Microsoft working on "total update" to File Explorer for Windows 10.

[spaceelf]

1 hour ago, jjkusaf said:

The evolution is the same...no?  The UWP framework was in 8.1?  No? 

 

Which "advanced" windows apps are you referring to?  Which "advanced" UWP's are you referring to?

The win32 framework was in, what, Windows 98?  Is it the same as it was then?

 

The UWP is an extension to Windows Runtime.  It was not in 8 or 8.1 (though the Windows Runtime framework was.)

[Dot Matrix]

2 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

LOLz.

 

Three and half years of Metro, Modern, Universal Apps .... when is this happening?

3 1/2 years is nothing. Was the legacy desktop built up in 3 1/2 years?

[+devHead Subscriber²]

3 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

That's before they became "modern" again.  Gotta keep up with the times!  mmmm..calculator splash screen.

There's a splash screen for calculator in Windows 10?  Not in mine.  Course, I just press the calculator button on my keyboard and it opens immediately.

[+Fahim S. MVC]

18 minutes ago, devHead said:

There's a splash screen for calculator in Windows 10?  Not in mine.  Course, I just press the calculator button on my keyboard and it opens immediately.

Shshsh! There'll be no FUD debunking here, thanks. /s

[spaceelf]

1 hour ago, jjkusaf said:

Which "advanced" windows apps are you referring to?  Which "advanced" UWP's are you referring to?

As far as advanced apps go, I think Rise of the Tomb Raiders UWP version, Gears of War, and soon Quantum Break and Forza Apex pretty well speak for the platforms capabilities, whether traditional apps move over or not.

[kozukumi]

8 minutes ago, randomevent said:

As far as advanced apps go, I think Rise of the Tomb Raiders UWP version, Gears of War, and soon Quantum Break and Forza Apex pretty well speak for the platforms capabilities, whether traditional apps move over or not.

I thought all those games were actually Win32/DirectX based but delivered through the store in a UWP "wrapper"?

 

Edit: Also why on earth would you want a UWP version of a game with all the restrictions/limitations mentioned here http://techfrag.com/2016/02/27/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-on-windows-store-no-slicrossfire-pseudo-fullscreen-always-on-vsync/ ??

 

Things such as -

• Games purchased through Windows Store can’t run in exclusive fullscreen mode, instead they run in borderless windowed mode or pseudo-fullscreen;
• Vsync is always on and can’t be turned off, which may lead to input lag and a drop in performance;
• Nvidia SLI and AMD Crossfire are not supported, which means you won’t be able to combine two or more graphics cards;
• Windows Store games include no support for modding;
• Game overlays are not supported;
• Windows Store versions of games are only compatible with Windows 10, so you’ll never be able to play them on older Windows versions.

I mean seriously that is just a stupid idea when you can buy a normal version without any of those limitations. 

[spaceelf]

4 minutes ago, kozukumi said:

I mean seriously that is just a stupid idea when you can buy a normal version without any of those limitations. 

Personally, the only thing among those that actually qualifies as a negative to me is the vsync options, and although I don't know the details off hand I'm under the impression win32 apps have worse memory management.

 

However, as you can see much of it is being worked on now - http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/03/17/directx-12-adoption-huge-among-developers-hdr-support-coming-in-2017-as-microsoft-shares-new-info/

[Jim K Global Moderator]

26 minutes ago, Fahim S. said:

Shshsh! There'll be no FUD debunking here, thanks. /s

I know...right?

 

[kozukumi]

4 minutes ago, randomevent said:

Personally, the only thing among those that actually qualifies as a negative to me is the vsync options, and although I don't know the details off hand I'm under the impression win32 apps have worse memory management.

 

However, as you can see much of it is being worked on now - http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/03/17/directx-12-adoption-huge-among-developers-hdr-support-coming-in-2017-as-microsoft-shares-new-info/

That is DX12 not UWP though. I find it hard to believe memory is lower for the UWP version as it has the over head of running inside a sandbox etc. Doing a quick Google seems to show the UWP version is worse in every way over the non-UWP version on the same machine. 

[spaceelf]

Just now, jjkusaf said:

I know...right?

I wouldn't qualify that as a splash screen when it only lasts as long as it takes the app to load.

 

[kozukumi]

2 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

I know...right?

 

Lol. Although to be fair it is only visible for like half a second and I'm on an older machine (see sig). 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

Just now, randomevent said:

I wouldn't qualify that as a splash screen when it only lasts as long as it takes the app to load.

Silly...I know.  But is it or is it not a splash screen?  Doesn't matter how quick it disappears.

[spaceelf]

Just now, kozukumi said:

That is DX12 not UWP though. I find it hard to believe memory is lower for the UWP version as it has the over head of running inside a sandbox etc. Doing a quick Google seems to show the UWP version is worse in every way over the non-UWP version on the same machine. 

UWP renders through DX11 or DX12.  Rise of the Tomb Raider has a DX12 renderer.

 

This link was more specific, though the original probably had the same info in the slides http://wccftech.com/microsoft-gdc-uwp-vsync-fix-shader-model-6-hdr-support-windows-pix-coming/

 

[spaceelf]

1 minute ago, jjkusaf said:

Silly...I know.  But is it or is it not a splash screen?  Doesn't matter how quick it disappears.

By that definition every app has a splash screen, since it has to initialize the window.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

12 minutes ago, kozukumi said:

Lol. Although to be fair it is only visible for like half a second and I'm on an older machine (see sig). 

oh, I agree.  Personally I find it an annoyance though considering a lot of the smaller w32 programs do not have splash screens (to include Media Player, calculator, paint, Control Panel, etc...etc.)  But it was brought up that it is FUD that (in this case) calculator doesn't have a splash....when...yep it does.   

10 minutes ago, randomevent said:

By that definition every app has a splash screen, since it has to initialize the window.

Which is different than non apps ... so ... as I said previously (joking of course) that splash screens are now "Modern" with Apps.  "Every Universal Windows Platform (UWP) app must have a splash screen, which consists of a splash screen image and a background color. You can customize both of these features."

 

[Order_66]

1 hour ago, Dot Matrix said:

3 1/2 years is nothing. Was the legacy desktop built up in 3 1/2 years?

How old was win32 when windows 95 came out? and yet even today outlook express from windows 95 still had more features and functionality than the glorified metro mail app on windows 10.

 

How old was win32 when WMP came out? and yet today both groove+music and tv apps COMBINED still can't hold a candle to WMP features and functionality, WMP completely dominates them both.

 

That tired old excuse of glorified metro not having time to mature is invalid since it's been out 4 years, gone through many humiliating name changes and still can't even come close to the weakest programs that win32 has to offer.

[Order_66]

31 minutes ago, kozukumi said:

I thought all those games were actually Win32/DirectX based but delivered through the store in a UWP "wrapper"?

100% correct.

[spaceelf]

12 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Which is different than non apps ... so ... as I said previously (joking of course) that splash screens are now "Modern" with Apps.  "Every Universal Windows Platform (UWP) app must have a splash screen, which consists of a splash screen image and a background color. You can customize both of these features."

Fair enough, though I still don't consider it the same as splash screens of old since it can last almost no time whatsoever.

[BajiRav]

2 hours ago, jjkusaf said:

The evolution is the same...no?  The UWP framework was in 8.1?  No? 

 

Which "advanced" windows apps are you referring to?  Which "advanced" UWP's are you referring to?

UWP's predecessor was in 8.1. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from remaking File Explorer in UWP that looks exactly like the existing version. UWP doesn't mean it is automatically touch optimized and "dumbed down".

One day I am going to mock up some insanely touch "un"friendly app in UWP to counter such ignorant posts.

[RandPC]

15 minutes ago, kozukumi said:

Lol. Although to be fair it is only visible for like half a second and I'm on an older machine (see sig). 

That half a second is still pretty questionable when the old Win32 calculator loaded instantly... and really, it's a calculator. This is not a particularly complex or deep application. Why on earth do modern processors need time to load a calculator app?
My phone can load a calculator instantly. I'm 100% certain my desktop processor should be more then capable of doing the same, since this processor is still extremely close to the bleeding edge and heavily overclocked at that.

Momentary pauses to load every Modern app no matter how simple they are is absurd when the vast majority of them are extremely simple small applications, and their Win32 equivalents have been loading instantly on anything made in the last 15yrs or so. It all adds up to a lot of wasted time.
I find it extremely hard to believe Microsoft's developers cannot build a mere calculator that can load immediately. These small loads are there in pretty much all Modern apps, and there is very seldom any reason for it. Either it's deliberate which is stupid although I suspect is most likely what is happening, or the UWP framework has such a massive overhead on load that it renders an i7 6770 @ 4.8Ghz slower to load a calculator app then the tiny Atom core in my phone, or Microsoft's developers are just that incapable of building a performant app. None of these answers are very appealing.

Microsoft is capable of much better. We shouldn't have to accept loads on such simple apps.

 

[spaceelf]

45 minutes ago, kozukumi said:

I thought all those games were actually Win32/DirectX based but delivered through the store in a UWP "wrapper"?

https://www.neowin.net/news/gears-of-war-ultimate-edition-released-for-windows-10

Quote

Being the first game to only be released through the Windows Store, one of the first games to support DirectX 12 (and the first to require it), as well as being being the first AAA title to be built on the Universal Windows Platform

Not that that's correct, as https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2016/01/28/rise-of-the-tomb-raider-debuts-on-windows-10/

Quote

As studio head of Nixxes Software BV, developing the PC version together with Crystal Dynamics, I’m proud to have been part of the ride to bring Rise of the Tomb Raider to Windows 10, and to be built using the Universal Windows Platform.

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

21 minutes ago, BajiRav said:

UWP's predecessor was in 8.1. There is nothing stopping Microsoft from remaking File Explorer in UWP that looks exactly like the existing version. UWP doesn't mean it is automatically touch optimized and "dumbed down".

One day I am going to mock up some insanely touch "un"friendly app in UWP to counter such ignorant posts.

Please do! 

 

The problem is that even Microsoft hasn't been able to release UWP that matches the w32 that they are supposed to replace.  Seriously...I can not drag/drop a media/image file into Movies & TV/Photos, I cannot double click upper left corner to close, etc.?  Those are just many small annoyances which lead up to the bigger UWP problem.  So one can assume (and obviously can be found incorrect) that yet another UWP (File Explorer in this case) will also have some dumb restrictions / features removed.  From a mouse/keyboard user ... I fail to see what is wrong with the current iteration.  UWP will probably just muck it up...though I will agree that touch users would benefit from a easier to use file manager.

[BajiRav]

42 minutes ago, jjkusaf said:

Please do! 

 

The problem is that even Microsoft hasn't been able to release UWP that matches the w32 that they are supposed to replace.  Seriously...I can not drag/drop a media/image file into Movies & TV/Photos, I cannot double click upper left corner to close, etc.?  Those are just many small annoyances which lead up to the bigger UWP problem.  So one can assume (and obviously can be found incorrect) that yet another UWP (File Explorer in this case) will also have some dumb restrictions / features removed.  From a mouse/keyboard user ... I fail to see what is wrong with the current iteration.  UWP will probably just muck it up...though I will agree that touch users would benefit from a easier to use file manager.

Here is a quick and ugly one  I kind of just did the ribbon buttons and you can see it is exactly same size as the Win32 File Explorer. I hope you get what I was saying from this.

 

 

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

1 minute ago, BajiRav said:

Here is a quick and ugly one  I kind of just did the ribbon buttons and you can see it is exactly same size as the Win32 File Explorer. I hope you get what I was saying from this.

 

 

 

haha...awesome.  I get and got what you were saying ... just doesn't ease my worry that Microsoft will muck it up.  Guess we'll see. 

 

[BajiRav]

1 minute ago, jjkusaf said:

haha...awesome.  I get and got what you were saying ... just doesn't ease my worry that Microsoft will muck it up.  Guess we'll see. 

 

Well true. Hopefully they don't use the horrible dev. team of the Mail or the Groove apps. Those are terrible apps.

and Yes, my mockup has a splashscreen  there is no escaping that for now.