4 ms·
I disagree. I was using WinDbg downloaded from the Microsoft Store (so it had the WPF or whatever UI), and it was unusable. (Note: I was using it on a very larg
by makuto 6y ago
I disagree. I was using WinDbg downloaded from the Microsoft Store (so it had the WPF or whatever UI), and it was unusable. (Note: I was using it on a very large project - 4mLOC with hundreds of first- and third-party libs; It's likely I could get some use out of it on a trivial program, but it just didn't get the "real" program; and no, I wasn't simply missing the PDBs).
- pjmlp 6y agoWell it is still preview, but definitely much better than the classical one, from my point of view, which looks like created by kernel developers first attempt at a GUI app.
- Hello71 6y agoit was in fact created using state-of-the-art windows gui frameworks. in 1995. and then never updated. is it really an improvement to have a win10 settings app that is all unified... except for most of the advanced settings and half of the basic settings which are only available in the control panel?
- pjmlp 6y agoWin 16 nor Win32 were never state of the art Windows GUI frameworks, just the basic building blocks. That place is reserved for OWL, VCL and MFC, which WinDbg doesn't use.
- Hello71 6y agomy mistake. I thought MDI was new in Windows 95, but in fact it dates back to Windows 3.0, and was in fact deprecated by 95.
- userbinator 6y agoIMHO the original WinDbg UI was perfectly fine with the exception of a few small oddities; the new one is pointless trendchasing.