9 ms·

It also leaves out the Windows 3.1 https://i.redd.it/5xo6c8xmst571.png https://i.redd.it/5xo6c8xmst571.png

by wlesieutre 5y ago

ziml77 5y ago
Ok, that's the absolute worst. I hate running into those 3.1 file pickers because they're so annoying to navigate.
- kwanbix 5y ago
  Horrible? Sure. But difficult to navigate? I am not so sure. Maybe because I used Win 3.x and 9x? Could be.
  - ziml77 5y ago
    Yes, difficult to navigate. The list can only display a few items at a time because it's so small. And really I don't want to be clicking my way to a folder anyway, I want to be able to paste the path in or type it with autocomplete. I grew up with 3.1 and 9x. I don't want that back.
    - kwanbix 5y ago
      Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you mean to use the different objects in it. Not the specifics of browsing the files/folders. Yes, I agree then.
  - nwallin 5y ago
    If I recall correctly, the 3.1 file picker isn't resizable. And it's very small. The small size wasn't such a problem when the filesystem enforced 8.3 file name lengths, but these days it's reasonable to expect names for individual files or folders to be much longer than that. We have a bug in our backlog right now because we tack on an extra bit when we export files. Imagine we open foobar.raw and export foobar.txt and foobar.txt.info. But when the application tried to write out foobar.txt.info it hits the 260 character limit in NTFS. Meaning that the original file name was over 255 characters.
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      > And it's very small It was designed to work on a VGA screen with 480x640 pixels after all. And this is from Windows NT 3.5 IIRC. Windows 3.1 didn’t have long file names (like the Apple II had in 1979 or so).
- blibble 5y ago
  still better than the gtk3 one
vehemenz 5y ago
I was looking for one of these, but I could only find Win31 common dialogs in third-party (non-Microsoft) applications. Well done.
- wlesieutre 5y ago
  I can’t take credit, saw it here: https://reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_windows_31_dialogue_is_again_in/ https://reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_wi...
thunderbong 5y ago
Comment on the Reddit thread from where this screenshot was taken - https://old.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_windows_31_dialogue_is_again_in/h24k1zi/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famou... The ODBC Driver interface for configuration is tied to the old dialog. The interface for the drivers was designed around GetOpenFileName() as it was at the time. One of the features of GetOpenFileName/GetSaveFileName is that the structure passed in can include two special options- a function pointer to a hook routine, as well as a custom dialog template which windows will insert. The functions were improved in Windows 95 with the "Explorer style". Even old programs get this style at the very least, because windows will imply the flag. unless a template or hook routine is specified. See if a hook routine or template is specified and the OFN_EXPLORER flag is not, then the hook routine or template was designed for the old-style dialog. Windows uses the old-style dialog in this instance so that the program can run and doesn't crash. The ODBC Driver configuration uses a dialog template to add the "read Only" and "Exclusive" checkboxes. That is why it shows the old style dialog. People might say, "They should update it" Update what? If GetOpenFileName()'s ability to fallback to the old-style dialog is removed, than you won't see this dialog. Instead, it will crash. Cool. great experience. the driver interface? OK great. so now there is a new version of the ODBC Driver interface. Now all the ODBC Drivers need to be updated. Some of the drivers were written by companies that are either out of business or rather different. I have this sneaking suspicion that Paradox software isn't going to be writing a new ODBC Driver for the MS-DOS Database. Just drop everything? OK Cool.... so now companies get forcibly upgraded to Windows 11 and literally cannot do business because they rely on them in some manner. "They should upgrade". I won't get into that except to say it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but companies in that position are far more likely to find ways to not upgrade the software that caused the problem so, you know, they can keep doing business. And not upgrading the OS is certainly cheaper than countless thousands of man-hours in upgrading their Business software. And a big thing people don't understand about backwards compatibility is it's not just about old programs working. It's about new ones working to. If Microsoft removed all "backwards compatibility", than practically nothing would actually work. Software would be constantly crashing, sending error reports, etc. Now, call me crazy, but somehow that doesn't seem like it's a great experience. And if upgrading to Windows X+1 suddenly caused programs to crash left & right, nobody is going to blame the programs.

It also leaves out the Windows 3.1 https://i.redd.it/5xo6c8xmst571.png https://i.redd.it/5xo6c8xmst571.png

ziml77 5y ago

Ok, that's the absolute worst. I hate running into those 3.1 file pickers because they're so annoying to navigate.

kwanbix 5y ago
Horrible? Sure. But difficult to navigate? I am not so sure. Maybe because I used Win 3.x and 9x? Could be.
- ziml77 5y ago
  Yes, difficult to navigate. The list can only display a few items at a time because it's so small. And really I don't want to be clicking my way to a folder anyway, I want to be able to paste the path in or type it with autocomplete. I grew up with 3.1 and 9x. I don't want that back.
  - kwanbix 5y ago
    Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you mean to use the different objects in it. Not the specifics of browsing the files/folders. Yes, I agree then.
- nwallin 5y ago
  If I recall correctly, the 3.1 file picker isn't resizable. And it's very small. The small size wasn't such a problem when the filesystem enforced 8.3 file name lengths, but these days it's reasonable to expect names for individual files or folders to be much longer than that. We have a bug in our backlog right now because we tack on an extra bit when we export files. Imagine we open foobar.raw and export foobar.txt and foobar.txt.info. But when the application tried to write out foobar.txt.info it hits the 260 character limit in NTFS. Meaning that the original file name was over 255 characters.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    > And it's very small It was designed to work on a VGA screen with 480x640 pixels after all. And this is from Windows NT 3.5 IIRC. Windows 3.1 didn’t have long file names (like the Apple II had in 1979 or so).
blibble 5y ago
still better than the gtk3 one

vehemenz 5y ago

I was looking for one of these, but I could only find Win31 common dialogs in third-party (non-Microsoft) applications. Well done.

wlesieutre 5y ago
I can’t take credit, saw it here: https://reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_windows_31_dialogue_is_again_in/ https://reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_wi...

thunderbong 5y ago

Comment on the Reddit thread from where this screenshot was taken - https://old.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famous_windows_31_dialogue_is_again_in/h24k1zi/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/o1x183/the_famou... The ODBC Driver interface for configuration is tied to the old dialog. The interface for the drivers was designed around GetOpenFileName() as it was at the time. One of the features of GetOpenFileName/GetSaveFileName is that the structure passed in can include two special options- a function pointer to a hook routine, as well as a custom dialog template which windows will insert. The functions were improved in Windows 95 with the "Explorer style". Even old programs get this style at the very least, because windows will imply the flag. unless a template or hook routine is specified. See if a hook routine or template is specified and the OFN_EXPLORER flag is not, then the hook routine or template was designed for the old-style dialog. Windows uses the old-style dialog in this instance so that the program can run and doesn't crash. The ODBC Driver configuration uses a dialog template to add the "read Only" and "Exclusive" checkboxes. That is why it shows the old style dialog. People might say, "They should update it" Update what? If GetOpenFileName()'s ability to fallback to the old-style dialog is removed, than you won't see this dialog. Instead, it will crash. Cool. great experience. the driver interface? OK great. so now there is a new version of the ODBC Driver interface. Now all the ODBC Drivers need to be updated. Some of the drivers were written by companies that are either out of business or rather different. I have this sneaking suspicion that Paradox software isn't going to be writing a new ODBC Driver for the MS-DOS Database. Just drop everything? OK Cool.... so now companies get forcibly upgraded to Windows 11 and literally cannot do business because they rely on them in some manner. "They should upgrade". I won't get into that except to say it's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but companies in that position are far more likely to find ways to not upgrade the software that caused the problem so, you know, they can keep doing business. And not upgrading the OS is certainly cheaper than countless thousands of man-hours in upgrading their Business software. And a big thing people don't understand about backwards compatibility is it's not just about old programs working. It's about new ones working to. If Microsoft removed all "backwards compatibility", than practically nothing would actually work. Software would be constantly crashing, sending error reports, etc. Now, call me crazy, but somehow that doesn't seem like it's a great experience. And if upgrading to Windows X+1 suddenly caused programs to crash left & right, nobody is going to blame the programs.