Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 187 posts

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

#91

Post by asymptotically2 »

pawjs wrote: post #80
jchw wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As awesome as the Win2k source leak probably is from an educational standpoint, I don’t want to taint myself with illegal source code. I hope they eventually decide to open source more things, even if it was just older things.

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...

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

#92

Post by bufferoverflow »

After decades of OS development, I still prefer to use FAR Manager (similar to Norton Commander / Total Commander / Midnight Commander).

There's nothing better and faster than a two-panel system with a super-fast built-in editor / viewer.

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

#93

Post by naikrovek »

saagarjha wrote: post #63
kumarharsh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there is no gradient on the title bar. That's just the background showing through due to transparency (Acrylic in UWP/Fluent design lingo).

Does Windows not remove translucency when taking screenshots, as macOS does?

No, but sometimes it seems to hide what is behind the translucency so as not to pollute the screenshot. Other times it does not seem to do this. I don't know the pattern or rationale.

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

#94

Post by pawjs »

asymptotically2 wrote: post #91
pawjs wrote: 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...

Yes that seems very easy to enforce.

I bet 99% of Wine core developers have at least skimmed through the Windows 2000 leak at some point.

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

#95

Post by bruhmoment »

Why do Windoze users have a fetish for Universal/Modern UI? Wastes half the damn screen with enormously oversized buttons and elements. A computer is a device you use a mouse and keyboard with, don't try WI dows 8(.x)-style bullshit lol if you REALLY want those batshit insanely huge buttons for your tablet or something , just have separate touch-friendly version (like Office 2013 had a touch/kbd+m switchable version)

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

#96

Post by tluyben2 »

legends2k wrote: post #41
ploxiln wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your standards are unfortunately warped by modern trends. Almost all popular apps are hugely bloated because the developers just don't care, the focus is on UI re-design and feature churn and the illusion of ease of development. Some counter examples (compressed installer size for convenience): 7-zip for 64-bit windows: 1.4 MiB Winamp 5.8: 7.8 MiB mpc-hc: 13.5 MiB (open source media player with many built-in codecs)…

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!

Our hardware tooling is all written in C++/Win32 and some MFC; it’s all tiny and light. Because factory controlling computers are (unfortunately imho but what can I do) older Windows versions (for us that is due to certification etc mostly) on weak but robust systems with little memory that need to run for years without issues/crashes. So lean, fast software, tested for memory leaks which can be restarted in very short times (downtime of the production line is expensive) is important.

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

#97

Post by majkinetor »

vocatus_gate wrote: post #30
userbinator wrote: post #16

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…

This is why I wrote the Tron project ( https://old.reddit.com/r/TronScript ) in batch. It's a huge pain, but batch ALWAYS works and doesn't change, unlike PowerShell v1/2/3/etc. More work, but works on everything from XP to 10 v.whatever.

Batch is instant turndown even for thing that I want a lot like this one.

Powershell even limiting to 2.0 which never changes would be way better.

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

#98

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

sansnomme wrote: post #84
ploxiln wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your standards are unfortunately warped by modern trends. Almost all popular apps are hugely bloated because the developers just don't care, the focus is on UI re-design and feature churn and the illusion of ease of development. Some counter examples (compressed installer size for convenience): 7-zip for 64-bit windows: 1.4 MiB Winamp 5.8: 7.8 MiB mpc-hc: 13.5 MiB (open source media player with many built-in codecs)…

But..but..RICH UI!!

Rich, as in "loaded with fat".

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

#99

Post by gsich »

ploxiln wrote: post #24
kumarharsh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just talking about 'explorer.exe' being 5 mb? You're discounting the numerous DLLs which the explorer uses, or even other shared resources which are used system-wide. And 55 MB for a native app is paltry. Even the 'Google' app on Android is 285 MB, the Gallery app of OnePlus is 70 MB.

Your standards are unfortunately warped by modern trends. Almost all popular apps are hugely bloated because the developers just don't care, the focus is on UI re-design and feature churn and the illusion of ease of development. Some counter examples (compressed installer size for convenience): 7-zip for 64-bit windows: 1.4 MiB Winamp 5.8: 7.8 MiB mpc-hc: 13.5 MiB (open source media player with many built-in codecs)…

"modern" UI is backwards. A lot of space wasting, hiding essential stuff, animations that are not necessary.

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

#100

Post by gsich »

64738 wrote: post #35
ploxiln wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your standards are unfortunately warped by modern trends. Almost all popular apps are hugely bloated because the developers just don't care, the focus is on UI re-design and feature churn and the illusion of ease of development. Some counter examples (compressed installer size for convenience): 7-zip for 64-bit windows: 1.4 MiB Winamp 5.8: 7.8 MiB mpc-hc: 13.5 MiB (open source media player with many built-in codecs)…

Thank you for mentioning IrfanView. Back in the day I used to have a cracked copy of LviewPro that was always one of the 1st programs to be installed whenever I started working on a new system. It was small, fast, and I could easily flip through all the image files in a directory. I stopped using LviewPro probably 8, or 10 years ago, but always wished I knew of a replacement that was so efficient. I see that IrfanVie…

Fastpictureviewer? I haven't found a program (on Linux too) that comes close to the performance.
Post reply on HN