I’m not sure if this is really the right place to ask, but it’s close enough so I’ll ask anyway - why are there no apparent file explorers that allow simultaneous “multi depth” viewing? For example, if Folder A contains only Subfolders B and C which are both empty, why are there no explorers that show eg 2 boxes called ‘B’ and ‘C’ inside A’s icon/view? If a directly has dozens of empty folders, and 2 subfolders have 1 file each, and another subfolder has 20 files and takes 99% of space, why is there no intuitive way to quickly find the large folder?
The closest is probably how windows shows previews on desktop but that is only one level deep, if there are empty subfolders it doesn’t help.
Id imagine someone at Plan9 or WebOS or BeOS or some archaic software/OS developer had surely thought of this and made something. Yet all “top” windows file explorers are completely “flat” and don’t show any depth.
It's not a file explorer so not exactly what you're looking for, but WizTree is good for finding out which folder contains the large files. It's like WinDirStat but much faster.
Thanks, I’m familiar with WizTree but to the best of knowledge it’s meant more to find what’s taking space, rather than navigating between folders. I’m not sure how practical it would be as a replacement of file explorer, for example I think it defaults to mapping out the whole drive (rather than a specific folder). But thanks anyway for the suggestion!
if you start from File Explorer Navigation Pane and used the default WizTree install then every folder (in File Explorer) should have a right click context menu item that launches Wiztree for just the folder subtree.
if you start from command.com or Powershell then you can pass a subdirectory path as an argument (with a switchy? I don't recall ATM) or make a shortcut comman to launch WizTree for a subfolder.
I still use and can recommend Sequoia (or SequoiaView?) program from early 2000s to map all directories by size. VERY useful to know what to clean.
As for exlorer... The only drawback to your request is, obviously, the need for recursive FS scan, which is expensive. That is why it is not in-built in default file explorer functionality. But XnView, for example, optionally shows brief content of directories (e.g. 4 mini-thumbs over a directory icon).
Sounds interesting, I use to use a tool that showed a drives or folders content by file size. Larger files being larger boxes.
It definitely seems useful to have a view where folders are simply boxes with ---names--- in their top border. A folder could also be a simple outline with its name in front of the file names.
There is no software, I just make a drawing to see what I'm thinking. Ideas fail surprisingly often in the process. For example, here the boxes somewhat conflict with lining up the text and the line spacing. Some background color (rather than outlines) could better visualize the nesting and use less space. I think a folder that contains only one file should look almost exactly like the file was in the parent folder.
If the folder name is long it should probably fail back on the normal tree view rather than putting it in front of the files in the box. But then you get a mix of solutions which is undesirable.
I'm afraid people are to used to the traditional tree view. It is a surprisingly good solution now that I've bothered to think about it.
Folders should probably just have a value in the size column and the screens are large enough to have a column for the number of files. (the pilot does F:21 S:123) Empty folder and file font colors can be slightly translucent.
Directory Opus can also calculate & display the sizes of folders including all child content. (The calculation is nearly instant if Everything integration is enabled.)
The closest is probably how windows shows previews on desktop but that is only one level deep, if there are empty subfolders it doesn’t help.
Id imagine someone at Plan9 or WebOS or BeOS or some archaic software/OS developer had surely thought of this and made something. Yet all “top” windows file explorers are completely “flat” and don’t show any depth.