I hope DOpus 10 will regroup all active transfers (copies/moves) into a single window, with the ability to pause/resume/stop individual ones (as previously) and why not a way to change order of paused transfers 
+1
No copy queue means no purchase. And I can speak for at least three double-licenses.
I have waited for several years and this had once been promised for the Opus 9 product cycle.
Jeeze, people are griping already before it's even been released.
Opus 10 will have a copy queue, as promised and confirmed many times.
[quote="leo"]Jeeze, people are griping already before it's even been released. 
Opus 10 will have a copy queue, as promised and confirmed many times.[/quote]
Two minutes. Now that was fast 
And regarding this comment:
I have to disagree. A really good copy queue would allow to intelligently control the degree of parallelism. The primary reason for such a queue ist to speed up the whole copy operation. If you copy from C: to C: which is on the first physical drive and from C: to D: (which is on another physical drive) then the second operation should be queued to avoid disk trashing. But for C:->C: and D:->D: (in this example) or any other combination where no already active physical drive is involved, then the operation should be performed in parallel.
For FTP operations the optimal solution would be Opus measuring the speed of the internet connection and then intelligently start so many operations in parallel that the connection is fully used (perhaps up to configurable maximum). It should only limit the parallelity when the connection is so fast that it exceeds the speed at which the physical drives on the local computer can deliver the data. Obviously the maximum number of connections allowed by the FTP server is another limit.
All of this is by no means trivial and the degree by which utilities like Copy handler implement a queue not even scratches what an intelligent queue would do. There is a lot of measuring the actual speed and caching this information involved. I think that without prior cached information about the infrastructure first starting everything parallel is the best thing to do. Then Opus should measure if the combined speed has suffered by this and then it should intelligently pause (=queue) operations to "reapair" this performance problem. The results of this measurements should be cached.
With the advent of SSDs this has become a bit more complicated. It does not eliminate the need for the queue because for large data at least one of "source" or "destination" still is a harddrive. When copying in parallel from or to SSD the performance does not always suffer. Going from one to two parallel operations does not drop speed for example from 1x80 to 2x15 MB/s (typical for HDDs) but sometimes it can actually have a positive effect (for example only dropping from 1x120 to 2x70 MB/s, which is actually an increase). This is even more a reason to actually MEASURE the achieved speeds and ADAPT to them instead of ASSUMING the effects of parallel copy operations.
I meant for two copies to the same device.
If you want to discuss the finer points of how the queue works, wait until it's released and then start a thread about it, or send the feedback to GPSoftware. Going into detail on it here and now (when you haven't tried it and when it's too late for changes to 10.0 anyway) is pointless.
Feedback on 10.0 will obviously influence future versions, and there will be lots of updates and added features after the initial release, as usual. Let's wait until actually using 10.0 before giving feedback on it, okay?
It's no wonder GPSoft are reluctant to talk about future versions...
[quote="leo"]I meant for two copies to the same device.
If you want to discuss the finer points of how the queue works, wait until it's released and then start a thread about it, or send the feedback to GPSoftware.[/quote]
I'll do that. It's just that I lost interest in pushing the feature after... let me see... five and a half years have passed since the initial request for it. Being an Opus user for 17 years I was highly disappointed that implementation of this was promised four years ago as being planned for a free update to Opus 9 and then version by version went by without delivering. Hearing that it's finally coming brought all tose little grey brain cells back to life and now they are blubbering it all out right now. 
It's okay man, I've been asking for it for at least that long too
Now if I could just get my idea in about fixed sized File Collections, I'd be all set
Hi!
I'm about to join the DoPus community. My trial expires in 13 days and I'm fully convinced by what I saw. Amazing program, really.
My question is: if I register in 10 days, will I benefit from a free upgrade to 10.0 when it's released in a few weeks? If not, I'll wait for the release, but I'd prefer not to go back to Windows explorer, even for a few weeks.
If you buy Opus 9 now you'll get Opus 10 free when it's released.
Yes
I hope the same goes for the German version
Horst-G.
Yes it does.
Thanks for your answers! I registered tonight.
I think we are talking about different things? What I mean is if I have 20 dual displays open I have 20 window icons in the taskbar. Rather than load the taskbar up with windows simply have one window with tabs at the top of the screen to select between each dual lister display.
[quote]You mean you want to select 100 files, click copy, and have 50 upload on one connection and the other 50 upload on a second connection (or that sort of thing)? That would be useful on high-latency connections to servers that allow extra connections. Personally, I don't mind splitting the files into two parallel copies by hand in the rare cases I want to, but I can see how if you want to do that often then you'd want it to be automatic.
The copy queue in Opus 10 won't help create parallel transfers (a copy queue is about avoiding parallel transfers) but should help in situations where you have a lot of files to upload to different places on an FTP site.[/quote]
Yes, exactly that. I have to update websites via FTP and Opus is a real chore because it uploads (or works with) one file at a time. Not good when you have thousands of files as it can take hours to finish an update task. If I use for example, CuteFTP, the time is cut down drastically because it allows multiple connections so I can upload/download files in minutes rather than hours. In CuteFTP you can select the number of multiple/parallel connections and I think it can also figure out for itself how many to use by querying with the server it is connecting with on how many connections are allowed from one IP.
Oh! And thanks for releasing Opus 10, seems to be nice. File queuing works a treat!
I think we are talking about different things? What I mean is if I have 20 dual displays open I have 20 window icons in the taskbar. Rather than load the taskbar up with windows simply have one window with tabs at the top of the screen to select between each dual lister display.[/quote]
So you want tabs, containing dual file displays, containing more tabs? Doesn't sound great.
I guess folder tabs could contain the file displays, instead of vice versa, but it's a bit late to make that change (it'd break a lot of people's configs and I'm sure many people prefer it how it is), and you can already do that with Styles (which can appear as tabs on the toolbar if you want).
Why do you have 20 dual file displays open in the first place? Presumably you're not using all 20 at once; wouldn't it make sense to close some of them, and use Layouts or Styles (or buttons that open dual-paths, or folder tab groups, or...) to re-create them as you need them?
Seems like there are already plenty of ways to tackle this.
I still don't see how Opus is different to the browsers, either, except that it lets you do more by allowing two tabbed panels per window instead of strictly one. (And you can choose to open, or not open, multiple top-level web browser windows just like Opus.)
My browser theory... Download Chrome... Open Chrome, it has one window in taskbar. Now open lots of tabs, they are all contained within the one window and you don't see multiple windows in the taskbar.
In Opus I would like to be able to have multiple "windows" of dual lister displays without having multiple windows in the taskbar.
20 was just an example and I'm a busy person when it comes to file management 
Was my browser theory okay to understand?
No, I just didn't see the point in continuing as the argument was going around in circles.
("Download Opus. Open Opus, it has one window in the taskbar. Now open lots of tabs, they are all contained with the one window and you don't see multiple windows in the taskbar.")
It doesn't matter, anyway. File managers are not web browsers and vice versa. Tabs within tabs are probably never going to happen, because that's almost always horrible. And I can't see Opus changing the way its tabs work so they cover the whole window for a dual-display lister instead of separate tab-strips for each of the dual-display sides, because everyone who is used to the current system would complain (and the current system has benefits of its own that might outweigh the proposed change anyway).
Flogging a dead horse comes to mind. Thanks for the input though