You get the satisfaction of being the only "Tomalicious" Senior Advisor

I think the time and effort allowed on this forum is enough compensation.

You sure do Tom! I will come over and mow your lawn during the winter.

Scott;
Do you have build 1822 that i can try?

Should not be a problem. Just open a support ticket for that and I will see if I can locate a copy.

I wont complain about slow transferr rather other thing. I found out that this with this version I can save remote or local. I can not with version before that and new update .9 I can or can not saving files remote.

Instead of It downloading file, editing, than uploading again what is longer process of course.

Are you getting an error when you try and save?

I always zip up the files and generally unzip onsite with file manager. This takes a fraction of the time that many of the ftp programs take. Folders within folders that comprise of 100's of files take a great deal more time that one file of the same size. There is a latency in a program finding file by file and uploading separately. If Direct FTP could do that then they will beat the opposition hands down. Be a great upgrade.
There is a ftp program that does do that but their trial is only 2 hours. So they shot themselves in the foot.
Seems like an opportunity for this little black duck.

Hi,

I bought Direct FTP a few days ago. I use(d) an old freeware version of WS_FTP before that, and wanted to dump it because it was slow...
But Direct FTP is even slower! I did some tests.

I used for these tests:

- Direct FTP
- WS_FTP
- BlazeFTP ( a freeware FTP saying it is the fastest FTP software around)
- FireFTP (a freeware Firefox addon)

For the tests I uploaded a website with a size of 1,37 MB ( www.jantjezageenspruimenhangen.nl ) from my home PC to a subdirectory on Hostmonster. So the files crossed the Atlantic wire from the Netherlands (where I live) to the USA.

The results:

Direct FTP - 8 minutes 50 seconds
BlazeFTP - 3 minutes 4 seconds
WS_FTP - 8 minutes 24 seconds
FireFTP - 2 minutes 58 seconds

I repeated this several times, and although there were some differences, these differences amounted only a few seconds; the results were consistent overall. The differences are enormous! So please Scott, send me this older build of Direct FTP as well....

I'd like to add that the tested website uses 165 images (all very small, except for 2 gif files of 125 kb and 70 kb) in the 'files' folder, and 9 HTML files. Maybe lots of small files upload slower than 1 big file? Anyway the differences of the upload speed comparing these FTP softwares is not very small :-)...

Another observation: Direct FTP reacts slowly to switching to another folder, I mean I click on a folder icon and after a second or so the clicked folder is opened, while BlazeFTP and FireFTP react immediately. This behaviour happens locally and remotely (of course a little bit slower remotely). I have no idea if this has got anything to do with it....