>>66
1. Speed. Krusader or any other attempt for a fully graphical OFM is pig disgustingly slow.
Got nothing to do with being graphical. Blame poor development priorities.
2. Enforced usability. Any graphical OFM I've seen is pestered with icons, toolbars and worthless bullshit wasting space and making it look like a Hong Kong street. You cannot add useless bullshit to the application if you can only use text.
But you can not add useless bullshit to the application when you use a bitmap display.
3. Terminal support. It's easy to do in text, hard to do with a graphical OFM. IIRC Krusader almost got it right, but you can't use both the panels and the command line at once and have to switch with the mouse which is, again, pig disgusting.
Nice for lazy devs, but so what?
You mean the proper font that makes everything look right and filenames line up nicely?
What display errors are you envisioning?
A matter of personal taste, but I don't need that feature, nor any kind of expensive preview. If I want to see a file I'll open the appropriate full-screen minimalistic program for that. At the very best I'll accept some libaa voodoo and w3m rendering for HTML, as in Midnight Commander (I also integrated that into FAR Manager).
It falls in my "would be nice" column anyway. It's not like I'd lose anything when not using it, and it would be damned handy when I'm trying to find an image in a directory with lots to be able to scrub through with the quick view pane. Ditto for video, in-place preview would be awesome.
Don't get me wrong, we share some gripes with most GUI programs, but as far as I can tell, none of those gripes have anything to do with bitmap displays per se. Can't you envision a better future with me, a future with output devices chosen to maximise usability and capability?