News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by kumarharsh on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:38AM (#20130682)
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.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by ploxiln on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:59AM (#20130732)
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)

irfan-view: 3.4 MiB (image viewer/utility)

uTorrent: 2.3 MiB

Sysinternals Process Monitor: 1 MiB

For a truly native application, which doesn't pack a huge run-time or dependency tree, that's the expected size range. Now, it's true, it seems no one does that anymore ...

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by kumarharsh on Saturday June 08, 2019 @01:44AM (#20130842)
I agree to those points, and really happy that 7-Zip still fits on a floppy (when the floppy itself is dead). The bloat is real, but it's not something specific to Windows. All three platforms, plus the web, have become bloated. But picking the 50mb size as a stick to beat an app which is still maturing is too harsh, IMO.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by mysterydip on Saturday June 08, 2019 @07:14AM (#20131796)
If it was just a regular app I'd agree, but file explorer is pretty integral to the OS experience. Any bloat there cascades as multiple instances are launched or called from other applications. As a counterexample, here's XYplorer, another file explorer alternative: https://www.xyplorer.com/ which weighs in at 7MB.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by ploxiln on Saturday June 08, 2019 @02:09AM (#20130912)
True - and reports seem to be that the actual compiled code is like 18 MiB. It's the comparison to these huge android apps that got me. I could do this for android too: keepassdroid is 4 MiB, zxing barcode scanner is 0.7 MiB ...

So many people just don't understand the scale of these things.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by 64738 on Saturday June 08, 2019 @02:13AM (#20130926)
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 IrfanView also does quite a bit more. I think I have a new favorite!

Now, if you'll pardon me, I need to drop the author a kind note. :)

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by Boulth on Saturday June 08, 2019 @07:21AM (#20131817)
Yep, IrfanView is fantastic, I gladly paid the license. Sadly it's not available on Linux.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by chronogram on Saturday June 08, 2019 @03:38AM (#20131148)
Wow one of the lucky 10 000! I can understand your happiness, I think I felt the same way probably over 15 years ago when I first found it.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by hestefisk on Saturday June 08, 2019 @04:01AM (#20131220)
ACDSee was thee shit, mate
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by gsich on Saturday June 08, 2019 @10:28AM (#20132562)
Fastpictureviewer? I haven't found a program (on Linux too) that comes close to the performance.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by legends2k on Saturday June 08, 2019 @02:43AM (#20131000)
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!
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by badsectoracula on Saturday June 08, 2019 @11:52AM (#20133022)
FWIW Total Commander's EXE and DLLs are around 8MB (the installer is 4.2MB) and uses around 6MB of RAM right now (for comparison, the new UWP Calculator uses 18MB of RAM). It is not written in pure C/C++ nor uses Win32 directly but instead it is written in Object Pascal/Delphi or Free Pascal/Lazarus (depending on the version you use) and uses VCL or LCL (well, it probably does use some Win32 directly too). Also runs on any Windows PC from Win95 to Win10.

I mention this because Delphi and Lazarus are quite high level environments to work with with rich frameworks and libraries yet you can create very lightweight applications with them (the executables will be a bit fat compared to what you can do with pure C/C++ or even pure Free Pascal, especially with Lazarus, but resource consumption is still low).

You do not need to use C/C++ with pure Win32 API to create lightweight applications and even if you use those there are frameworks that allow for easier development (e.g. WTL, Win++ or libui to mention some).

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by tluyben2 on Saturday June 08, 2019 @09:25AM (#20132252)
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 Expl... by vbezhenar on Saturday June 08, 2019 @11:21AM (#20132836)
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.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by legends2k on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @12:00PM (#20214540)
You can do hardware accelerated stuff atop WinAPI; many, sadly, don't seem to know it. WinRT, is exactly for that; it's the distillation of UWP, which can be used in a simple Win32 app [1] e.g. The modern, hardware-accelerated API for compositing on Windows is Visual Layer (available under `ABI::Windows::UI::Composition`) [2]; it can be used from a Win32 app written in pure C++ [3] and the C++/CX language extension is unneeded.

[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...

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by userbinator on Saturday June 08, 2019 @02:55PM (#20134304)
Microsoft itself doesn't think so highly of UWP now: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19883351
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by vbezhenar on Saturday June 08, 2019 @06:05PM (#20135474)
Oh, thanks, that's nice to know, I missed that. I always liked WinAPI style and I hope that it'll reborn.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by badsectoracula on Saturday June 08, 2019 @11:56AM (#20133042)
What nice things are with UWP? I haven't seen any UWP application i'd consider "nice" :-P.

And IMO WinAPI not being hardware accelerated (although i think some parts of it, like filling and blitting, are hardware accelerated) isn't really a big issue - if anything, requiring hardware acceleration from you UI might be a hint that you are making it a bit too flashy. But that might be me preferring plain and compact UIs like those made with Win32 as opposed to website/mobile-like stuff.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by gsich on Saturday June 08, 2019 @10:27AM (#20132559)
"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 Expl... by chx on Saturday June 08, 2019 @03:40PM (#20134624)
And then there's https://www.nirsoft.net/ full of useful utilities measured in tens of kilobytes... it's insane. The largest 64 bit exe is 249 232 bytes.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by awinder on Saturday June 08, 2019 @10:34AM (#20132591)
So it’s 4x the size of mpc-hc, did the sky really fall here? I’m not on a computer but quickly scanning the repo there’s a fair number of image assets, so I don’t really know that that’s a good proxy for “bloat”
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by vbezhenar on Saturday June 08, 2019 @11:17AM (#20132820)
why image assets are necessary with modern application? We should be using vector images by now. And vector images are tiny.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by awinder on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:07PM (#20133127)
Yeah sounds like a great PR for someone to make who truly thinks this is a major issue
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by sp332 on Saturday June 08, 2019 @05:13PM (#20135216)
Yeah but 7-zip's UI is small enough to be just about unusable on my 4k monitor. Sometimes drag-and-drop is broken and sometimes windows don't resize right. Maybe if they had used a good UI library instead of rolling their own stuff, they would have to spend less time chasing a bunch of little bugs and the users wouldn't have to deal with them either.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by sansnomme on Saturday June 08, 2019 @07:06AM (#20131775)
But..but..RICH UI!!
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by AnIdiotOnTheNet on Saturday June 08, 2019 @10:23AM (#20132534)
Rich, as in "loaded with fat".
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by userbinator on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:53AM (#20130717)
You're discounting the numerous DLLs which the explorer uses, or even other shared resources which are used system-wide.

I see this argument brought up in demoscene discussions ("your .exe is 4KB but it uses several GB of system libraries and device drivers!") and the rebuttal is the same: I'm assuming this UWP one itself makes use of other system DLLs too, like any other Windows application will, so the comparison is between 5MB + shared and 55MB + shared.

Even the 'Google' app on Android is 285 MB

Android is a whole other story altogether. The bloat is endemic there, and emulating that is not at all something to be proud of. Windows applications can be far more efficient, as Windows' own explorer.exe shows (and even that is probably not anywhere close to "perfection", but the difference is already enormous.)

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by comex on Saturday June 08, 2019 @01:26AM (#20130794)
It's not just a matter of using random system functionality; I think Explorer uses the same UI code as Open/Save dialogs, in which case the UI itself necessarily lives in system DLLs. (But I'm a novice when it comes to Windows, so I could be wrong.)

That said, the bloat is real.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by poizan42 on Saturday June 08, 2019 @06:41AM (#20131720)
Yeah, all the file tree view/list view stuff, shell namespace etc. etc. is implemented in shell32.dll, so we should probably compare with explorer.exe + shell32.dll. Everything else are basic widgets and OS interaction which clearly exists in both environments so shouldn't be counted.

And with that it is still only 4.27MB+6.81MB = 11.08MB on my system. So yeah, the bloat is real no matter how you look at it.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by eps on Saturday June 08, 2019 @04:04AM (#20131231)
55 MB is an absolute fuckton.

For a native app of Windows Explorer kind that doesn't pack massive resources, 5-10 Megs is a reasonable size.

Heck, you are forgetting than something like 3D Studio MAX originially fit on a set of floppies and I can assure you it could do FAR more than "the Gallery app" whatever the heck that poor thing is.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by jcelerier on Saturday June 08, 2019 @05:46AM (#20131548)
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...
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by userbinator on Saturday June 08, 2019 @07:59PM (#20136030)
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.
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by jcelerier on Sunday June 09, 2019 @04:19PM (#20141637)
> 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.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by hiperlink on Saturday June 08, 2019 @06:48AM (#20131739)
This just reminded me of https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than
Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by c-smile on Saturday June 08, 2019 @11:47AM (#20132994)
http://html-notepad.com - distribution 2,5 Mb (compressed) http://notes.sciter.com - 2.5 Mb and on all platforms.

And these applications are not using "numerous DLLs" - just two files: app.exe and sciter.dll (and that one can be linked statically into executable).

So "yes", 50 Mb for an Explorer thing is too much.

Re:Files UWP: An enthusiast’s take on what Windows File Expl... by negativegate on Saturday June 08, 2019 @12:51AM (#20130713)
The bundle also seems to include dependencies for multiple architectures and PDBs for debugging. Files.dll which would contain most of the application is ~18MB. And since it does not seem to be a managed dll, it has probably been AOT compiled and likely contains the original bytecode in addition to the native machine code.