Just switch between views and look at it :-)

I reckon an MS programmer has missed that completely and nobody has picked
it up.

--
Jeff Gaines

Jeff--

My intent of course was not to muddy waters. It basically was to focus
attention on the one way I know to get the ability to list from among about
130 or more listings for what you call columns.

That's why I included the screenshot to focus on that lower left icon's
right click and that I can choose List View and have no columns or whichever
I want when I want bu invoking that list of checkboxes via the right click
of that lower left icon> clicking the heading MORE.

I will look at XP when I boot to it. I'm on Vista now. I may be able to
open explorer on XP from my Vista desktop, and if I can I will.

Meanwhile if I were you, and you think a developer has overloooked something
I'd try to contact the Shell Team and you can do this via their blog and
they can surely get your comments to the right people and hopefully get you
some feedback.

Again, in Vista I can choose List or any other category and completely
control columns, eliminate them, or do whatever I want.

I can do the same in XP and I use Show in Groups as well. I can list
columns in any view or not, but the checkbox categories are about 25% of the
variety and number in Vista.

On 27/11/2006 in message <#$WlHegEHHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> Chad
Harris wrote:

>Meanwhile if I were you, and you think a developer has overloooked
>something I'd try to contact the Shell Team and you can do this via their
>blog and they can surely get your comments to the right people and
>hopefully get you some feedback.

I asked in one of the DotNet Groups if this change of behaviour was
something developers should follow and got the following reply:

******************
Hi Jeff,

Yes, you're right. It is a change of behavior in Windows Explorer in Vista.
No matter what kind of view we select for the Windows Explorer, the column
headers are always displayed.

I think one of benefits of this feature is to enable us to sort the
listview in Windows Explorer by clicking the column headers.

Maybe this is a feature that we will follow. But I am not very sure about
it.

******************

And it's right, now that the column headers show all the time you can sort
the folder contents in any view - very neat!

--
Jeff Gaines

[maclord]

Tired of seeking work-arounds, patches, hacks and mods to everything Microsoft forgot copying from Apple, I connected a Mac to Windows network, set up necessary permissions, and viewed my Windows folders/files from the Mac OS X "Finder" easily in a list view showing every necessary single detail including folder sizes! either grouped or combined sorted by just size. Another way to easily figure out which folders are taking up the top space and in comparison to each other - so I knew what to delete or move with with priority.

BTW, Folder size does not seem to work on Vista.

[jairama]

Here is my 2 cents:

if you have ever wanted to know the folder size of a folder in windows, you would right-click - properties and then get the size. If you do this for a large folder it will take some time to assess the size of the folder, sometimes up to a minute if it is many gigabytes.

I've used foldersize.exe with xp and has served me well, however, you will get much hd thrashing when using explorer when foldersize is enabled.

i suspect the shell team opted NOT to inlcude this feature for the very fact that it is quite hd resource intensive to add up all the files in every folder when browsing through explorer.

I browsed the answers on this topic here, and was surprised at how knowledgeable the replies were, yet did not answer the question, or appeared to have misunderstood the OP request!