Update OS 1.5 File Uitil COPY/MOVE

If MOVE was renamed COPY AND DELETE ORIGINAL, would everyone be happy?

Of course not! There is never that much happiness around here. But I know something that would make everyone happy… Another delicious File Utility cake!



On second thought, someone will just complain that it makes people FAT.

Luv u

but he's still wrong

and I'm sure that pic will please lots of people.. well done

I put another one, let's see if the super secret tip of the day about such insightful forum threads will be revealed to the protagonists.

Luv u

Thank you, Flumpster, for your kind words.

I don't think that The Audacity Works intended to present a Monty Python sketch. If he did, he would have given us the "Kilimanjaro Expedition." This thread reminds me of that sketch. (Wikipedia YouTube)

What I don't get is how you turn every post into a monty python sketch.

Aww... That's no fun Well, at least those guys weren't all that funny—You weren't missing any humor, that's for sure.

I honestly gave up on the second character and skipped to the end.

So you read the part where I asked why no one figured out how the file structure worked when "Save Project As" has duplicated files for over two years? Obviously, the Fantom-G's been duplicating files from the beginning. How big of an issue is it that COPY/MOVE in the file utility does the same thing?

This is like chinese whispers...

We started on how the move function wasn't working as it could effectively.

We then went thru how the X did things in great detail ( which in all honestly I couldn't care less.. This post was never anything to do with the X)

We then went thru the conspiracy theory, and let me state now that I don't speak to any other clan members except what I post here. Keep your dirty laundry to yourself please and keep me out of it.

We are now on a completely different topic which I undertand fits in with your conspiracy theory about myself but same answer as above.

Again.. If you want to ask me or debate something on the topic I'm happy to do so.

Flumpster
I don't think we're into a conspiracy theory here. To be true, I believe this is due to how Quinnx puts his thoughts. Otherwise, what's the interest in finding that the MOVE function is not done the "standard" way? Will this help any of us? Don't think so.
Worst, his statement is false. He said :

MOVE: <--Not Working

He does. We all can proove it as the end result is : "same file in a different place". Isn't that what we want when we use the MOVE function?

And then he's the one who keeps comparing the X with the G:

The X also has COPY and MOVE and as i explained....

So you can't call a conspiracy theory to fight Quinnx in his own land. He started the arguments.

Personally, I find this thread very informative and I have learn a few things from both you and TAW.

"Will this help any of us? Don't think so"

I would help if everyone recognized it as a mistake and understood why its bad and if roland is serious in giving us a file utility that it works correctly, in which case if people here could also recognize what has been discovered as some that if fixed would give the composer back the wasted time he/she has to wait while move takes a million times longer than it should to complete its task.

Now unfortunately some people do NOT comprehend how digital media works when it come to file structures and the reading and writing of.
these same people make rediculous arguments as to why move is the way it is now on the G because they dont understand it.
I have seen very good explanations given regarding how move should work and they still dont get it.

In the end it would be more productive if they admitted its beyond them and except what other who do understand it say as fact and then contact roland and persuade them to implement it correctly instead of arguing something they dont understand and making up silly theorys why its done this way on the G.

would give the composer back the wasted time he/she has to wait while move takes a million times longer than it should to complete its task.

I must agree with that statement but you talk as if we spend most of our time moving files on G. We don't. Still the only good argument is "time" but you started it all with a false statement.

these same people make meticulous arguments as to why move is the way it is now on the G because they dont understand it

Well, I didn't argue. As I said, I'm not a programmer. I may not know "how to" do it but I do understand what it does. So all I can do is speculate. As for TAW, his experience is as valid as yours.

Just read this thread back today... awesome

Onto some serious questions now that I'm sober. My background is in programming, I started 25 years ago. It appears that quinnx is also..

What is your programming background TAW? Your arguments are all wrong concerning file structures and as quinnx just stated you are speaking about it as if you don't even comprehend how it works.

I'm not asking for a wiki definition or a full synopsis just a basic background of your knowledge so I know what I'm dealing with.

Flumpster
With all due respect and at the risk of getting too intervenient here I'd ask you not to go that way. I don't want to defende TAW (I'm sure he will do it on is own way) but if this shifts to a " I know more than you because" this thread will end badly. I'm enjoying the more or less technical discussion here so please keep that way

Hi Guys!

Welcome back TAW - havent heard from you for a while my friend ! Havent been frequenting these parts for a while either - been slaving away on a project - yes - I still code for a living - while other people my age have gone on to bigger and better things like management . What can I say - still like working with my hands/fingers.

Anyway - end rant - begin objective discussion:

I kinda agree with Quinnx - in that there might be an inefficiency in the 'MOVE' function - yes, under the covers, what it might be doing is moving data around/de-fragmenting, and not simply swapping references/pointers/indices/whatever - I dont care to comment on that since I dont know how it's implemented - and from the discussion - I dont think anyone else has a clear idea either. But to call it 'not working correctly' is taking this a bit too far, dont you think Quinnx? But it's your spade - and I'll let you call it whatever you wish.

Not trying to create excuses for Roland Corp here - but I tend to agree with the TRD explanation that TAW gives - there must have been priorities for each feature, and resources test/development might have been allocated based on those specific priorities. For example - imagine if they decided to re-use the X's file system with minimal tweaks (underlying functionality does not change) - and now someone wants to change the underlying functionality - and there are not enough test resources to test this out . VCO's point about the amount of time in our music creation work-flow moving files around also calls attention to this fact.

Anyway - I have realized from looking at the G's development, marketing-hype and user comments - it was an ambitious undertaking - it has the potential to compete and outperform some of the major workstations out there (heck even a few DAWs) - but am not sure how long it'll take to reach the level that users expect it to be at (I hear people compare it with Pro-tools and Logic with reckless abandon - without even realizing how much infrastructure there needs to be underneath to support a few bells and whistles Logic/Pro-tools provides, scissors/glue/etc/ etc/) - especially with the current implementation - especially since Roland is probably using a proprietary OS/filesystem on it. If the G went open source OS, like linux or some other OS'es out there - then we're talking.

Guys - all this techno-babble apart - I still find my X to be an amazing workstation - and Im still able to make good music with it - Im sure the G is at least a factor of 10 better than the X in terms of workflow sound and live-performance capabilities - dont you? I dont have a G yet - will buy one when my X finally gives out on me - till then - the X does what I need it to - and I can assure you - when I (If I) get the G - I will get it to do what I want to do - and not depend on it - to give me ideas on what to do . Logic is still my DAW of choice - and will be - not expecting the G or the X to do anything Logic does for me.

Peace ...

Manish.

double post sorry ...

Manish