File Sizes in MB or KB
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 9 Dec 2011
Can FreeFileSync show file sizes in MB's or KB's?
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Column "size" always shows in unit "byte, but a compressed representation
(Explorer-like) can be seen in the tooltip dialog.
[404, Invalid URL: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3419878&group_id=234430&atid=1093083]
(Explorer-like) can be seen in the tooltip dialog.
[404, Invalid URL: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3419878&group_id=234430&atid=1093083]
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 9 Dec 2011
I think the compressed representation is more useful than the long
representation in the list view. If the Size column is not wide enough, the
left digits are hidden so you can't see the difference between 3,123,000,000
and 123,000,000 because the 3, is hidden. I think its much nicer to see Size
(KB) as the heading and 3,123,000 and 123,000 as the values. The lack of
precision won't hurt in most cases because everyone has many more files larger
than 1K and very few files smaller than 1K. All good file managers and file
sync programs show file sizes in KB or MB by default or optionally. Frankly, I
am surprised a program as good as FreeFileSync doesn't already allow me to
choose the precision (B, KB, MB, or GB).
representation in the list view. If the Size column is not wide enough, the
left digits are hidden so you can't see the difference between 3,123,000,000
and 123,000,000 because the 3, is hidden. I think its much nicer to see Size
(KB) as the heading and 3,123,000 and 123,000 as the values. The lack of
precision won't hurt in most cases because everyone has many more files larger
than 1K and very few files smaller than 1K. All good file managers and file
sync programs show file sizes in KB or MB by default or optionally. Frankly, I
am surprised a program as good as FreeFileSync doesn't already allow me to
choose the precision (B, KB, MB, or GB).
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
In general there are three ways to present file sizes:
1. full precision, unit "bytes",
2, reduced precision, unit "KB",
3, reduced precision, three significant digits, variable unit.
2 is used in Windows Explorer's list view, 1 and 3 in Explorers properties
dialog.
On important property the format should have is to grow in width with
increasing file sizes. This leaves options 1 and 2. Between these two there's
no clear winner: 2 may be more familiar to users working with Explorer, while
1 gives more useful details for small files, or if left and right file differ
by only a few bytes, which is a special requirement for sync software, not
required for file file managers. So 1 seems to be a slightly better fit.
Regarding width, they're similar. Here are samples of options 1, 2, 3
123.456.789.000
120.563.270 KB
115 GB
123.456.789
120.563 KB
117 MB
123.456
120 KB
120 KB
123
1 KB
123 Bytes
1. full precision, unit "bytes",
2, reduced precision, unit "KB",
3, reduced precision, three significant digits, variable unit.
2 is used in Windows Explorer's list view, 1 and 3 in Explorers properties
dialog.
On important property the format should have is to grow in width with
increasing file sizes. This leaves options 1 and 2. Between these two there's
no clear winner: 2 may be more familiar to users working with Explorer, while
1 gives more useful details for small files, or if left and right file differ
by only a few bytes, which is a special requirement for sync software, not
required for file file managers. So 1 seems to be a slightly better fit.
Regarding width, they're similar. Here are samples of options 1, 2, 3
123.456.789.000
120.563.270 KB
115 GB
123.456.789
120.563 KB
117 MB
123.456
120 KB
120 KB
123
1 KB
123 Bytes
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
> If the Size column is not wide enough, the left digits are hidden so you
can't see the difference between
I've fixed this by using 80 pixel default width, this avoids truncation up to
100GB file sizes.
can't see the difference between
I've fixed this by using 80 pixel default width, this avoids truncation up to
100GB file sizes.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 9 Dec 2011
The scale label does not need to be repeated in every row. The best place for
it is in the header. That would save space and make the column narrower and
the display more elegant.
123.456.789.000
Size (KB)
120.563.270
Size (MB)
117.738
Size (GB)
115
123.456.789
Size (KB)
120.563
Size (MB)
117
123.456
Size (KB)
120
123
Size (KB)
1
I agree that the different formats would be useful in different situations.
That's why I suggest an option to allow users to change the scale based on
their particular task and needs.
Making the column wider wastes space and is not ideal. Allowing the user to
set the scale would be preferred. I consulted with several user interface
analysts and they agree it's the right thing to do. Of course this is your
application and you're still free to add, or not add, anything you want.
it is in the header. That would save space and make the column narrower and
the display more elegant.
123.456.789.000
Size (KB)
120.563.270
Size (MB)
117.738
Size (GB)
115
123.456.789
Size (KB)
120.563
Size (MB)
117
123.456
Size (KB)
120
123
Size (KB)
1
I agree that the different formats would be useful in different situations.
That's why I suggest an option to allow users to change the scale based on
their particular task and needs.
Making the column wider wastes space and is not ideal. Allowing the user to
set the scale would be preferred. I consulted with several user interface
analysts and they agree it's the right thing to do. Of course this is your
application and you're still free to add, or not add, anything you want.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 7062
- Joined: 9 Dec 2007
Although showing the unit in the header only and leaving it in every row saves
quite some space it probably will confuse a lot of users. When seeing a
filesize without a unit one automatically thinks it's in byte. Maybe after a
few seconds you'll see the header description, but still you're wondering
about an unconventional design. The designers of Explorer were facing the same
problem and decided to repeat unit "KB" in every row. So being conservative
rather than tricky seems to be a good idea in this case.
Now with this constraint set, there is very little incent for an explicit GUI
option to distinguish unit "byte" from "KB". Vertical space is almost the same
and the reduced precision for "KB" alone probably isn't enough to justify a
distinct setting.
quite some space it probably will confuse a lot of users. When seeing a
filesize without a unit one automatically thinks it's in byte. Maybe after a
few seconds you'll see the header description, but still you're wondering
about an unconventional design. The designers of Explorer were facing the same
problem and decided to repeat unit "KB" in every row. So being conservative
rather than tricky seems to be a good idea in this case.
Now with this constraint set, there is very little incent for an explicit GUI
option to distinguish unit "byte" from "KB". Vertical space is almost the same
and the reduced precision for "KB" alone probably isn't enough to justify a
distinct setting.
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 9 Dec 2011
If the default remains full precision, there will be no confusion if KB and MB
are added as options because the only people affected are those that prefer
the better display and have deliberately changed the scale. But even if the
label is displayed on each row, I think it's still and improvement over the
long form.
are added as options because the only people affected are those that prefer
the better display and have deliberately changed the scale. But even if the
label is displayed on each row, I think it's still and improvement over the
long form.
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 4 Aug 2019
Showing file sizes in MB or KB is definitely an improvement over bytes.
- Posts: 15
- Joined: 6 Jun 2023
Thank you for "3 FreeFileSync" very good software.
Feature request: Display file size in kb or Auto (kb, mb, gb)
Feature request: Display file size in kb or Auto (kb, mb, gb)
