Microsoft Open-Sources Original File Manager From the 1990s So It Can Run On Windows 10 (theverge.com) 173
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Microsoft is releasing the source code for its original Windows File Manager from nearly 28 years ago. Originally released for Windows 3.0, the File Manager was a replacement for managing files through MS-DOS, and allowed Windows users to copy, move, delete, and search for files. While it's a relic from the past, you can still compile the source code Microsoft has released and run the app on Windows 10 today. The source code is available on GitHub, and is maintained by Microsoft veteran Craig Wittenberg under the MIT license. Wittenberg copied the File Manager code from Windows NT 4 back in 2007, and has been maintaining it before open sourcing it recently. It's a testament to the backward compatibility of Windows itself, especially that this was originally included in Windows more than 20 years ago.
Midi Manager (Score:3)
How about open sourcing the Midi Manager so we can run that on Windows 10.
I like my old games with MIDI music to use my hardware, not your awful software implementation.
Re: (Score:3)
Just use Coolsoft Midimapper: https://coolsoft.altervista.or... [altervista.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, MS doesn't care about musicians anymore. :-/ When was the last time you actually heard them talk about kernel latency? MS has embraced mediocrity for so long that they wouldn't know the first thing about inspiring greatness. Hell they STILL don't understand UI's -- they just copy the lastest fad of the decade.
While all the cool kids are using DAWs (Digital Audio Workstation) and VSTs (Virtual Instrument) it seems like most of the creative types migrated over to the OSX. Apple _used_ to care with
Re: (Score:2)
Hell they STILL don't understand UI's
Sure they do. It's called PowerShell.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they still ship GarageBand (last time I checked)
Not only still ship, they are actively still developing it (and Logic and MainStage, too)
Re: (Score:2)
MIDI has been a forgotten step child -- which sucks.
Time to buy those old MIDI devices off eBay while we still can.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. MIDI is alive and well. It's just a lot of the dedicated MIDI-driven hardware has long since gone obsolete in favor of pure software solutions, which I think are ultimately both more powerful and easier to use, if slightly less impressive to look at. But MIDI is still the universal language of digital instruments.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Microsoft mostly fixed kernel latency with Vista, when they introduced WASAPI. The system was further improved with every iteration, and Windows 10 is actually pretty good.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-... [microsoft.com]
0ms latency for all applications, even using the mixer.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't talking about _external_ hardware (which you are correct) but about Microsoft's support for it.
Longevity of code/interface (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a testament to the backward compatibility of Windows itself, especially that this was originally included in Windows more than 20 years ago.
Gee, that would date this code to about the same time we were doing the POSIX standards that codified a (then) 20 year old Unix interface.
Re:Longevity of code/interface (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, most of the files have the commit message "Original WinFile sources plus changes to build with VS" so it's not exactly source-compatible. The API might be but that's also how we get DDE & OLE vulnerabilities in modern code, etc. There are trade-offs.
Re: (Score:3)
Serious question: how many 16-bit applications do you know run natively on 64-bit hardware? If you read the notes, that is the majority of the changes. The other major change was statically linking against a particular DLL file (again, another 16-bit binary), and updating to current APIs. The vast majority of the code otherwise still works. Also as a note: WinFile predates OLE, and is actually something that has been added to the upgraded version in this code base too!
Re:Longevity of code/interface (Score:5, Interesting)
There is an obscene amount of POSIX compliant code that breaks without 64-bit specific fixes. I know because I have to fix it at work.
And don't get me started on DLL - possibly the worst design decision in all of Windows (and that's saying a lot!), particularly given how DLLs proved to be a massive attack vector on Windows systems.
Yes, dynamic libraries were such a bad idea.
Increased attack surface? ya, youbetcha. Trade-off? You try running 150 processes on a machine with full software stacks without sharing memory pages, and let me know how that works for you. I've done my share of hackery with linux shared objects too. There was always a trade-off in them, and Microsoft neither invented that tradeoff, or had a worse implementation of it than anyone else. They're simply the most visible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I manage/design our network connecting 8 datacenters together, operating as a multi-homed AS,serving a little north of 10,000 residential customers, with a few thousand being fiber-to-the-home.
~3500 of those customers pass around 7gbit/s of traffic during peak over a single Linux router running NAT code written by me on an e3-1250.
I write the lion's share of our software (mostly perl) to wrap it all together, and write custo
Re: (Score:3)
Yes those pesky DLLs with their shared object code.... ... You do realise that the exact same concept exists on all all modern Unix-alikes including Linux, only they are called shared object libraries.
Also I wouldn't bet against there being many early 90's era Posix apps that do not compile cleanly for 64 bit. For a start,, any app that assumes ints and pointers are the same size - and there were a lot - is completely broken under LP64.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you complaining about the concept and use of shared libraries in general, or just the way Windows implemented it?
Every OS uses shared libraries, it's far more efficient and consistent to code that way.. I know that and I'm not a developer by any stretch.
Older versions of Windows suffered from DLL hell, but that was due primarily to ignorant or arrogant developers who clobbered the default system DLLs thinking their app was the only one in the world that mattered, breaking other apps that relied on the l
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what I did have in mind. Not the concept of shared libraries, but the terrible Windows implementation of same. In particular, the total lack of discipline for where DLLs are stored. Maybe the security problems weren't obvious when Windows came up with its approach for DLL, but the management/configuration problems should have been blatantly obvious. This could have/should have been fixed in Win NT, which at least in theory started from an intellectual/design base that was stronger than Wi
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of very old unix applications will still build and run on modern linux systems today, including a lot of code that actually predates linux.
Windows is generally better at binary compatibility, largely due to keeping all the legacy dll files present in the default install while linux distros have long since removed old libs from the default install as very few people would ever use them (almost anything old that you might still want to use will have since been recompiled against the new libs).
For source
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pasting editable spreadsheets into Word/Powerpoint was always pretty handy, if quirky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, that would date this code to about the same time we were doing the POSIX standards that codified a (then) 20 year old Unix interface.
Gee, that didn't define an entire GUI/Windowing system.
Don't get me wrong, I love POSIX as much as the next guy, but it's a far more limited thing than WIN32. The closest NIX comparison would be GTK, I think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other standards at the same time did, in particular the Common Desktop Environment. The X11 protocol still works and Motif was open sourced so you can still run 1993 Motif apps on a modern X system. For a given value of run...
CDE was opensourced a while ago as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GUIs are driven more by taste than tech, so backwards compatibility with GUIs is far more difficult and impressive.
Even 20 years ago, many UN*X systems didn't even have a GUI, let alone have a decent one, let alone a set of standards. As a semi-power user, the lack of a good GUI is what always kept me away from Linux, and for the most part, it still does.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a running joke where I worked in the '80s and '90s that the only reason I ran X Windows on my Sun workstation was because the scrolling in its "glass TTY mode" was so slow. There's a lot of truth to that. After X Windows launched, I launched EMACS and 2 shells. One was the command line for compiling, linking, etc, and the other was the game of Rogue I played when the compiler/linker was running.
(This was for software that did not have a significant user interface.)
And I still do stuff on the comma
Re: (Score:2)
Solitare?
This could help Gnome (Score:1, Funny)
They should import the source immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Did File Manager have the ability to bookmark a location... because I don't think the current Gnome "Files" app can. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will say!
Cool (Score:2)
Not sure how well it holds up, but I remember strongly preferring to keep using the old "File Manager" even when "Explorer" became the preferred solution when Windows 95 was released. Not sure where along the way I begrudgingly gave it up (probably as long filenames became more popular - IIRC it was always limited to the 8.3 format).
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother? (Score:3)
This seems more like Microsoft tossing bread to the Open Source community, appearing to be generous, while they are just interested in watching the infighting for the scraps.
The File Manager is something that is relatively easy to make yourself, especially from such an old version. If they were to release the one they are using currently, that may mean a bit more. Just as it has a lot more features that may take a while to catalog and implement yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
Do we absoloutely have to always hate Microsoft here?
This is very obviously them doing something 'fun'
At least they aren't google, far, far more evil nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not trying to hate Microsoft here. It is just that File Explorer is such a small tool. It is like them releasing the source code for the Clock App, or the Calculator.
While the applications themselves are not without value, they are easily copied without the need of source code, even for beginner programmers.
A Winfile fetish? (Score:3)
Really?
I mean there has to be a bazillion alternative file manages for Windows out there if you don't like Explorer for some reason and power shell and or good old cmd.exe/command.com + xcopy, deltree and friends won't cut it for you.
Even back in 1993 - winfile was something people without a copy of Norton Desktop used; in other words poor people, and folks with no common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
You might be a good potential user for Far Manager [farmanager.com]
Re: (Score:2)
NDW and Norton Commander - not the same thing.
NDW 3.0 was still a better shell + file manager than the modern windows desktop. If it could handle hi-res and long file names; I'd still be using it.
Are you sure? (Score:2)
Lameness filter encountered. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.
Dang it! That's the joke! Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure? Are you sure?
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Lazy Game Reviews (LGR) on YouTube. The guy loves 90s era PCs and his enthusiasm is infectious.
The other day he bought a top of the range Windows 95 laptop in mint condition. At the time it cost about $5000, which is over $8000 today. He powered it up for the first time, the classic Windows 95 start-up tune kicked in and the speakers ratted and distorted like the cheap 90s era 9000W PMPO crap they are, and it was glorious.
The old X10 system for DOS was pretty good too. Back then it was pretty awes
Here I had my heart all set (Score:2)
Here I had my heart all set on getting Clippy back onto my Windows 10 You're Totally Fucked Spring Edition and they give me File Manager? WTF!?!? Talk about lame.
Re: (Score:2)
Still not better than Norton Commander (Score:5, Informative)
...THE reference file management tool for PC geeks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Commander
I still use Midnight Commander on Linux from time to time, especially for quick side-by-side file/dir moves (the viewing of diff's between them is nice) and searching for content inside lots of files
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Commander
Re:Still not better than Norton Commander (Score:4, Insightful)
Preach it brother. Midnight Commander is the best. Thunar and the like are pretty, but work gets done with mc.
Re:Still not better than Norton Commander (Score:4, Informative)
XTree Gold was much better
Re: (Score:3)
LOL, figures an AC would bring the Xtree reference. Xtree was good, but just plain ugly looking compared to NC. I used both as needed, but NC was my go-to tool in the road warrior floppy toolbox
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm back in 1990 arguing the finer elements of ASCII based MS-DOS apps' display vs usability. Is it dementia or really Slashdot? I wonder if I might also have both NC and Xtree open in separate DESQview windows today?
Re: (Score:2)
I still use Midnight Commander on Linux from time to time
I still use Midnight Commander... period. It is absolutely awesome. On windows I use Directory Opus which is also a keyboard shortcutable dual window file manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Far Manager [farmanager.com] is a good substitute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WordPerfect for DOS and a well-trained office assistant could bang out an award winning letter out faster than a speeding train.
Paper keyboard templates...those were the days
Re: (Score:3)
LOL@ all the low-numbered reply'ers to this post. We're soo old. Gonna be a real riot around the floor shuffleboard in a few years...
"I remember when there was a real chance of getting electrocuted by just touching a computer's front-panel power switch!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Look at this adorable little chap, thinking Norton Commander even comes close to Xtree Gold, I just wanna rub your nose and pinch your cheek.
http://www.ztree.com/ [ztree.com] my good man, http://www.ztree.com/ [ztree.com]
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you smell like an EMACS user
Re: (Score:2)
I used NC in DOS in the 90s, then WindowsCommander in windows 3, then the name change at one point to TotalCommander, I still use it in win10, it is at version 9.12. Yes I bought it like 15 years ago. I don't know how to use the Windows File Interface, I only use TC.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, same here.
BTW thanks for reminding me to update, I am still on 9.0a RC3.
Re: (Score:2)
We are soo old. Wish we had human Expanded Memory Managers (EMM) because my 640 is full
Re: (Score:2)
I spent hours configuring DOpus to work just right, and be usable in 640x256 to avoid interlacing on an old commodore monitor... Spent ages training it to recognise filetypes etc (you feed it a bunch of example files and it works out what they all have in common - eg the file headers, then uses that pattern to match future files).
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, PC Tools was The Shit. Very comprehensive. But looking back on it, that suite was also probably where bloatware was born. Think you had to manually pare down what you wanted to use from PC Tools to get it on a single floppy vs just throwing all of NC or Xtree on a 1.44. 1990's IT tech road warriors were notorious for losing disk#2 of anything by leaving it in the last customer's floppy drive on the way out the door...
It's fitting Symantec bought the company, because they became the premiere vendor of W
Explorer still can't do what DOS did: (Score:3)
print a list of files in a directory, like Dir>PRN.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't you just email a screenshot of explorer into the cloud and have it automagically appear on the printer right next to you as determined by the ever watchful eye of Facebook knowing where you are at any given moment?
Re: (Score:2)
what does he do to maintian? (Score:2)
ReactOS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Their code is way past this.Unlikely to learn anything.
Certainly you could run winfile on ReactOS but there's no demand to include it.
Sounds like a one man project. (Score:2)
Sounds to me like someone inside Microsoft grabbed the source code for the NT4 version of File Manager and patched it up for his own personal use on internal systems. Then he asked his manager if he could release it on Github so he could use it at home, too.
He was probably completely shocked when he actually got approval.
I'd be shocked if it was part of any particular open source strategy on the part of Microsoft.
"run the app" (Score:3)
That original version sucked (Score:2)
If you deleted a bunch of files, it would refresh the entire list between every delete, causing it to take an agonizingly long time. Copy / paste had the same problem.
They fixed this in Windows 3.1, and then proceeded to find ways to make the process take longer ever since, mostly by trying to compute how long the process would take. Nowadays, it takes Windows as long to do the time calculation, as it would to just delete the files!
NT 3.51 apps run on modern operating systems (Score:2)
At least they used to, not sure about Windows 10.
I managed to hack together a semi-functional desktop environment that looked like Windows 3.1 because NT 3.51 apps looked the same and were compiled for 32-bit Windows APIs.
meh (Score:2)
now release the rest of the windows 3.1 sourcode.
Win 7 UI (Score:2)
not in apples sandbox! (Score:2)
not in apples sandbox! and soon mac os will be just as locked down.
Re: (Score:3)
and soon mac os will be just as locked down.
Uh huh. We’ve been hearing this for nearly 10 years now. Every year it’s “soon” to happen and yet fails to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
If we take their ports, they'll never even notice when we take their freedom!
Re:Port to iOS please (Score:5, Insightful)
Please!!!
I wish they'd release the source for the file manager that came with Win98 and Win2K, and I wish somebody would port it to Linux. The only decent Linux file manager I've found is Dolphin, and its deps are pretty much all of KDE core, which is huge - especially when compared with the XFCE environment I'd be using it in. I want a file manager with an integrated search function that will actually search inside files for a specified text string. Right now I use the Gnome search tool. It isn't integrated into the file manager, it's buggy, and its UI sucks, but it's the best available, short of installing the bloated and bling-laden KDE. Pretty much the only thing I miss about Windows is the File Manager. Well, except for the fact that Windows applications use File Manager for their load and save functions, which makes the interface much more consistent from one application to the next. Having a mix of GTK2, GTK3, and program-specific file dialogs like those in Libre Office, is just sucky.
Re:Port to iOS please (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much the only thing I miss about Windows is the File Manager.
I really don't think it's that great.Then again I usually have to struggle to keep it as "details", no thumbnails, no metadata, show extensions, shows hidden files, please don't hang when I right click a file and it loads who knows how many extra handlers.
Well, except for the fact that Windows applications use File Manager for their load and save functions, which makes the interface much more consistent from one application to the next. Having a mix of GTK2, GTK3, and program-specific file dialogs like those in Libre Office, is just sucky.
One downside is it's a little too rich for its own good. I remember back in the day under poor attempts to lock down a machine by hiding explorer, "run" from start menu, my computer, etc could be circumvented by opening the open window of an allowable application, and navigating to cmd.exe/command.com.
One upside is in WinPE / WinRE that doesn't have access to a file manager, you can open notepad from the cmd window, open the open dialog, and get a bare bones explorer window for basic file management.
Re:Port to iOS please (Score:5, Insightful)
i never understood why windows defaults to "hide extensions for known file types" -- in what god damn universe is that a GOOD idea?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
All it has ever done is make misdirection work by allowing malicious actors to hide the extension.
The extension is *definitely* not the problem there.
Having the exact same action ("double click") perform two entirely distinct functions:
1. View a file
2. Execute a program with all of the permissions of the current user
is the issue. In what universe is *that* a good idea?
Why Windows hides file extensions (Score:4, Informative)
i never understood why windows defaults to "hide extensions for known file types"
I agree it was never a good idea. IMHO it was done because the file extensions are ugly.
On the Mac, every file has a "resource fork" (I guess on OS X it's no longer properly a "resource fork" but there is something equivalent) and the type of the file is coded in a spot that the OS knows how to read but which the user doesn't see. So the user types any name, and the icon is the right icon and the user just sees the icon and the chosen name.
On Windows and Linux, the file systems don't have this "resource fork" idea, so the obvious place to encode the type of file is the extension. But the extension is user-visible.
Linux uses the techniques pioneered in UNIX [wikipedia.org] to just identify a file no matter what its name is. If it's an ELF binary, it will start with certain bytes arranged a certain way; if it's a LibreOffice document, it will start with different bytes, etc. It's trickier but more reliable: you can rename a LibreOffice document to not have its extension any more, and your file manager can still do the right thing when you double-click on it.
But Windows just uses the extension.
Well, hiding the extension makes Windows more like the Mac. The icon is correct, the user just sees the filename chosen by the user, life is great.
But users are used to seeing extensions and don't worry about them much. And there was a form of attack where a Trojan Horse file would have a name like "Important Document.doc.exe" and hope the user would open it. If Windows hides the extension, then just the ".exe" part is hidden, and the user just sees "Important Document.doc" (and as I said the user is used to seeing extensions and doesn't freak out that most documents have no visible extension but this one does).
These days, by default, Windows hides "system" directories and anything else that an uninformed user shouldn't touch. If I have to use Windows, I make sure to turn on seeing file extensions, disable hiding system directories, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
OS X has deprecated resource forks in favor of bundles. A bundle is just a folder with a bunch of files in it (one of them is a property list that says what the bundle is). In a sense, it's a resource fork exploded into individual files.
Finder has custom logic to display bundles so they don't look or act like folders (you can still open them as a folder but it takes an extra click);
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that NTFS has had "resource forks" since its early days, right?
It just calls them "Alternative Data Streams"... they've been part of Windows NT since ... well, Windows NT.
Re:Why Windows hides file extensions (Score:4, Interesting)
On Windows and Linux, the file systems don't have this "resource fork" idea
Funny enough, NTFS has supported the idea since inception. But extensions weren't broke, so weren't fixed. And not to mention would have been sucky for any software relying on file extensions.
Also funny, OSX now does it by hiding extensions and interpreting the metadata inside of a folder.
Re: (Score:3)
NTFS does, but the ui from windows was carried over from the dos days so most user visible software is written to use file extensions and will rarely if ever use the alternate data streams for anything. I've only ever seen streams being used by malware as a way to hide.
OSX went the other way, because they moved from their custom kernel to a unix-based system, where unix filesystems (osx originally supported UFS) don't have a concept of resource forks.
Re: (Score:2)
While there is no POSIX defined way to have extended file attributes, *BSD, Solaris, and Linux all provide mechanisms to store metadata along with an inode, typically in k:v pairs, which would have been sufficient to provide the file type resource fork that they had with UFS.
Also, ADS is used by Microsoft itself mostly. You're right it doesn't have much use in user code.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and did not provide an interface for enumerating them
Not from any user interface, it didn't. But it was there in the API all along.
Re: (Score:2)
All information about an NTFS file is stored in a set of extensible attributes. It would have been trivial to add a new $FILETYPE attribute.
This is how symbolic links are implemented in NTFS.
Re: (Score:3)
On HFS, files had two 4-byte types, one to identify the underlying ty
Re: (Score:2)
These days, by default, Windows hides "system" directories and anything else that an uninformed user shouldn't touch.
This is the actual reason. Perhaps this was your point, but I don't think you specifically mentioned it: changing the extension "breaks the file", by making its type no-longer known. There is no valid reason for a non-technical user to want to do this, so it is not a good idea to let users change it "by accident". Ever field a tech support call before "hiding extensions" was the norm? 90% of them were "my file is corrupt" because somebody renamed "Unitled3.doc" to "Report", and had absolutely no idea how to
Re: (Score:2)
That approach has terrible security. You download a file thinking it's one thing, but the launcher figures out it's something else and launches a completely different application from what you expected.
Years back, that trick was used to attack a Windows image viewing component. All you needed was a compromise in one of the man
Re: (Score:2)
I always figured it was a cheap and dirty hack to keep people from accidentally deleting the extension.
Prevents the:
Copy
Paste
Rename
WTF did it go?
Re: (Score:2)
This, times 1,000!
Do file extensions actually confuse users? No, that's ridiculous. Even computer illiterate users? Still no, they either ignore, or treat them as part of the file name like everyone else. It just seems condescending, really.
Do they help identify the file type, useful if you're searching for a particular file? Duh. (Unless there's some malware or something going on) Does lack of showing file extensions cause confusion to average Windows users? I think so; at least, all the data entry
Re: Port to iOS please (Score:5, Insightful)
Pre-OSX MacOS didn't use file extensions at all... The filesystem used a separate metadata fork to determine file type, and wasn't reliant on something as arbitrary as the file name.
For a system which depends upon and makes decisions based upon the file extension, hiding them is stupid, and for a system that makes no use of the file extensions hiding them (if even present at all) is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Port to iOS please - DirOpus (Score:2)
Even better - Run Directory Opus (Windows) on Linux - I already have!
I have run it on Suse 10 [dopus.com] It's far superior to the Windows File manager. I used DirOpus on the Amiga and it was awesome then too.
Re: (Score:3)
What really irritates me is that Linux filemanagers cant figure out that right click and dragging and icon is supposed to pop up a context menu when it is dropped on the destination to select if you want to copy or move. Many file managers wont even ask at all. Very annoying behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
What really irritates me is that Linux filemanagers cant figure out that right click and dragging and icon is supposed to pop up a context menu when it is dropped on the destination to select if you want to copy or move. Many file managers wont even ask at all. Very annoying behaviour.
Interesting! I never even used that functionality in Windows Explorer - didn't know it existed. But now that you mention it I think I HAVE seen it a few times, accidentally. I guess by the time I noticed I'd been stuck in my accustomed workflow for long enough that it never even occurred to me to use it.
Not directly on the topic of file managers, but closely tied to it, is the whole mimetypes / file extension / "Open With" ugly mess that makes Linux desktop environments such a PITA to use. Plain text files,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft's Windows file manager was crap enough when it was current that I paid for a third-party alternative.
The things it has going for it over today's file manager include:
- only focused elements are highlighted (can't count how many times I've deleted the wrong files because of focus being somewhere other than where it appeared to be -- files A was highlighted but Windows was actually focused on file B; I tapped Del to delete A but Windows deleted B)
- show file extensions (not even an option to hide th
Re: (Score:2)
That is the sad truth about current Windows, while quite many things have become better, a lot has become worse. The file manager is hardly the worst culprit, but is definitely among the many things they have borked.