Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 6th Mar 2012 23:27 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 509821
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The difference is...
by lucas_maximus on Wed 7th Mar 2012 13:31
in reply to "The difference is..."
In OS X there was a path forward for existing source code to be migrated to the new environment. In Metro, the input devices are different, the APIs are different, the environment is different. Existing source code would be much harder to migrate.
Depends a lot of APIs aren't massively different than .NET.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/09/WinRT-API
Edited 2012-03-07 13:32 UTC
RE[2]: The difference is...
by n4cer on Wed 7th Mar 2012 20:16
in reply to "RE: The difference is..."
"In OS X there was a path forward for existing source code to be migrated to the new environment. In Metro, the input devices are different, the APIs are different, the environment is different. Existing source code would be much harder to migrate.
Depends a lot of APIs aren't massively different than .NET.
http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/09/WinRT-API "
Plus a subset of Win32 is supported for Metro-style apps, so you can have hybrid apps.





Member since:
2005-12-04
...Carbon.
In OS X there was a path forward for existing source code to be migrated to the new environment. In Metro, the input devices are different, the APIs are different, the environment is different. Existing source code would be much harder to migrate.
Whereas OS X lent itself to a "migration", Win8 lends itself towards parallel universes - some code will only be Metro, some code will never be Metro, and the user will be left having to interact with two environments.
For that reason, if the desktop is viewed as a "penalty box", that will be a very bad outcome for Win8.