Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!lazarus
From: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Why can't the Finder show folder sizes?
Message-ID: <5911@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Date: 26 Jun 88 05:23:00 GMT
References: <5173@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> <22068@think.UUCP> <280@intelisc.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: lazarus@athena.mit.edu (Michael Friedman)
Organization: Murder Inc.
Lines: 25

In article <280@intelisc.UUCP} rudolph@intelisc.UUCP (David Rudolph) writes:
}In article <22068@think.UUCP} barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes:

}}In order for the Finder to tell you the total size of a folder, it
}}must add up the sizes of all the folders contained within that folder,
}}which requires it to add up the sizes of all the folders contained
}}within that, etc.  
}}...

}How about at least providing an option (maybe set in the control panel??)
}to show folder sizes if desired.  Since I tend to use shallow tree depths
}(not many subsubsub...folders), I don't think it would be very time
}consuming in my case.  It would also be useful on floppies, where it
}couldn't take too much time.

To the best of my recollection, the data type for folders has a lot of
free space in it. A long word in it could contain the size of the
folder. Any time anything was changed you move back up the tree
changing totals. Most people don't use more than 5 or 6 levels for
their commonly accessed files so this wouldn't take too long.



As long as the American Dream is for Americans only |||Mike Friedman
it will remain our dream but not our destiny.       |||quoting somebody.