The community Taskforce initiative has now come to a close.
Thanks to everyone who made thoughtful and genuine contributions to the website.
All submissions will be kept publically available for the forseeable future for reference purposes.

This website is part of the community Taskforce initiative

Submission details

This submission [Bring back winfile.exe] has been removed because

Not a practical submission.

-37 +6/-43 votes

Bring back winfile.exe

Submitted by HsiaLin on February 9, 2009 to Legacy

Because File Manager was the greatest file manager ever....we need it back.

Hack some old dll files but that is not cool. MS could bring back winfile.exe easily without hurting anything whatsoever.

High

High

Not fixed

Discussion (30 comments)

xombie wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:27pm

Agreed, I grew up on 3.11
But you can just as easily download it yourself.

RedSign wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:28pm

- 1

I grewed up on Windows ... Me *whispers* ...

.Chris wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:28pm

Or, we can move to a new file system. more secure, faster, better with search..

-1

.Chris wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:31pm

Not to menton work well with online services and mobie devices. USB flash drives etc. as well as SSD drives

xombie wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:39pm

If you really love it that much, this might be useful:
http://people.ee.ethz.ch/~davidsch/vistafm/

RedSign wrote on February 9, 2009, 7:48pm

Thank god nobody mentioned WinFS ..... oops, I did ;-) But we all know that this wasn't never intended to be file system, don't we?

Thunderbuck wrote on February 9, 2009, 8:33pm

I really have a hard time with stuff like this.

I remember winfile. It was okay, but I don't quite get how it's somehow superior to the navigation system in 95, Win 2000, XP, or Vista.

Are there many Mac-heads who miss the original Finder, too?

xombie wrote on February 9, 2009, 8:54pm

Because it doesn't have flashy animations, hi-resolution icons, huge thumbnails, loading bars etc that slow down your work. You know exactly what you want, how you want to do it. It's 100% work.
Plus it has MDI windows.

I like both though.

fiji wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:14pm

WinFS, Win FS, WinF.....Uh oh. Never mind! *chants WinFS*

fiji wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:15pm

+1. I loved Windows File Manager. Why doesn't Microsoft improve on top of it!

.Chris wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:16pm

Animations: meh, no comment.
High Res. icons: good for high res. displays, and us who hate to look at old ugly designs.
Large thumbnails: Good for large displays
Loading bars: Good to know how much is left in a file transfer or something.

There needs to be one and one only.

fiji wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:18pm

Microsoft obviously needs to improve it aesthetically but they should also improve it functionality wise.

fiji wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:38pm

wtf. What does this sentence "Microsoft obviously needs to improve it aesthetically but they should also improve it functionality wise" have to do with your comment "if you want to use 10-20 year old legacy features, just use an older OS, like Windows 98. Get it off e-bay for less then 100 bucks

http://computers.shop.ebay.com/items/Software__...3286Q2ec0Q2em282"

fiji wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:42pm

lol! You deleted a comment here too!

xombie wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:50pm

I have the email updates too :P

xombie wrote on February 9, 2009, 11:53pm

Don't tell us what to do, kid. Run along now, play with your toy computer (mac).

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:01am

..... .Chris. You're hilarious! Why would I photoshop a comment! Tell me why I would do that! Actually, don't tell me why! I've had enough! Shut up and move on!

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:02am

@ xombie: Who was your 2nd comment meant for?

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:04am

@ .Chris: .....funny! You're talking about maturity!!! The fact that you can't accept other people's opinions and say useless jargon is real mature!

011160cs wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:05am


+1

Jesus people. lets stay on topic please..

011160cs wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:09am

and fiji,

enough of your rubbish! just move on. the site is not about talking about maturity or .chris or peoples opinions, its about posting UX quirks. stay on topic please

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:11am

I was responding to his comment (now deleted).

011160cs wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:14am

I dont care

ALL of you are acting like imbesils. Who cares if he deletes a comment. why loose sleep over it. Just ignore it and move on. By responding and saying the comments you said like telling people to shut up etc. your adding more to the fire, and making the problem worse.

I think we need someone to delete all the comments on this post that are off topic..

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:16am

Heck, over here it's only 7:23. I'm not losing any sleep!

011160cs wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:17am

You knew what I ment.

just drop it.....

now on to the main topic:

fiji wrote on February 10, 2009, 12:22am

I was jking! Back to the topic....

xombie wrote on February 10, 2009, 8:14am

Heh, lol.

HsiaLin wrote on February 10, 2009, 7:52pm

I will never understand why so many people are negative to a request that will in no way shape or form devalue their experience using Windows. If you do not like File Manager its because you never used it most likely, and thats OK, but why be a negative influence to the ones who like it?

Thunderbuck wrote on February 11, 2009, 10:46pm

I will explain why I'm negative on this. It's additional code, and it contributes to bloat. It--and a thousand similar legacy features--make the installable all the larger, and can contribute to confusion.

If you want it badly enough, the hack is out there. At least if you do it, you know its a hack, and you can take responsibility for it.

I can take an old push-button AM radio and install it in my new Honda. I might even do it because I feel nostalgic for that old, solid "click" feel. And I can use the technical argument that the old AM radios had WAY better sound than the new ones do (which is true, by the way).

The one reasonable argument I've seen here--no "flashy animations", "hi-res icons", etc is a false argument, since all of those visual features can be turned off in Windows anyway, so this strikes me as an "I prefer the old way" kind of complaint.

nyp wrote on February 17, 2010, 8:01am

Marked as removed.

You might also be interested in...