What next? Vote please: x64 version or UAC support

[zarevak]

I voted for 64-bit because of the already mentioned reason that missing 64-bit version is limation, but missing UAC support is just a nuisance.

There are three reasons for programs to implement 64-bit:
1) More memory available
2) Compatibility with other 64-bit programs
3) No virtualization on 64-bit OS

While many programs are ported to 64-bit version because of the first point - they need more memory available - Salamander is special as it needs the 64-bit version because of the later two points
- compatibility with 64-bit shell extensions
- no virtualization on 64-bit OS, because with virtualization 32-bit Salamander cannot present real file and registry data

[Jan Rysavy]

Note: With "virtualization" Zarevak means File system and Registry redirection, not Folder Virtualization.

[neonjoe]

x64 please.

[Andre.Ziegler]

I want UAC support. Put all the file operations in COM objects and use the moniker technique to deal with UAC. This is the greatest issue/request I have.

[Jan Rysavy]

Note: Following UAC discussion: http://forum.altap.cz/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3866

[DJ_ZX]

hm...
do you plan to release x64 or UAC support prior to full unicode support in panels?
now when using Salamander on OS with fully English lang/locale settings - cyrillic symbols replaced with "?" and not possible to perform any operation with them.
Are both x64 and UAC really more important?

[lyngsnes]

Full unicode support is more important than x64 and UAC support!

[Jan Rysavy]

We do plan to support x64 and UAC before Unicode because of Unicode support complexity. Please post all messages about Unicode into another thread(s) because it has nothing to do with this one. Thank you.

[mousemates]

I vote for x64 support. I need it for compatibility with TortoiseSVN.

[Ether]

I vote for x64 support. I need it for compatibility with TortoiseSVN.

Note that you can install both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of TortoiseSVN on your system to have it available in all programs.

[Eric]

IMO, Unicode support is much more wanted than both x64 and UAC features. Implementing x64 support is waste of time when the application is just unable to work with international characters in folder and file names.

Same for me, even if this topic doesn't belong in this thread.

1. Unicode
100. UAC
101. x64

After Unicode, UAC is more important, more disturbing.
AS in a x64 environment works just fine, most of time 32bit and 64 bit shell extensions are available.

[omega]

No use to talk about the first priority should be Unicode. It has been decided x64 and UAC have to be implemented first before Unicode. I understand the complexity to implement Unicode correctly. Hopefully it will become first priority after x64 and UAC.

[Eric]

I prefer to express my opinion, perhaps it will show some effects, some reconsideration

[omega]

I doubt it will have any effect, request was made long time ago and i've been waiting for 5 years already. So lets pray they will start working on it after these 2 implementations.

[Eric]

Same for me. I'm also praying since years.
And this year seems to be a good year, betas and a release during the same year.

But AS is such a great and nice tool, so I stick with it.
It's like a very good, expensive wine, which is getting better each year.