181–187 of 187 posts
The only thing I've ever wanted from Explorer is... being able to see how big a directory is in the file size column.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
on the other hand, just the splash screen image for whatever $modern app can be more than the space available a floppy since you need it normal size, @2x, @3x, it's in 32-bit RGBA instead of 256 color...
The fact that it needs a splash screen in the first place is because it takes too long to start because of bloat, so in a way it's a negative feedback cycle.
no, had to build a few apps where this was requested only for branding purposes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developing on the windows API is an unproductive way of creating apps, especially for the beginner developer. It's much better to invest their time on learning programming rather how to possition a button and where to listen for click messages. This is especially true today that the ui standars envolve in such fast pace.
Win32 is one of the few UI paradigms that it makes sense to invest in. It will never die, and you will get exposed to a whole slate of historical patterns that all the new stuff is based on or built in reaction to.
Even if you could create a Marketplace app with Win32 api it would be a nightmare to create a responsive UI to support multiple monitor sizes.
I have worked really hard to create responsive UI with Win32 and the result was barely acceptable but with UPF or HTML it's such an easy task, it all come out natural
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? I feel like it's a question of prioritizing. Why focus on application size when you could instead polish a feature?
Yes it is, if someone doesn't care about creating bloated applications they wont care about creating good applications either - which includes said polishing.
Optimizing for size may be less of a priority when a developer is focused on creating a positive user experience and adding useful features. Obsessive optimization of factors that users don't care about can lead to crappy applications — see quite a few open source GUI applications as an example.
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.)
Ctrl + alt + up sets it to default rotation so far as I remember.
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.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B/WinRT
[2]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/desktop/modern...
[3]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/apps/desktop/modern...