Touch friendly File Explorer (formerly Windows Explorer)

[Dot Matrix]

This is rich.  How was the old calculator broken by warwagon's definition of "Yes there is, has less features, more cumbersome and looks like crap"?

The old Calc was broken for the same reason Explorer is now broken. Microsoft at least had the smarts to remove the old Calc, Control Panel, etc. We'll see how Explorer pans out. Hopefully, we'll get a new responsive one.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

The old Calc was broken for the same reason Explorer is now broken. Microsoft at least had the smarts to remove the old Calc, Control Panel, etc. We'll see how Explorer pans out. Hopefully, we'll get a new responsive one.

 

What is broke about it?  Seriously...what does it not add/subtract/multiple/etc. or do incorrectly compared to the new calculator?

 

The square root problem exists on the new calculator as well.  For example:  Do the square root of 4 (which equals 2) subtract that by 2 and you'll get -1.068281969439142e-19 .. same as the old calculator.  This happens with any square root that gives you a whole number and you subtract it by the same whole number (expecting 0)

 

So the new calculator is just as "broke" as the old calculator.  It also takes longer to load...which is unacceptable.

 

You say things are "broke" but never give reasons why they are "broke".  Just because they aren't new and "Modern UI" doesn't mean that they are broke.

[etacarinae]

There is nothing wrong with Calc. It's time for change, 

 

The old Calc was broken for the same reason Explorer is now broken. Microsoft at least had the smarts to remove the old Calc, Control Panel, etc. We'll see how Explorer pans out. Hopefully, we'll get a new responsive one.

 

You're so right, Dot Matrix. There's nothing wrong with making it 2-3x the size of the original and pandering solely to touch. Nothing at all. 

 

 

Oh, and I just love the way the new window pane controls truncate text/titles.

 

Really gives me that Windows Phone 7 feel, because we all know how desperate Microsoft's 1.5 billion user base is to get more of that Metro design philosophy that 97.5% of the smart phone market has ignored. 

 

 

 It also takes longer to load...which is unacceptable.

 

That's because all Windows Store/Windows Runtime/Universal App (whatever they're called this week, I've given up keeping up) require a splash screen.

 

Every Windows Store app must have a splash screen, which consists of a splash screen image and a background color. You can customize both of these features.

 

 Source: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-au/library/windows/apps/hh465338.aspx?f=255&MSPPError=-2147217396

 

So, Microsoft have, by default, programmed a performance regression into their apps. Clever.

[Dot Matrix]

You're so right, Dot Matrix. There's nothing wrong with making it 2-3x the size of the original and pandering solely to touch. Nothing at all.

I fail to see what's wrong with the application size? The larger drawing space is going to be a huge benefit to those with higher density, larger resolution screens. Microsoft is predicting what will be the norm for Windows 10's lifespan, and programming accordingly.

 

It looks fine on a 1366x768 screen, a 1680x1050 screen, and I'm sure it looks fine on your screen as well. Keep in mind, when the original Calc was developed, 640x480, and 800x600 were the common resolutions. How large do you think that made Calc look?

[+Warwagon MVC]

I fail to see what's wrong with the application size? The larger drawing space is going to be a huge benefit to those with higher density, larger resolution screens. Microsoft is predicting what will be the norm for Windows 10's lifespan, and programming accordingly.

 

It looks fine on a 1366x768 screen, a 1680x1050 screen, and I'm sure it looks fine on your screen as well. Keep in mind, when the original Calc was developed, 640x480, and 800x600 were the common resolutions. How large do you think that made Calc look?

 

You actually made some what of a point with that post, Good Job!   Although, I would prefer screens below 30 inches just stay at the resolution they've been forever. Like, I prefer a 24 inch monitor stay at 1920 by whatever. Sure you can have more pixals but then the DPI scaling has to kick in. But at 24 inches with a res of 1920 by whatever ...everything looks perfect... old calc and all. I don't want a 5k Fricken 13 inch monitor.

[PGHammer]

Actually, just because it is larger, it does NOT pander solely to touch.  It also panders to ADA standards - which does not rely on touch (in fact, it relies on mechanisms OTHER than touch, as ADA has to work where touch is not usable). I have no touch anywhere except my phone - which runs Android - not Windows.