5 ms·
Horrible? Sure. But difficult to navigate? I am not so sure. Maybe because I used Win 3.x and 9x? Could be.
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoSorry, 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 agoIf 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).