Network folder listing not syncing with file list

If I navigate to D:\Folder1\Folder2\ the folder list is synced to the directory contents. If I attempt the samething for a network folder \server\Folder1\Folder2 the file listing is updated and I can navigate the folder structure, but the folder listing doesn't sync. If I use windows explorer the folder listing is synced to the directory contents. Am I missing something?

Looks like Explorer has special handling for this situation.

In Opus if I jump to a UNC path while the folder tree is showing it tries to expand the list of workgroups/domains and then the list of computers in the appropriate workgroup/domain.

I expect on my home network that's where it would stop since I could never get it so all my computers appeared to each other when browsing.

At work, where there's a properly configured network with (I presume) WINS servers and thousands of machines, the branches do expand and it takes a minute or two for the computers to be listed. It doesn't seem to have listed all of them since I can't see the server I happened to try. I'm not sure if that's because of the network setup (like my problem at home) or because Opus or the Windows API gave up listing servers after too many results or too much time.

Anyway, what Explorer does seems like a good idea. It adds nodes to the tree in the same place that Opus would add them but without expanding the parent items. (i.e. Just the path through the tree to get to the server in question is shown.) It's unusual to have a tree where the parent item is showing a child yet can still be expanded (has the + symbol), but in this case it makes sense since expanding the parent item is really undesirable (on a large network) due to the time it takes and the number of items that get spammed into the tree control.

(The number of items added for all the computers isn't just an issue of ease-of-navigation; it seems to lock up the otherwise nicely multi-threaded folder tree. It looks like you can continue using the lister while the list of computers is obtained over the network on a background thread, but then the GUI thread gets tied up for a while as they're all inserted into the tree control.)

Apart from the obvious and unhelpful "turn off the folder tree", the only workaround I can think of is to map a drive letter to the server/share in question. That will avoid the expansion of the network/domain parts of the tree, since mapped drives appear in a different place.

Any news on this topic?
I have to access a network share on a w2k server from my wxp client and I need to be able to navigate the shares folder structure from within the folder tree which still does not synchronize to the file list (DOpus 8225U).

Your best bet to get it addressed is to send GPSoft a request so it's in their database and they know people want it. (Forum messages may be overlooked and are just for talking about issues.)

What sort of thing are you doing that needs the tree so badly? There may be alternatives which offer something similar for the time being, e.g. using a dual lister where the left side is in flat mode, showing only folders. Depends on exactly what you need the tree for though, of course.

I have a home network setup with a Linksys router and two static PCs (sometimes more when I'm working on a customer's PC). I only have a workgroup setup, no domain controller or server software. Both of my PCs have Windows XP Pro.

I have no issues using the Folder Tree in Opus to access either of my two PCs. That is, once I get the network connection to the other PC established and security is authenticated. Security usually ends up being the difficult thing. Both of my PCs are secured, so I have to log into the PC I wish to connect to using a local account on that PC, before I'm able to browse its shared drives and folders.

The screen grab below shows 3 PCs under my expanded network branch. The unexpanded PC is the one Opus is running from (it is actually a Virtual PC running on the second PC shown).

The folder tracks well with the file display not matter which one I click in. You may have an issue with your network setup.

Are you by any chance using windows XP Home? It is notoriously bad with networking and other "Professional" features. If you run a network at home, I do not recommend using the Home version of any Windows version.