Talk:Norton Commander

message: This article over-uses acronyms. boffy_b 00:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many acronyms

message: File Commander was a very close clone of NC. I used it extensively with OS/2 and I think it was back-ported to run under Windows NT in character mode. Of all the NC clones I used FC was the closest to the original with some nice extensions.
I've played with at least 4-5 other clones for Windows in the past. They never quite got all the details right, NC for DOS was fanatical about details. It fully leveraged function keys to the left of the keyboard, and suffered when their use was deprecated under Windows. NC didn't work quite as well once the function keys went to the top of the kb.
One of the key features of earlier versions of NC was a fully integrated email client called MCIMail. It was an extremely efficient mail client, I'm not sure anything I've ever used since was quite as productive. It predated internet mail of course.
I miss NC a great deal. I'd be happy to use an optimized tool with Windows or OS X, but I must note that this kind of software requires an extraordinary attention to detail and reliability. It's hard to fund such development in today's environment, and neither OS X nor Vista/XP are as friendly to alternative file management tools as were DOS or Win 3.x. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jfaughnan (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The same friendliness applies to Windows 9x/Me. 83.5.3.137 18:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OS/2 Development 

message: Please remove download links. This is a proprietary software and it is NOT freely available! Those sites infighting rights of copyright holders.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.174.127.173 (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not needed at all. This software was ABANDONED forever, and is not sold anymore and anywhere. 83.5.9.222 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't matter if it's not sold anymore, Symantec still holds the copyright to the program and has not given permission for it to be redistributed as far as I know. While I don't really morally disagree with the so called abandonware archives, it is illegal in the US and several other countries to provide links to material infringing on copyright so they should be removed from Wikipedia. However, if I'm wrong about Symantec not giving permission, do correct me. Debolaz (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is nonsense. How can you seriously maintain that Symantec actually has copyright claims with regard to NC if a) Symantec no longer exists, as such and b) it has neither developed, claimed copyright protection, or showed any public interest whatsoever in this software? NeoThe1 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely irrelevant. Symantec exists, it doesn't need to have developed the software, nor claimed copyright over it. This is how copyright law works. By having links to downloads of the copyrighted software, Wikipedia violates US copyright law. And just because other websites does this doesn't make it right. Debolaz (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Symantec, or whoever owns Symantec, retains copyright of the software regardless of how old it is, or how much it is currently developed.  Even if Symantec has not pursued those who illegally copy this software, does not make it legal or "abandoned".  This means it is not allowed on Wikipedia, and will be removed regardless of your opinion. The359 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Download links 

message: Wasn't NDOS shipped with NC? 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't. It was shipped with Norton Utilities. --78.53.87.174 (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDOS 

message: There's no article on the similar Symantec product... NDD/NDW 70.51.8.158 (talk) 08:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norton Desktop

message: What about this clone of Norton Commander?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.2.255.244 (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it? Just another out of hundreds of orthodox file managers. -- œ™ 04:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WinNc (Shareware)

message: "(commonly shortened to "NC"[by whom?])"
The question "by whom?" isn't correct in this context.
In the DOS-days it wasn't uncommon to name programs like their main executable file, which in case of Norton Commander was "NC.EXE".
Only the suffix (".EXE", ".COM" or in some cases even ".BAT") was omitted.
Although this isn't always clear, since many programs had names with 8 or less characters, because 8.3 characters was all the FAT-filesystem could handle (and a program needed one of the three "executable-suffixes" to run).
I just leave it up to you to edit it out, since I'm pretty new here and I don't want to risk scrambling the whole page with that.
Just me today (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The reference link for the following:
the IntelliJ IDE used to include a "Commander" plugin that performed file manipulation using the same shortcut keys as Norton Commander
is broken and I believe the whole thing should be deleted as there is no clear way to support that claim anymore.--RoJi (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference 

message: There's software called vDOS to run DOS programs on modern Windows, and an alternative to DosBox.
It seems Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on this. I could create at least a stub for that SW, however 'vdos' automatically redirects here. I don't know how to cancel that or create the 'you might be looking for xxx' link or create a fork page (?) that would link both here and to the new vDOS page...
Can someone assist?
85.216.233.211 (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automatic redirect from vdos