I'm new to this whole "Symbolic Link" business, but DO doesn't report the size of SLs the way I'd expect.
To me, the ideal would be for DO to report Symbolic Link size in some manor that would show that it's not the size of the actual link file, but of the linked file. Maybe put numbers in brackets or something?
Also, the size of folders is calculated by including the inaccurate size(s) of the links. The pictured folder is reported as being 5.79GB instead of 2.79GB as it actually is.
I disagree. A linked file represents the real file. If you copy a folder that contains nothing but links, what gets copied? The real files. Therefore it is more important to know the size of the files that are linked to.
IMO there isn't a right or wrong answer. Sometimes you want to know how much space is being used up by something. Sometimes you want to know how much space something will take up when you copy it to another place.
Right now, if I remember correctly, Opus is consistent with Explorer on Vista which seems like the right thing to do when neither option is "more right" than the other.
Naa, Explorer says links are "0k". Which I think is "OK".
If you check the properties of the folder it's reported at it's correct size (2.79GB in this example).
The "copy and paste" explanation is fine, but the "delete" argument kind of negates it.
Sounds like this should be an option.
Is there a filter to hide symbolic linked files in folder ?
That would be one solution when copying, moving or seeing how large a folder really is.
Not on my system (if I didn't misunderstand you). If I copy a folder full of links, I have a second folder full of links. That's all. 
Or am I missing something?
Greetings,
Jan
Hm, I guess I am 
- I was talking about shortcuts, but you weren't.
Sorry for my silly posting! 
My only excuse is that I'm from Germany... 
Greetings,
Jan
Oh, you're right!
You could probably create a Filter (the type shown in Preferences - File Operations - Filters) which matches junctions and symlinks based on the Type column, then use the select command to hide everything that doesn't match the filter.
Sorry for hooking this old thread, but the topic matches.
What's a little inconsistent, IMHO, is that for a folder containing Vista Symbolic Links, that folder's properties report only the "real" size used on disk, while DO's calculated folder size counts Symbolic Links with the size of their targets. Shouldn't both stats report the same?
Or how about a general option in DO whether to use a link target's size or not? That should apply to both Symblic Links and Hardlinks. This would overcome a major inconvenience in Windows Explorer, that size reporting is different between Symbolic Links and Hardlinks.
Opus has no control over the information displayed in those Properties dialogs; it just tell Windows to display them. So what you're seeing is the difference between how Opus and Explorer factor-in the size of links.
Making Opus & Explorer consistent, so the two sizes match, makes sense to me, but...
...you want Opus to be made more inconsistent with how Explorer shows link sizes? 
That kinda defeats the point of the first change, IMO.
I know. That was my way of indirectly suggesting to make DO's folder size work like the size reporting in Windows' folder properties
...you want Opus to be made more inconsistent with how Explorer shows link sizes? That kinda defeats the point of the first change, IMO.[/quote]
Hehe, well, I see your point. I think we can agree that making the Symbolic Link size reporting consistent within DO (that is, between DO and the folder properties available in DO) is a good idea. I currently regard this as an inconsitency in DO itself, rather than an inconsistency between Windows Explorer and DO, because the average user probably does not know that the folder properties dialog is not DO's own dialog.
The second question then is what to do with Hardlinks, and whether is makes sense to handle them differently from Symbolic Links or not.
But if you change what's done with Hardlinks then you'll introduce exactly the kind of inconsistency you're arguing is a problem.
It only makes sense to talk about doing things differently to Explorer if we're going to abandon consistency. Obviously things are inconsistent (in a different way) right now, but before anything is changed the first choice is whether to be consistent or not. You seem to be saying "both." 
Yes, sort of So let's limit my feature request to being consistent with Explorer's size reports, and making DO's folder size match the one in the folder properties.
Feature requests go here: gpsoft.com.au/Support.html