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.