7 ms·

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

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.

negativegate 7y ago
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.
userbinator 7y ago
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.)
- comex 7y ago
  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.
  - poizan42 7y ago
    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.
ploxiln 7y ago
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 ...
- kumarharsh 7y ago
  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.
  - ploxiln 7y ago
    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.
  - mysterydip 7y ago
    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/ https://www.xyplorer.com/ which weighs in at 7MB.
- 64738 7y ago
  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. :)
eps 7y ago
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.
- jcelerier 7y ago
  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...
  - userbinator 7y ago
    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.
    - jcelerier 7y ago
      > 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.
hiperlink 7y ago
This just reminded me of https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than
c-smile 7y ago
http://html-notepad.com http://html-notepad.com - distribution 2,5 Mb (compressed) http://notes.sciter.com 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.

negativegate 7y ago

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.

userbinator 7y ago

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.)

comex 7y ago
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.
- poizan42 7y ago
  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.

ploxiln 7y ago

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 ...

kumarharsh 7y ago
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.
- ploxiln 7y ago
  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.
- mysterydip 7y ago
  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/ https://www.xyplorer.com/ which weighs in at 7MB.
64738 7y ago
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. :)

eps 7y ago

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.

jcelerier 7y ago
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...
- userbinator 7y ago
  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.
  - jcelerier 7y ago
    > 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.

hiperlink 7y ago

This just reminded me of https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than

c-smile 7y ago

http://html-notepad.com http://html-notepad.com - distribution 2,5 Mb (compressed) http://notes.sciter.com 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.