RE: Has performance been forgotten?

[Bahram Alinezhad <alineziad yahoo com>]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Bahram Alinezhad" (alineziad yahoo com)
wrote:
----------

[...]
You didn't notice that even "file-roller" was not as
fast as expected (e.g. compared to WinRAR); Isn't it
due to its dynamic resize of extraction menu (loading
the cpu for doing so)? Additionally, why "file-roller"
doesn't show a progress bar instead of a swapping bar?
A swapping bar may be attractive, but a progress bar
may be necessary, especially for long archives.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Petri Kanerva" (petri kanerva surfeu fi)
wrote:
----------

Because file-roller is just a frontend for commandline
archivers, and all of those don't report the progress
in any way in the middle of operation. THings being
like this, it is impossible to show a progressbar, as
we don't know when the operation finishes, untill it's
finished.
And one point about file-roller, it does a filesystem
view, with folders and subfolders, of the archive, as
opposed WinRAR which only lists the files all at once.
This takes some processing, and if one more sec is the
price to pay for the file-rollers way, I'll pay it
gladly.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

No, no!
WinRAR shows and of-course, extracts all paths (folder
structure) inside all archives; Didn't you ever use it
or I don't understand you exactly?
Furthermore, if "Eugene Roshal" can make such an
effective software that is not based on a command
back-end, you (Gnome project) are able to do better,
aren't you?

Best regards,
Bahram Alinezhad,
Tehran, Iran.



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com