Live data from Hacker News

Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

github.com

141–150 of 187 posts

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#141
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taint yourself with illegal source code? What does that even mean?

Wine doesn't allow contributions from people that have seen the Windows source code[0]. I'm not sure of other projects with similar restrictions though. [0]: https://wiki.winehq.org/Developer_FAQ#Who_can.27t_contribute...

Same with ReactOS, and they have experienced lawsuits because of someone trying to contribute leaked code.

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting early is good, but I think he may have gotten sucked into the UWP hype: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19873198 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19883351 If the author is reading this, here's some advice for you: I encourage you to start learning pure Win32 and enjoy the benefits of extreme compatibility (you can create a single .exe that works on anything starting from Windows 95 , depending on th…

Thanks for addressing me with this recommendation. As you may have guessed, I'm the developer of Files UWP. I really have a great deal of respect for those who take the time to learn the guts of the Windows API which simultaneously teaches one how Windows itself works. I won't deny it. There is certainly something pretty great to learning a subsystem written under Gates himself. Further, there have been many instance…

Ignore the negativity that often gets posted here. For a student app, this is quite impressive.

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the touch-enabled world of devices Metro was envisioned for, yes, mouse settings should no longer be relevant. Meanwhile, in the real world, Windows phone died, just one colleague I know uses Windows on a tablet, yet Microsoft is still attempting to replace the control panel with an optimized-for-touch-only app. This is Apple- or Gnome-level pretentiousness: "that use case doesn't fit our brand, let's act like it'…

I don’t see them now that I’ve moved to New Orleans but when I was in Seattle I saw a lot of people using Surfaces in cafes and regularly poking at their screens with a finger. I don’t think this was necessarily a dogfood thing either, I was rarely in Redmond.

Windows is still arguably the best OS for doing productive work on the tablet, so I'm personally very happy Microsoft is still developing it in this direction. That said, compared to old Control Panel, the Settings app is a loss in utility.

One of the more annoying pattern in it is hiding stuff that's unavailable. I have a cheap 2-in-1 Windows computer I use as my sidearm, and it tends to lose or gain the tablet mode screen autorotation setting every other Windows Update. Only after I realized what's going on, I stopped feeling gaslighted by the Settings app.

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#144

It's funny to see the gradient in the title bar, contrasting with the bland borderless-sea-of-whiteness of the rest of the UI. > FilesUwp.Package_0.5.0.0_x64.zip 54.4 MB Nearly 55MB, compressed , for something that attempts to mimic some of the functionality of the regular explorer.exe, is quite frankly ridiculous. I don't have a system to check right now, but I believe even latest Windows 10 has an explorer.exe http…

Thank you for your useless driveby code review for a student project on a third party site that could have been an educational pull request to the author.

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#145
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get people's enthusiasm for the settings app, I find control panel the faster way of achieving almost everything. Settings is slow and sometimes you circuitously end up where control panel world have sent you directly, e.g. when you want to change network adapter settings.

The lack of keyboard shortcuts and tabbing means any setting I have to change repeatedly is a bunch of hard-to-automate clicks. (Namely, plugging into a new monitor and rotating it, since the Ctrl+Alt+UpArrow doesn't work any more.)

I think that was an Intel driver shortcut.

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#146
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you open the properties of a folder, you can see how long it can take to calculate the size of a folder. This is a feature I've never really needed - what is your scenario for needing this at a glance? When I'm chasing large files that need deleting due to free space pressure I typically use something like the following https://windirstat.net/

Note that if you parse the MFT itself you can calculate this info for the entire drive in the time explorer can calculate it for a single folder. I know there is some overhead with the official api of course and it needs to support other filesystems but we really needed a way to iterate directories faster just to gather this kind of info. There are several disk space utilization / treesize apps and file search apps t…

The Wiztree app is a great example of the benefit -- 3 seconds to view the entire drive. Although reading the MFT requires elevation.

https://antibody-software.com/web/software/software/wiztree-...

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#147
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why it matters to you. 55MB is a trivially inexpensive amount of storage and bandwidth in 2019. It simply doesn’t make a practical difference to the vast majority of people who will use this whether it’s 55MB or 5MB.

It is a hint that the code sucks.

Is it? I feel like it's a question of prioritizing. Why focus on application size when you could instead polish a feature?

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#148

It's funny to see the gradient in the title bar, contrasting with the bland borderless-sea-of-whiteness of the rest of the UI. > FilesUwp.Package_0.5.0.0_x64.zip 54.4 MB Nearly 55MB, compressed , for something that attempts to mimic some of the functionality of the regular explorer.exe, is quite frankly ridiculous. I don't have a system to check right now, but I believe even latest Windows 10 has an explorer.exe http…

Storage is actually pretty cheap. Only RAM usage matters now. So 55mb is not that much of a big deal now. But this is an attempt by the author. No one is forcing you to use this. I dont know whats the point of being so negative to someone's efforts.

I dont know whats the point of being so negative to someone's efforts.

The author is given a very clear indication that this is not a good direction, and hopefully changes direction quickly. He actually replied to another comment I made where I gave some advice (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20130696), and said he continued working on it because of "overwhelmingly-positive community feedback", despite already being aware of the limitations of UWP. Maybe if he encountered a bunch of "UWP sucks, go Win32!" comments back then, he might've come up with something far more interesting and useful.

In other words, you can blame this idiotic "positivity culture" every time you see something half-assed, bloated, or just plain broken, or when huge mistakes are made because everyone was all smiles and happiness, and no one said NO until it was too late...

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#149
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most files are nowhere near 10 levels deep, let alone hundreds of levels. Filesystem (and low-level in general) stuff must consider worst cases. There is a lot of software out there doing weird things. For instance, npm created a very deep folder hierarchy for a long time (so deep it messed up some path length restrictions in fact). One way or another the worst case is going to be hit. And then what? The entire com…

> So you have a log file inside a folder. Because it just keeps growing line by line then the folder's size is never updated. Now you have many Gb's of log file in that folder, and the folder says it is using "4Kbytes". You misunderstood what I meant. I didn't mean we should only update if a single change is significant. I meant we only update when the cumulative changes since last update is significant. An example:…

You still have to read the stored size on each parent to figure this out, at which point the optimization makes sense only if writes are significantly (at least 2x) more expensive than reads, and this is not true for most desktop PCs.

This really boils down to a caching problem, and well, there's a reason it's one of the two hard computer science problems..

Re: Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Explorer explorer should be

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not OP's code itself but usage of UWP. The apps you mentioned here are all written in pure Win32 API. HWND, HANDLE, HPEN, HDC, anyone? Just pure C (or pure C++) and some functions... Those were the days!

Unfortunately those APIs seems to be kind of obsolete nowadays. All the nice things are with UWP. I think that WinAPI is not even hardware accelerated. That's a pity, but what can we expect, when Microsoft themselves botched WinAPI in their own products long ago. Windows could be so better with their old Windows 2000 style, without all those design jumps around.

Microsoft itself doesn't think so highly of UWP now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19883351
Post reply on HN