One place Stardock sees things moving in the future, especially as Longhorn nears and Windows XP becomes more widespread, is the concept of Micro-Shells, says Brad Wardell of Stardock. In the old days, programs tried to replace the entire shell (explorer). Micro-Shells instead extend pieces of the shell. Stardock is particularly interested in extending in the future is the folder views.
Micro-Shells: The Next-Gen in Windows Explorer Customization?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Linux already does this with KDE and Konqueror. Also the Opera browser is similar. This is not an original idea but offering a standard used across several platforms is a good thing. Good not only for newbies but also businesses looking to cut training cost when upgrading, adding cross networks or changing platforms.
Nautilus also allows this, and especially since 2.6 the customization options have really shot up. (Such as custom emblems on files based on thier CVS status)
yeah, but the author doesn’t talk about personal customization only, he also speaks of “saving” the customization scheme and sharing it with others as a theme, something that neither Konqueror or Nautilus can do.
Plus, the only such *third party* addon I have ever seen for Nautilus is Totem’s movie view which allows movie still thumbnails inside a nautilus window. So I can’t say that this ability of nautilus is really widespread among linux devs
Shell replacements for older windows versions work a lot better than extending existing capabilities of explorer. I know LiteStep for Windows NT 4.0 (and I accordingly presume for any windows version <= 98) adds a few neat features to “Windows Explorer” such as an address bar to type folder names in. DesktopX is a resource hog IMHO, better use LiteStep or Aston.
I was fiddeling with the idea of different folder views for the BeOS Tracker back in 2001 when I was thinking about making it modular. Well, I never did. But one thought keept coming back to me “Is this bloat and should a seperate app be a better choice?”
Adding too much functionality into the filebrowser isn’t such a good idea, but basic representation of files is a good idea. But including text editors, image viewers and web browsers like Konqueror does (and Explorer to some extent) is way too much.
One problem with these addons is that they will bring down the entire file-browser if they crash, so unstable addons will make the DE seem unstable to the general user, and sometimes it might be hard for them to track the faulty addon. Another problem is that it can be kind of confusing when your file-browser suddenly becomes a full fledged text editor when you where right in the middle of managing your documents. Perhaps people will get used to it, but I honestly think they won’t as long as they are able to launch the texteditor outside of the file-manager.
It’s easy to get over excited with the idea of putting everything into the file browser but you constantly have to consider if it’s really worth it or if it even makes sense.
But including text editors, image viewers and web browsers like Konqueror does (and Explorer to some extent) is way too much.
For you. For others, integration is a wonderful shortcut to using the computer.
For you. For others, integration is a wonderful shortcut to using the computer.
Integration doesn’t always mean that you have to cram everything into one place. Integration can be seperate applications that works well together. That’s the whole point of the K apps in the KDE, integration.
Fact is that I’ve never seen a newbie enter an URL in the Windows explorer, they always open IE when they want to surf the web.
What is this wonderful shortcut? It’s rather consfusing IMO, especially the way Konqueror does it, because the text editor addon leaves you without any toolbar or menues, so the user opens up the file and edits it, then wants to save. But where’s the file-menu?
The apps of today aren’t made to fit within one general interface. If you don’t agree with that then let’s hear some real arguments.
> yeah, but the author doesn’t talk about personal customization only, he also speaks of “saving” the customization scheme and sharing it with others as a theme, something that neither Konqueror or Nautilus can do.
I’ve seen people do this with Konqueror for ages.. posted on kde-look. However, it’s relatively non-trivial to actually install stuff. Usually requires opening a terminal.
Perhaps one way to make it easier would be to combine it with KDE 3.2’s new knewstuff architecture ( http://mindx.josefspillner.de/kde/hotstuff/ ), which is only currently used to kdeedu and kdepim
You’re falling foul of thinking that your opinions are what everyone wants. When you preview something in an embedded Konqueror component it inherits the menu functions as well, preview and text file and check the menu and then you’ll see your save as function.
KDE is also modular. If you don’t like something, just remove it. Konqueror doesn’t have to come with all of those addons.
As for your ‘apps of today’ comment, again, one shoe does not fit all. You criticise things which I consider to help me. Don’t be so narrow minded.
Thats why i personally love Nautilus for the integration.
yeah its not the most featureful when it coems to file management.
but the integration with other apps is slick. Image viewer, and my personal fav: gpdf integration
all the views simply add a nice toolbar relevant to the viewer and thats it.
its pretty nice.
i personally have no experience with kde/konq.
You’re falling foul of thinking that your opinions are what everyone wants.
Do you seriously think that it’s what I believe? Why do you think that I spend so much time studying how my friends and relatives interact with their computers? It’s not because I want to prove that my opinions but because I want to get some idea of how people in general use their computer. And that’s mostly what I later base my opinions on. Sure, the people around me doesn’t really represent the whole world but they are a mixed set of people and they give me a vauge idea.
Something that they all have incommon is that they prefer seperate apps for everything, from web browsing to word processing to image editing.
While MacGyver might create anything with his swiss army knife and a chewing gum, most people prefer to work with a complete toolbox.
I don’t think that it’s anything wrong that the functionality is there, but I question the defaults. Because people in general tend to stick to the defaults, they don’t have a clue how to change these things and will easily get lost in all of those settings KDE provides.
The “It’s modular, you can easily change it” argument is just as bad as “It’s open source, you can easily fix/add it!”. The default settings is an important thing and I believe that including every app and its mother into the filebrowser by default is a bad thing.
If you like to use it, then fine, KDE is modular and you can easily add it.
I may be many thing but I’m NOT narrow minded. I’m usually too open minded for my own good.
I’m sorry for not realising you spend so much time studying how other people use their computers, that’s my pesky mind reading not working as it should again!
Well anyway, you can now add to your diverse views that actually not everyone has in common the wish for seperate apps for everything. If i’m in a file manager and I want to preview something then waiting for the extra bloat of loading the additional resources needed for displaying another app, when I could just load the viewing component in my existing window, doesn’t seem so great.
Your MacGyver comment is based on assumptions and as such I will treat it with the contempt it deserves.
The likening of “It’s modular, you can easily change it” to “It’s open source, you can easily fix/add it!” is ridiculous. Changing some settings is as bad as learning how to program, getting the source to my chosen program, editing it correctly and recompiling it? No, I didn’t think so.
Why customize explorer when you can have DirectoryOpus ?
Whatever you do with explorer you won’t reach the configurability, power,… of DirectoryOpus !
http://www.gpsoft.com.au
Leo.
If i’m in a file manager and I want to preview something then waiting for the extra bloat of loading the additional resources needed for displaying another app, when I could just load the viewing component in my existing window, doesn’t seem so great.
Ah, here it is. People who like those all-in-one apps, generally do because of basic flaws of the underlying system. Bad window-management, fucked up multitasking, no interapplication communication, or in this case long application lauch times..
No interapplication communication? We aren’t talking about monolithic apps here, we’re talking about modular apps. Try and read the discussion before commenting.
No interapplication communication? We aren’t talking about monolithic apps here, we’re talking about modular apps. Try and read the discussion before commenting.
Maybe you should read my comment again. Slowly..
Fact is that I’ve never seen a newbie enter an URL in the Windows explorer, they always open IE when they want to surf the web.
Uh, did it ever occur to you that URL bar works just as well for typing in *other* things, like directory paths (C:Windowsetc..) and computer names (\SERVERshare) to make navigation faster ?
Ah, here it is. People who like those all-in-one apps, generally do because of basic flaws of the underlying system. Bad window-management, fucked up multitasking, no interapplication communication, or in this case long application lauch times..
Windows 3.1 and MacOS 7.1 were a *long* time ago…