New thought on older suggestion.

[MikeJ]

Some may view this as beating a dead horse, but I`m poking the horse in a new spot hoping it'll come back to life. (also hoping the horse doesn't kick me ...)

I have a new "twist" that could be a "shorter and easier" version of my grand vision that was taken without much fanfare. (it must have been deleted)

Is it possible/worthwhile to just add a new option in the explorer menu? There is already "Run sandboxed" when I right-click a file, so how about "Open in new sandbox" just under that, so when I click that, I`m given the already-existing "create new sandbox" dialog, I enter a name, and immediately the file opens in the newly created sandbox.

This is my previous suggestion on a smaller scale, I know everything is already possible, but there are many more steps involved. I really don't think much new code would be required, (it's only speeding up the process of whats already there?), yet it would be a great compromise that pays off for the convenience of all users and commits not so much of tzuk's valuable time. You could even have the file's name as the default name for the sandbox when the dialog pops up.

tzuk, please consider this time-saving feature. To me, it seems to be an extremely logical step and inexplicably missing. If I`m alone in this, by all means disregard and I`ll finally give it a rest.

Thank You,
Mike

[MikeJ]

We could make it even easier on tzuk. Leave the menu alone, "Run sandboxed" is well enough. Instead, slightly change the dialog you get after clicking that. You already have a choice of existing sandboxes right. Just put a text entry box below that, and a button on the side of that "create new".

Then you can have all sandbox choices right there in one dialog! come on guys, who can say that wouldn't be great?

edit: maybe this can help for visual? Of course it would look much better, but you get the idea.

[tzuk]

I'm afraid I just don't see the big value in this feature. You do know you can run more than one program in the same sandbox, right? No need to create a separate sandbox for each program you run.

On the other hand if you want to install a large software product into its own dedicated sandbox, then I don't think it's a big hassle to go through one small additional step of creating the sandbox in advance.

[MikeJ]

My logic really doesnt start at the install level at all. It's at the deletion level. You see, making it more convenient to install programs in their own sandbox has the outcome of making it much easier to uninstall individual programs as desired.

I can put everything in one sandbox - but lose value in uninstalling individual programs. Wouldn't it be so much easier to just delete the entire sandbox and zap - no more useless program.

I can create a new sandbox for each install. But have you spent an afternoon downloading and testing 6-7 trial programs? You have no idea if you'll like them, and 90% of the time they don't serve your specific needs. So off they go. Doing things the current way, I tend to just blow off the sandbox altogether and install to my system. In turn this opens up security issues, yes due to my unwillingness to "go against the work flow" by creating a new sandbox.

This has been my major block to using SBIE at all lately. I think if the process were more fluent, I would get in the habit of always using SBIE.

[tzuk]

But have you spent an afternoon downloading and testing 6-7 trial programs?

Yes, I have, but I install everything into a single sandbox. When I'm done playing with them, I delete the sandbox. Then I can reinstall my favorite one, either into the now-empty sandbox, or outside any sandbox.

I think managing more than one sandbox would be more troublesome than reinstalling one of these programs a second time. In other words, I just don't see a compelling reason to install each program in a separate sandbox. Why is probably why I can't relate to your feature request.

[MikeJ]

But have you spent an afternoon downloading and testing 6-7 trial programs?

This wasnt a real question for you personally. Of course you have, maybe more.

OK, I give in. Consider it dead.

First my grand scheme to take over the world falls apart, and now this. *pouting*. I dont know - maybe 20 - 30 sandboxes would get a bit unwieldy.

[MitchE323]

Don't despair MikeJ, you were in on the initial conversations for Internet Access. So I know you remember. Remember how we HAD to use seperate sandboxes because you could only block one program at a time? Well, prior to that time no one really did too much with multiple sandboxes. But now everyone had to, for the Internet Access.

My opinion is that since ProcessGroup has been invented, there has not been an equalizing downturn in total sandboxes - and a great invention such as ProcessGroup is not being utilized fully. I am down to 3 sandboxes; Auto/Delete vrs not Delete and one for testing.

[tzuk]

OK, I give in. Consider it dead.

OK. I thought I should add that the component that handles "Run Sandboxed" is the simple Start.exe program which is not designed to modify Sandboxie.ini. Which means your feature request is not a simple addition, but rather, requires extending a simple program in a new direction. I need a really compelling reason to do that, and like I said, I'm afraid that here I did not see one.