[OFFICIAL] Windows 10 Insider Program

[Knife Party]

Fixed!

 

ooo you

[Dot Matrix]

How so? I think it looks and works just fine.

It feels outdated compared to the rest of the OS - It's completely "unresponsive", still holds onto tiny hard to see icons, and doesn't fit into the Modern UX at all. It gets worse in tablet mode.

 

If Windows 10 is to be a universal OS, then File Explorer needs a HUGE upgrade.

[+Warwagon MVC]

It feels outdated compared to the rest of the OS - It's completely "unresponsive", still holds onto tiny hard to see icons, and doesn't fit into the Modern UX at all.

 

Hard to see icons? They look just fine on a desktop or laptop. We don't need to start making everything huge for tablets. Maybe in tablet mode, but defiantly not in desktop mode.

 

What do you mean by "unresponsive"?

[Dot Matrix]

Hard to see icons? They look just fine on the desktop. We don't need to making everything huge for tablets. Maybe in tablet mode, but defiantly not in desktop mode.

Yes, 16x16 icons have outlived their usefulness. Our screens aren't 800x600 anymore. Nothing should be 16x16 pixels anymore.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Yes, 16x16 icons have outlived their usefulness. Our screens aren't 800x600 anymore.

 

Exactly, our screens aren't 800x600 anymore. As such we are able to have much more desktop real-estate, I wouldn't want to take away from that with large icons.If it's not broke don't fix it. 16x16 isn't broke. They work just fine. Maybe in tablet mode they can be made bigger.

 

...

 

Fine here you go.

 

[Dot Matrix]

If it's not broke don't fix it. 16x16 isn't broke. They work just fine. Maybe in tablet mode they can be made bigger.

 

...

 

Fine here you go.

 

What does that do? That's not even Windows Explorer.

 

Sorry, but tiny iconography is an outdated notion. Back in 1995, when we were still using low resolution monitors, 16x16 icons made sense, but not today.

[TAZMINATOR]

Yes, 16x16 icons have outlived their usefulness. Our screens aren't 800x600 anymore. Nothing should be 16x16 pixels anymore.

 

Not everyone.... a few people are still one that resolution.

 

You act like you know everything.

 

16x16 icons are fine...  I like small icons and small taskbar.  I am not blind.

 

That's the reason you have options to change icon size... 

[Dot Matrix]

Not everyone.... a few people are still one that resolution.

 

You act like you know everything.

 

16x16 icons are fine...  I like small icons and small taskbar.  I am not blind.

 

That's the reason you have options to change icon size... 

Great, so 10 people still use 800x600. Chances are they're still using XP SP1 too. So what? Those people don't even matter in design decisions, when new software is designed. They're no where near the majority.  

[+Warwagon MVC]

Sorry, but tiny iconography is an outdated notion. Back in 1995, when we were still using low resolution monitors, 16x16 icons made sense, but not today.

 

I think the icons in this screenshot look just fine. On my 24 inch Monitor

[TAZMINATOR]

Great, so 10 people still use 800x600. Chances are they're still using XP SP1 too. So what? Those people don't even matter in design decisions, when new software is designed. They're no where near the majority.  

 

You said 'So what?"  then why you want 800x600 and 16x16 icons out?  

 

If you wan them out, you get them out by yourself.

 

MS keep them in OS for time being.... 

 

I bet you HATE tiny icons...    I have no problems with tiny icons on my end.

 

I can read small text ...  

 

DO NOT FORGET that people are nearly blind or they are poor to get a new PC or OS..   That's the reason there are many ways to make some changes in OS that suit their needs ...  My dad can't read small text... I went to his house and increased the font size for him.

[Dot Matrix]

You said 'So what?"  then why you want 800x600 and 16x16 icons out?  

 

First of all, 800x600 offed itself a long time ago. Second, Modern design is all about iconography and typography. Microsoft is interested in creating larger, easy to see elements. 16x16 icons and a Windows XP era UX breaks that design flow. Explorer sticks out like a sore thumb.

[+Warwagon MVC]

Microsoft is interested in creating larger, easy to see elements.

 

I don't want larger easy to see elements on the desktop, I can see what I have just fine.

[TAZMINATOR]

First of all, 800x600 offed itself a long time ago. Second, Modern design is all about iconography and typography. Microsoft is interested in creating larger, easy to see elements. 16x16 icons and a Windows XP era UX breaks that design flow. Explorer sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

MS increased large elements for touch... not desktop. Remember some people have fat fingers... that's the reason MS increased large elements for that.

 

Desktop is fine as the way it is now...   you don't like it? Why not move to Apple or Linux?

[+Warwagon MVC]

Sorry, but tiny iconography is an outdated notion. Back in 1995, when we were still using low resolution monitors, 16x16 icons made sense, but not today.

 

This coming from a guy who's name is literally "Dot Matrix" ... oh the irony!

[TAZMINATOR]

First of all, 800x600 offed itself a long time ago.

 

Nope... It's there but won't show in the list on some computers depends on video card and/or monitor..

 

Like I said you act like you know it all...   Research first before you post anything!

[Dot Matrix]

It's time for a new file explorer. It's time for something modern. Designed by using the new Photos app from Windows 10, and File Explorer app from Windows [Mobile] 10, and with a little inspiration from Tweetium app. Obviously, this is a mockup. I didn't have the energy to draw out all the ribbon elements, and the folders were pasted in from another screenshot.

 

 

 

Nope... It's there but won't show in the list on some computers depends on video card and/or monitor..

 

Like I said you act like you know it all...   Research first before you post anything!

 

An, no one still uses it. No applications work with it anymore.

[TAZMINATOR]

An, no one still uses it. No applications work with it anymore.

 

Oh yes, they still are on that resolution... 

 

Like I said there are many ways to use the OS... no matter what it is.... and there are many ways to customize OS to fit their needs...  

 

You forget about the people with disabilities.   

 

[Dot Matrix]

Oh yes, they still are on that resolution... 

 

Like I said there are many ways to use the OS... no matter what it is.... and there are many ways to customize OS to fit their needs...  

 

You forget about the people with disabilities.   

 

People with disabilities? Such as? People upscale the DPI, not lower the resolution.

[TAZMINATOR]

People with disabilities? Such as? People upscale the DPI, not lower the resolution.

 

I am not telling you anymore.. you do the research....  you don't get it.  

[PGHammer]

Can you UPGRADE from windows 8.1 to the Tech Preview if you install the iso via USB? Or is that only for a clean install?

It's for both upgrade installs and clean installs.

[PGHammer]

MS increased large elements for touch... not desktop. Remember some people have fat fingers... that's the reason MS increased large elements for that.

 

Desktop is fine as the way it is now...   you don't like it? Why not move to Apple or Linux?

Ridiculous - they increased them for both.  Not every mouse user is an expert - I certainly am not.

If you ARE an expert mouse user, it would be easy to think so - however, because I know I'm NOT one, I won't make such a general statement - that I know to be a fallacy.

Just because one class of users may benefit rom a change, it does not mean that other user types won't benefit.  (While mini-Start may be aimed primarily at those that prefer that sort of hierarchy, there are benefits for gadget and tile fans - because mini-Start supports tiles.)

[TAZMINATOR]

Ridiculous - they increased them for both.  Not every mouse user is an expert - I certainly am not.

If you ARE an expert mouse user, it would be easy to think so - however, because I know I'm NOT one, I won't make such a general statement - that I know to be a fallacy.

Just because one class of users may benefit rom a change, it does not mean that other user types won't benefit.  (While mini-Start may be aimed primarily at those that prefer that sort of hierarchy, there are benefits for gadget and tile fans - because mini-Start supports tiles.)

 

huh?  Who said about mouse?

[Dot Matrix]

Well, however you feel about it, Explorer stands out like a sore thumb. Personally, I like consistency, and I'd like a fully featured OS, no matter what device I'm using. File Explorer is a pretty powerful application, but it's useless outside anything not operated by a mouse. It's time for an Explorer facelift to match the rest of the OS.

 

Finished concept:

 

 

[Ian S.]

The sidebar could be eliminated and just be integrated as a tab in the ribbon called "Navigation". It would be the default, instead of Home, eliminating the need for extra clicks. Plus, it would allow for more space in the content area. File Explorer should be imply called "Files" and they should not put in a hamburger menu as it ruins the modern UI style. I hope they add a column view like from Finder.

[Stokkolm]

I love that. It really does look great. Power users won't like it though.