Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 18th May 2011 21:50 UTC, submitted by fran
Windows The ARM version of Windows 8 might have just become the most desired version of Windows in our hearts and minds. After us talking about legacy code and backwards compatibility in Windows for years now, an Intel senior vice president, Renee James, has just stated that Windows 8 on ARM will not have any form of compatibility for legacy applications whatsoever. Update: Microsoft has responded to Intel's claims. "Intel's statements during yesterday's Intel Investor Meeting about Microsoft's plans for the next version of Windows were factually inaccurate and unfortunately misleading," the company said, "From the first demonstrations of Windows on SoC, we have been clear about our goals and have emphasized that we are at the technology demonstration stage. As such, we have no further details or information at this time."
Thread beginning with comment 473645
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: It makes sense
by twitterfire on Thu 19th May 2011 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: It makes sense"
twitterfire
Member since:
2008-09-11

I agree on the .Net part. One of the initial goals was to replace the Win32 API with the .Net CLR. So this makes sense.

Hope they don't do a WinMo 6.5/WinMo 7 on us, and depreciate the current .Net GUI frameworks, though. That left no way to target both platforms at once.

So as long as I can continue to run my WinForms, WPF, and Silverlight apps I'd very happy.


I will be very happy if they will drop Win32 and MFC for good. They are ugly from a programming point of view.

And some native implementation of C# compiler and WPF would be nice, too. Would be more elegant than using p/invokes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: It makes sense
by WorknMan on Thu 19th May 2011 00:44 in reply to "RE[2]: It makes sense"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

I will be very happy if they will drop Win32 and MFC for good. They are ugly from a programming point of view.


Agreed, but for starters, it would mean MS would have to rewrite Office, Internet Explorer, and all of their other apps that haven't been converted yet in .NET. Ain't gonna happen. Shit, we just got a 64-bit Office last year.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: It makes sense
by twitterfire on Thu 19th May 2011 01:30 in reply to "RE[3]: It makes sense"
twitterfire Member since:
2008-09-11

"I will be very happy if they will drop Win32 and MFC for good. They are ugly from a programming point of view.


Agreed, but for starters, it would mean MS would have to rewrite Office, Internet Explorer, and all of their other apps that haven't been converted yet in .NET. Ain't gonna happen. Shit, we just got a 64-bit Office last year.
"

Maybe a quick dirty hack using some win32 .NET bindings?

Sure they can rewrite all major apps in .NET. I don't think it would be harder to implement Office or IE in .NET than is to implement Visual Studio 2010.

After all, they put all their money on .NET.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: It makes sense
by sukru on Thu 19th May 2011 12:50 in reply to "RE[3]: It makes sense"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

They actually have Office and IE running on this thing. There was a long feature on Edgadget, with a shot of the Office running as well:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/08/editorial-windows-on-arm-is-a-bi...

Thus they might be keeping some of Win32, or they might have already converted the application.

Reply Parent Score: 2