Why no folder size in Win7?

[joema]

Yes, this is an old issue but I wanted to summarize a few points, and open it for further discussion:

(1) Optionally displaying size of all folders has been a top-requested feature for years

(2) Windows 7 Explorer does not have this, although hovering the mouse pointer over the folder will show individual folder size.

(3) The Mac Finder displays folder size, although it's not enabled by default.

(4) In XP, Windows add-on tools like FolderSize and TreeSize Pro would add a column to Windows Explorer showing folder size. Unfortunately the underlying API IColumnProvider was removed starting with Vista, so these tools don't work in either Vista or Win7.

There are various arguments why Explorer can't display folder size, such as it would burden a network drive, it would be too slow, wouldn't handle junctions correctly, etc.

These arguments break down because it has already been done: the feature has already been implemented on both Mac and Windows 3rd party tools. We can see ourselves how well or poorly it works. In general it works pretty well on local drives on contemporary hardware.

Re network drives, it's easy to programmatically discriminate between network and local drives. One solution is only enable folder sizes for local drives. As on the Mac, another solution is don't enable it by default. Many users won't turn it on, so this lessens the impact.

There are more sophisticated future solutions possible to optimize folder size query of a network server. E.g, the server maintains folder size info and reports it to the client, but these aren't needed as a 1st step. The lack of these don't preclude folder size working on local drives today. Proof of this is Mac and 3rd party XP tools work fine on local drives right now.

With this in mind and considering Microsoft spent 6 billion dollars on Vista and several billion more on Win7, why wasn't folder size a basic feature of the Win7 explorer?

 

[logicearth]

With this in mind and considering Microsoft spent 6 billion dollars on Vista and several billion more on Win7, why wasn't folder size a basic feature of the Win7 explorer?

Because a constant need to know folder size, is an edge case. The priority to need to work on it, was nil. But why is there a constant need to know folder size?

 

[Brandrune]

There is no need for it!

 

[Offsprung]

Yes I agree mouseover/properties is good enough. Why complain about adding a new feature when an existing and useful one has been eliminated? On XP show status bar would tell you the free space from any local folder on any local drive. I always found free space at a glace quite useful, but I guess m$ did not.

 

[logicearth]

On XP show status bar would tell you the free space from any local folder on any local drive. I always found free space at a glace quite useful, but I guess m$ did not.

And why do you need that? Is losing HDD space such a constant threat?

You can see why polling for the folder size is a bad idea just by hoving over for the tooltip. I've seen seconds go by before the tooltip is even able to appear. Now if you had that for every time you clicked on a folder...not good.

 

[satchmo]

Truly, I don't miss it.

And like everyone else said, if I really want to know the folder size, I'll just hover my mouse over the folder.

 

[Offsprung]

If you are constantly moving data around and want to see if it fits, yes free space is useful, just start the move and keep fingers crossed it will fit?
So far replacing Windows Explorer with Windows Opener is less than satisfying.
The new mac like tree is a bit odd. Push the triangle (i/o plus sign) and the tree automatically moves to hide the branch you just opened? Why? And they always close up to top level branch in tree, why? Breadcrumbs? Great, still why hide tree branches?
And this auto refresh is very irritating, I miss newly added files being all at bottom waiting for me to rename or whatever instead of hiding in with the hundreds of existing files. And same with a dialog box, new folder before its given its real name sorts to N while you are still naming it and once you do name it it bounces up the list before you have a chance to enter the folder.
Not deal breakers, but quite a nuisance for people who used Explorer as much as I do.

 

[joema]

...I've seen seconds go by before the tooltip is even able to appear. Now if you had that for every time you clicked on a folder...not good.

I don't think that delay is solely due to getting the space data. There's a built-in tooltip delay even for data that's instantly available. E.g, try it on non-running icons in the task bar.

Anybody who has run FolderSize or TreeSize on XP can see it adds little delay under many conditions. On contemporary hardware and a local drive, it's pretty fast.

Nonetheless if performance is the main concern, it could be handled the same way MS handled it for Win7 indexing: advise against indexing an entire drive but allow it if the user prefers.

 

[logicearth]

I don't think that delay is solely due to getting the space data. There's a built-in tooltip delay even for data that's instantly available. E.g, try it on non-running icons in the task bar.

I am well aware of that. However, I have my tooltip delay low and compared to other tooltips that do not get file size information, they are instant. When I hover over a folder I can see my HDD activity light go solid for several seconds before the tooltip actually displays.

Nonetheless if performance is the main concern, it could be handled the same way MS handled it for Win7 indexing: advise against indexing an entire drive but allow it if the user prefers.

Better yet. Use a third-party solution which would be more inclined to keep it updated.

 

[joema]

Better yet. Use a third-party solution which would be more inclined to keep it updated.

If you mean third-party solution for folder size, starting with Vista MS broke third-party tools which add Explorer columns. Rather than deprecate the IColumnProvider interface and provide an equivalent alternative for a transition period, they *removed* the IColumnProvider interface.

The supposed alternative is the Property Handler interface, but that's apparently not usable for folders, just files. The space data can be obtained, but there's no way to write it in an Explorer column.

So if anyone wants to know why third party shell extensions which display folder size don't work anymore, that's why.

The only good news is *standalone* third party folder size utilities still work. However they require running a separate utility.

On my admittedly fast PC, from a non-cached stated, the stand-alone TreeSize utility scans 520GB in 21 seconds -- that's every folder on the hard drive, 16,762 of them. Re-scanning from a cached state takes 3 seconds. Scanning only the subordinate folders lower in the tree is even faster.

Of course a Shell extension utility wouldn't typically scan all folders on a drive. Just scanning one screenful of subordinate folders from lower in the heirarchy is extremely fast. So I don't buy the "too slow" performance argument, at least on local drives. Anyone who doubts this can try the FolderSize or TreeSize Pro shell extensions under XP.

For those who want Vista or Win7 Explorer to display folder size like the above extensions did under XP, this apparently won't be possible -- at least using 3rd party shell extensions. MS can obviously enhance Explorer however they want, but so far have shown no inclination to provide this functionality. Your options are:

(a) Using a combination of Win7 Explorer plus a stand alone space management tool
(b) Dropping Explorer and using a third party file manager which displays folder size

 

[Gornot]

Right click on folder -> Properties...
Sort by-> Size...
Is that so hard to do?

 

[joema]

Right click on folder -> Properties...
Sort by-> Size...
Is that so hard to do?

I don't see how this provides a sorted list of folders by size. Can you be more specific about the steps?

 

[Zilla69]

This is more of an issue for those running win 7 on an ssd. Mines and OCZ Vertex LE 50 gb and with some of the 'new' folders in windows 7 the things get massive.

 

[baldguydesign]

there are a multitude of reasons for wanting folder sizes readily displayed; probably as many as there are people who use a win os and keep requesting it. so to minimize the need based on YOUR use is ignorant and shortsighted (clears throat-logicearth/brandrune-clears throat).

here is one scenario; by chance the one i am in. i recently backed up files from one of my machines to a central archive (i use a mac at work and a pc at home using an external hd for backup) but for file name character length restriction reasons the mac or the pc truncated some file names and the copy process left me with folder after folder of dup files with different slightly names. now i am left with either keeping an untold amount of duplicate but misnamed files or i can do some manual cleaning which is ok with me. while this is a little tedious it was made infinitely easier using the third party 'folder size' which integrated right into explorer and allowed me, at a glance, to see which folders/subfolders were larger and therefore contained the dup files i was looking for. then i installed 7...

anyone want to take a guess at what a pain in the a$$ it is to right click for properties or wait for tooltip delays on hundreds and hundred of folders?

i shouldn't have to jump though hoops or look for third party file management aps to do something so simple as display info. i mean computers are meant to display info after the computation right?

i also find it a bit nefarious that the bottom status bar in vista/7 tells you everything about a folder EXCEPT folder size when MS clearly must know some of us want it. the option should be there unless the point of operating systems is now to limit what we can do. oh, wait...this is an MS product.

 

[rcanino]

At this point I'm willing to pay - somebody sell me a utility program that won't hurt performance and provides a column in Explorer that gives me the damn Folder Size.

Why is the need for this even questioned? It's vital information for many Windows users. Because you don't include yourself in that category is no reason to assume the need doesn't exist, or that your solutions are adequate.

As the previous poster stated, right-clicking hundreds of folders or waiting 1...2...3...seconds for the tooltip to pop up (and sometimes it doesn't) is unacceptable. I'm furious about this omission to an otherwise pretty great Windows 7 Pro experience.

Adding insult to injury, the details pane at the bottom omits such an obvious stat - How Big is this Folder? I'm not one to indulge conspiracy theories but there must be a reason all those MS Win7 developers decided to leave out this particular statistic, as a column or in the details pane.

I hope you guys responding with variations of "oh poo-poo, hardly anyone needs this" never find yourself in the situation many of us are in now, wasting time (which often equals "money") determining the size of our directories.

Please - you coders out there - develop the next "foldersize for Windows" that was such a hit with XP. You can be kind and write in opensource code or if you prefer, charge for your work. If it adds a Folder Size column in Explorer and doesn't impact performance (exactly like "foldersize for Windows") I'm willing, no, I'm anxious to pay - RIGHT NOW!

 

[logicearth]

At this point I'm willing to pay - somebody sell me a utility program that won't hurt performance and provides a column in Explorer that gives me the damn Folder Size.

Without hurting performances will be impossible. Open a folder with a lot of sub folders using such an extension and your computer will take a nose dive, there is no question about it. What you are asking for will in fact take a huge slice of performance and kill it right off. I/O is not cheap and such an extension will suck up I/O like no ones business.

 

[rcanino]

Without hurting performances will be impossible. ...I/O is not cheap and such an extension will suck up I/O like no ones business.

Apparently you never used the freeware I referred to, otherwise you wouldn't have to challenge my experience, you'd have your own and you'd be wiser for it. Did it impact I/O? Of course. My point was it never hurt performance on any of the systems I used.

You want to see "foldersize for Windows" impact on your system? Look in TaskMngr and see the 3 or 4MB of RAM it was using. Or benchmark your system with and without, I'm sure you could measure a difference. Personally I'll trade a few MB/s for the convenience of a FOLDER SIZE column in Explorer.

If you're running XP give it a try; it's still available and it's free. It wasn't perfect but it has a tiny footprint and if you notice it all while it's running...well then you'll be one of the few unlucky ones.
Here's the link:

Folder Size for Windows Explorer