Why is Windhawk such a monster?

[Elmue]

After installing Windhawk it occupies 800 Megabyte on my disk !!
This is a MONSTER!
I only want a vertical taskbar.
800 Megabyte for a vertical taskbar ???
Also the configuration is not very user friendly.
All these big black squares that all look the same.
I immediately uninstalled it again.

This software is very badly designed.
How is it possible that it wastes so much disk space ?
Why do you install a compiler ?
This is a big nonsense.
You could install already compiled DLL files and would use a ridiculous amount of disk space.

Then I found that Explorer Patcher can also create a vertical taskbar.
But much better than Windhawk;
In Windhawk I must enter the position (Left / Right) and type the width of the taskbar into the window.
In Explorer Patcher I can move the taskbar easily around with the mouse to any side of the screen.
Additionally Explorer Patcher allows to resize the width of the taskbar with the mouse.

Explorer Patcher is much better designed, more comfortable and faster and occupies only 15 MB.
I don't understand this design of Windhawk ?

[rchltmedia]

800mb is for the compiler. without that, windhawk is useless. also, what do you mean calling Windhawk a monster??? you mean its modification power?

[Amrsatrio]

ExplorerPatcher maintainer here. Windhawk uses a different approach to achieve vertical taskbar. It modifies the stock Windows 11 taskbar so that it's placed at the left and rotates its view by 90 degrees and icons and text by -90 degrees to align them up again. Whereas EP enables the old taskbar OR uses its remade old taskbar which had native resizing and moving support.

Windhawk was designed to take in mod source code for the sake of security. It should not load already-compiled DLLs because who knows if it contains anything malicious in addition to the intended features of the mod.

As for the disk space, I get it. Windhawk also includes a fork of VSCodium which I hope can be alleviated in the future by Michael adding a lite installation mode. ExplorerPatcher only contains ready-to-use DLLs and we have a policy where its DLLs distributed to end users must come from GitHub's build farms (Actions runners).

[Elmue]

Hello

I'am aware that Windhawk uses another approach.
I'am the developer of PTBSync which allows the user to configure the Windows trayclock. Here you see the configuration options for the trayclock and the detailed tooltip:

My software exists since 1999 and PTBSync was running on Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
During the last decades I had to permanently update PTBSync to Microsoft's thousands of changes in the taskbar.
I also had to make PTBSync cooperate with third party software like yours.

A user informed me that the PTBSync trayclock completely disappears when the taskbar is switched vertical with Windhawk.
On the other hand with ExplorerPatcher the PTBSync trayclock works perfectly.

I analyzed once more what is happening in the taskbar and found that Windhawk completely screws up the coordinates of all windows that are child windows of the taskbar.

The coordinates of windows like the "TrayNotifyWnd" are complete garbage.
This window is a child window of the taskbar.
It is normally smaller than the taskbar and contains the tray icons.
But Windhawk completely screws up the coordinates and with the vertical taskbar this window now has the double size of the taskbar and the full height !
And also all the other windows that are children of the taskbar have completely modified and wrong coordinates.
Obviously all my calculations for the trayclock were screwed up.

Windhawk programming is very sloppy while ExplorerPatcher does it correctly.

Additionally I found that in the underlying XAML all the X and Y coordinates of the taskbar are swapped which ExplorerPatcher does NOT do.

Also does Windhawk not use the space in the taskbar as efficiently as Explorer Patcher does.
While ExplorerPatcher shows the Icons in the icontray horizontally in the vertical taskbar, Windhawk shows them one below the other which occupies more space and leaves the space beside the icons unused.
ExplorerPatcher is clearly the much better choice.

However in my latest PTBSync version 6.7i I adapted the code to work also with Windhawk's modifications.
But I do not recommend my users to use Windhawk if they want a vertical taskbar.

---

Windhawk was designed to take in mod source code for the sake of security.

That is totally wrong design choice.
This must have been invented by some Linux folks who try to transfer their world to the Windows world.

1.)
I don't know ANY software on Windows that is compiled at runtime (except perhaps Javascript).

2.)
I don't know ANY user on Windows who invests hours to study the sourcecode of his application before using the application.

3.)
Windows users download an installer, click "Install" and test the software.

This "security" argument is complete nonsense.
How many Windows users are developers ?
Surely far less than 1%.
All the other 99,9% of Windows user will not even understand source code.
So where is the "security" here ??

There is no security.
The sourcecode may be malicious and nobody will ever notice this.
So believing that a compilation on Windows has any advantage over the download of an already compiled DLL is wrong.

It is the opposite:
1.) The compìler consumes 800 Megabyte disk space, which is a complete WASTE. For me an absolute NO GO.
2.) Compiling is slower than loading a DLL
3.) There is absolutely no increased security because nobody will ever study the sourcecode.
4.) Only a very advanced developer knows how Microsoft's Windows Explorer works internally.
Only a very advanced developer is able to understand how Windhawk modifies the taskbar.
The Windows Explorer is extremly complex and becomes more complex with each new Windows update.

Believing that any Windows user will study Windhawk code to feel "secure" is a totally naive idea.

And why does Windhawk show a warning then that installing a mod is on the own risk !
What a nonsense is this ?
If you take care that only safe and approved modules are available in the installer, then all is fine.
No warning is needed. No source code is needed.
If someone wants to see the source he can go to Github.
There is no need to download sourcecode to the user's disk.

The same does Microsoft with the driver certification.
You could do the same.
All modules undergo a testing and if the pass, they are added to the installed in form of a compiled DLL.

Instead of Windhawk developers making sure that the Windhawk installer offers only safe DLL modules they charge this work on the user and ask the user to study the sourcecode to see if it is secure.
This is very lazy.
You do not do your work.
You let the user do your work.

I'am software developer since 1999:
And I really have never seen such a NONSENSE!

No Windows user will ever study your sourcecode to check if there is trojan in it.
99,9% of the user have no programing skills at all and do not even understand one line of your code.

There is only one correct design choice:
Build a safe installer where the user can select the modules he wants and for each selected module the corresponding DLL is installed.
There is no need to install a huge compiler if you offer DLLs that are safe to install.

[Amrsatrio]

I should tell you again that Windhawk's approach is modifying the stock 11 taskbar, rather than resurrecting the old 10 taskbar. Of course if your program looks for TrayNotifyWnd explicitly you should only recommend users to use the 10 taskbar either via ExplorerPatcher or other means, NOT the 11 taskbar.

Using the 11 taskbar comes with several benefits such as no loss of functionality compared to stock, for example in EP's taskbar it doesn't have battery percentage, emoji button, mic mute button, and others exclusive to the 11 taskbar but they can be added anytime to EP's taskbar anytime as I wish. Useful or not for the end user, that's another story. But from maintenance perspective that may be challenging as the 11 taskbar is more of a living thing with updates that bring more stuff into it as you said. At least with my experience of keeping my EP taskbar working on updates, I don't have to work as much as Michael did with the 11 taskbar. I get that vertical 11 taskbar is more of a hack or proof of concept. And I am not surprised if most of existing 3rd party taskbar customizers are not compatible with the new 11 XAML taskbar. You're late to the party for around 4 years when they turned the taskbar clock into XAML.

Regarding security, all mods in the marketplace were vetted and code-reviewed by Michael himself prior to submission. The real risk is when you copy paste raw X.wh.cpp from the net without knowing who it's from and what it does. Still Michael could slip out, but since the mod's code are all available, anyone can remind Michael and each other that a mod is problematic. Hasn't happened yet, but I hope it won't. I advocate for mods being open source because they contribute knowledge for the modding community. You won't realize how many times I've asked myself how certain black magic works in StartIsBack and StartAllBack because the sole dev gatekeeps the source code due to the software being paid, not free and open source. I personally don't like closed-source tweak software with little to no explanation on how they work.

Just my two cents, I'm outta here.

[Elmue]

I should tell you again that Windhawk's approach is modifying the stock 11 taskbar, rather than resurrecting the old 10 taskbar.

This is true.
And as I'am already talking with the expert, I can ask you a question that came up already the first time I switched ExplorerPatcher into Windows 10 mode:
Microsoft changed so many things in the taskbar in all these years.

The only thing that I don't understand: why did they leave this old Windows 10 code still in the Explorer?
I would expect that Microsoft removes old code that is not used from their executables.
If they do, ExplorerPatcher will not work anymore.
Do you have any explanation for this?

---

You're late to the party for around 4 years when they turned the taskbar clock into XAML.

I have no idea what you mean with "late to the party" ?
I see that you did not read what I wrote.
I wrote that I'am in the party since 1999 when processors had 300 MHz, mainboards had ISA cards, people connected to the internet with a 56k modem and analog monitors had a resolution of 800 x 600 pixels.

The first PTBSync versions worked perfectly on Windows 95 under these conditions.
I adapted my trayclock a thousand times in the last decades with every new Windows release that screwed up my trayclock or my desktop calendar.
I have reverse engineered the Explorer.exe several times to find out what Microsoft is doing in there.
So I'am far longer in the party than you.

---

if your program looks for TrayNotifyWnd explicitly you should only recommend
users to use the 10 taskbar either via ExplorerPatcher or other means, NOT the 11 taskbar.

You did not understand.
PTBSync is working with the taskbar of Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
PTBSync is working with the Windows 11 XAML taskbar since the first pre-releases of Windows 11 several years ago.
PTBSync is working on a virgin Windows 11 without ExplorerPatcher.
PTBSync manipulates the XAML clock, if the XAML taskbar is in use.
PTBSync manipulates the original Windows clock if Windows 10 mode is enabled by ExplorerPatcher.

It does not matter what Windows version and it does not matter which third party software the user has installed:
PTBSync works under ALL these conditions.
And the latest version works even with the totally screwed up coordinates that Windhawk produces.

users to use the 10 taskbar either via ExplorerPatcher or other means, NOT the 11 taskbar.

You did not understand.
The coordinates of all child windows in the XAML taskbar are perfectly correct on Windows 11.
The one who completely screws up the coordinates is Windhawk, not Microsoft.

On Windows a child window is normally always smaller than it's parent window.
Otherwise, if a child is larger than it's parent, there is normally a scrollbar to move the content.

The child window "TrayNotifyWnd" is normally much smaller than the parent taskbar.
And so it is also in Microsoft's XAML taskbar.

But study the size and position of all taskbar child windows when Windhawk shows the vertical taskbar.
ALL coordinates of ALL child windows are complete CRAP. Only the taskbar itself has correct coordinates.

The TrayNotifyWnd normally only contains the tray icons and the tray clock.
When Windhawk Vertical is active the TrayNotifyWnd has the double width of it's parent taskbar and the full height instead of only the tray area.
Programming of Windhawk is very sloppy.

---

I advocate for mods being open source because they contribute knowledge for the modding community.

Nobody says that they should be closed code.
What is the problem to have the source code on Github and additionally offer an installer that installed compiled DLLs ?
And the user has a 10 MB installer instead of occupying 800 Megabyte on his disk.

Can you imagine how my computer would look like if everybody would do such a nonsense?
Can you imagine all open source projects would install a HUGE compiler on my disk for a tiny functionality?
My disk would be full after installing 3 such open source monster projects!

---

You wrote no comment about any of my arguments.
You simply ignore them.
This way we cannot have a discussion.

I repeat one last time for you what I wrote before:

Downloading a source code and compiling it on my computer does NOT increase the security AT ALL!
No Windows user will ever study the downloaded source code.
99.9% Windows users have no programming skills.
And although I'am software developer, not even I want to waste my time to verify the code of Windhawk.
I must trust that an open source project does not install me a trojan.

And what if the binary files of the 800 Megabyte compiler contain a trojan ?
How does the user proof that the binary compiler is "secure" ?
How does a Windows user confirm that any other closed source software is "secure"?
HE CAN NOT !!
If you believe that this is possible, you are dreaming.

Installing a compiler and saying that this makes anything more "secure" is really the biggest nonsense that I ever heard.

Do what you want.
I will never install such a monster on my harddisk.
800 Megabyte for a vertical taskbar!
That is totally absurd.

[Amrsatrio]

I'll leave the Windhawk being a monster part to others. I'm only using it to perform quick experiments on internal DLLs like twinui.pcshell and others to determine the cause of breakages, and to make mods that require injection beyond explorer.exe. And also work together with Michael to ensure compatibility with certain mods like you do with PTBSync which I appreciate. I am in no way affiliated with Windhawk and its development process. Sorry if my argument about it was blunt.

Sorry as well for not realizing the core points of your discussion especially the users complaining about your software's incompatibility with Windhawk's vertical taskbar mod. (Does not mean with Windhawk collectively!)

Now to answer your question regarding the presence of Windows 10 taskbar. I don't know too deeply about it but based on what I've seen with the news at that time and leaked builds this year, MS' original plan was to keep the W10 UI for those who upgraded from W10, and introduce W11 UI for new devices and clean installs. The pack was called "Cherry Hill" pack that contains the W11 taskbar UI, search UI, task view UI, action center UI, control center UI, and much more. But that idea didn't last long, 22000.65 started to backtrack on the two UI modes existing by removing registry toggles for certain W10 elements.

Fast forward to August 2023 (build 25921), they decided that they needed to do a housekeeping on OS code. They nuked a lot such as WordPad, other utilities I forgot, and the legacy TrayNotifyWnd in both W10 and W11 taskbar. That gives the signal that MS was going to gradually roll out the feature flag that nukes the taskbar entirely starting from 26080, and finally removed in the first couple monthly updates of 26100.

Had I not figure out a way to bring back the taskbar somewhat, of course ExplorerPatcher would lose its 10 taskbar restoration feature. I decided to begin a 8 month journey in remaking the taskbar after the system tray nuke. There are still other features like 10 alt tab restoration, 7/10 ribbon restoration in Explorer windows, those would continue to work ASSUMING the old code are still in the binaries.

That's all I can answer with my own knowledge and experience. Hope you have a nice day :)

[kawapure]

I only want a vertical taskbar.
800 Megabyte for a vertical taskbar ???

This isn't the sole functionality of Windhawk. It tends to be used for far more extensive customisation.

[Elmue]

@Amrsatorio:
I appreciate the work that you do on ExplorerPatcher. I know how difficult all this is.
Therefore I recommend it to my users on the PTBSync download page since many years together with Open Shell.

@kawapure:

This isn't the sole functionality of Windhawk. It tends to be used for far more extensive customisation.

And you think I don't know this ?

[kawapure]

Indeed.