• January 27, 2022, 02:48:59 PM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

This Forum Beta is ONLY for registered owners of D-Link products in the USA for which we have created boards at this time.

Author Topic: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close  (Read 8970 times)

WarkyB

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« on: June 07, 2009, 11:16:09 PM »

Would it be possible to add two options to the Shareport software?

1. Allow the user to force ownership of an attached hard drive instead of having to request it, possibly sending notification to the other user that ownership will change in, say, 30 seconds. I've recently set up Shareport and seem to have to run up and downstairs frequently. This option would eliminate that need.

2. Allow the "X" button to minimize Shareport instead of actually closing it.
Logged

EddieZ

  • Level 10 Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #1 on: June 08, 2009, 02:46:46 AM »

Just my 2 cents, but forced ownership can create havoc on systems when the disk is actively in use, let's say when performing backup's of file transfers. Just imagine your kids disconnecting you and there's nothing you can about it....  ;).
There is an option that's called: notify the other user.

The Shareport printer features a "connect in case of a print job" (and disconnect again), so that's sorted.
Logged
DIR-655 H/W: A2 FW: 1.33

WarkyB

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2009, 09:16:11 AM »

I completely agree with the potential for havoc if ownership of the hard drive was forced, but I don't believe this would be an issue in my house as I run both the systems and control when backups are done. For people who could benefit from this option, having this feature under Advanced or Administrator Settings along with notification of the impending ownership change would help minimize the impact.
Logged

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2009, 03:44:23 PM »

Is it possible to detect when a write operation is in progress? If so, the program could automatically overide any disconnect request. Once the operation was complete a warning could be issued that the drive will be disconnected in X amount of seconds with the option to manually override it. Is that pie-in-the-sky? I too would like to be able to disconnect a computer remotely or even connect another computer remotely (as soon as this thing becomes viable - for me at least). While I'm making pie, how about the ability to monitor what is hapening on the computer that is presently connected? For instance, the computer named Fred is currently printing or performing a read/write operation. Since Eddie brought the possiblity of children into the mix, you'd be able to tell what they were up to. Right now, I'd just like for it to stay connected indefinitely and be able to write without delayed write errors.
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

EddieZ

  • Level 10 Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2494
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2009, 04:42:28 PM »

Everything is possible. So every option you bring on: it can be done. IT's has almost no limits. You can even let it play an MP3 intermezzo while waiting to connect. Or play a short movie.

The actual question is how many extra things do you need to introduce to enable just one feature? And are they prepared to make a 60 MB installation package (coding lines costs money...) to faciltitate such wishes.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 05:04:45 PM by EddieZ »
Logged
DIR-655 H/W: A2 FW: 1.33

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2009, 07:34:57 PM »

Good ideas, Eddie. I hope D-Link adds them too.
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

Demonized

  • Level 4 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2009, 04:19:11 PM »

Good ideas, Eddie. I hope D-Link adds them too.

Yep. But is't not Dlink who makes the stuff. They use the off-the-shelves Silex driver and connect program. And requesting Silex to make an extended version for them alone...well, that's gonna cost them big time. So I wouldn't count on it.
Logged

hey_tommy

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #7 on: June 13, 2009, 11:05:53 PM »

DEFINITELY minimize on close - it is pretty standard behavior for apps that load on startup and reside in the system tray.

Think about the overall user experience scenario, and the intended outcome of a user action - in this case, when the user hits the X, they really just want to close the window, NOT terminate SharePort functionality.

This is especially an issue for those who enabled auto-connect on print - they will expect the printing to "just work", but for the first while, they will definitely be exiting SharePort and wondering why their documents are not printing. And most will not be savvy enough to figure out why.


Logged

Demonized

  • Level 4 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2009, 03:43:38 AM »

DEFINITELY minimize on close - it is pretty standard behavior for apps that load on startup and reside in the system tray.

Think about the overall user experience scenario, and the intended outcome of a user action - in this case, when the user hits the X, they really just want to close the window, NOT terminate SharePort functionality.

This is especially an issue for those who enabled auto-connect on print - they will expect the printing to "just work", but for the first while, they will definitely be exiting SharePort and wondering why their documents are not printing. And most will not be savvy enough to figure out why.

I disagree with that, since the principle of Windows 'X' has been the same for decades: close the application. So shifting the 'x'-function may at most' be an option in the Shareport settings (to change the behaviour conciously), not a standard action. Otherwise you're tampering with the basic priciples of Windows which only riddle the avarage user more.
Logged

Clancy

  • Level 3 Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
  • I am not a number. I am a free man!
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2009, 03:07:43 PM »

I have several applications that utilize that function. They are, of course, the ones you still want running in background. Live Mail Desktop, Verizon Media Manager, Carbonite, McAfee Security Center. There are probably many more. It is a feature I like and have become accustomed to. I have to consciously remember not to press X if I want to minimize Connect. If it never happens in Connect, I won't lose any sleep.
Logged
Thread derailment: So easy a caveman can do it.

hey_tommy

  • Level 1 Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2009, 08:09:16 PM »

I disagree with that, since the principle of Windows 'X' has been the same for decades: close the application. So shifting the 'x'-function may at most' be an option in the Shareport settings (to change the behaviour conciously), not a standard action. Otherwise you're tampering with the basic priciples of Windows which only riddle the avarage user more.

You're right - X does close the application - and although architecturally, SharePort.exe is an application, functionally, it is more like a control panel applet.

Think of it this way: when you open the sound mixer or your anti-virus controls from their icon in the notification area (aka system tray) and click X to close, you don't expect your sound to stop working or your anti-virus to shut down - nor do you expect to no longer receive notifications from that program or the icon to disappear from the notification area. You intuitively understand that you're just closing down the control interface, not terminating the functionality (or the ability to receive future notificaitons). Windows Live Messenger is a great example of an application that by design does not terminate when you hit X - and trust me, Microsoft invests a GREAT DEAL into user experience research.

Because SharePort must run as a persistent process for the functionality to be available, the X should absolutely NOT shut down the process.

You have to remember - usability is paramount. Just because you and I, who are probably more avid computer users, find it strange that hitting X does not shutdown the application (trust me, it took me a bit to get used to it with Messenger, back when I didn't use Messenger and just wanted the damn system tray icon to go away when I clicked the X), doesn't translate to the experience of the average joe computer user.

They may want the Messenger window to go away from their screen (or the SharePort interface), but they do not want to stop receiving messages from their family (or to not be able to print automatically to their SharePort-connected printer).
« Last Edit: June 14, 2009, 08:12:21 PM by hey_tommy »
Logged

Demonized

  • Level 4 Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 421
Re: Feature Request: Forced Ownership and Minimize on Close
« Reply #11 on: June 15, 2009, 02:37:26 AM »

I agree that X does not need to stop the application. There are quite a lot of apps that offer a choice in their config. I would opt for that, once the choice is consciously made this will indicate that that user is used to using the X as a minimizing key. Otherwise my experience with users is to keep it as simple as possible and stick to the design of Windows.
Logged