Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st May 2012 20:03 UTC
Windows For Microsoft, the traditional desktop is old news. It's on its way out, it's legacy, and the harder they claim the desktop has equal rights, the sillier it becomes. With companies, words are meaningless, it's actions that matter, and here Microsoft's actions tell the real story. The company has announced the product line-up for Visual Studio 11, and the free Express can no longer be used to create desktop applications. Message is clear.
Thread beginning with comment 518874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: What will their use be?
by lucas_maximus on Mon 21st May 2012 23:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: What will their use be?"
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

This gets tiresome ...

I just responded to both guys questions/commends, I really didn't care much for your analysis.

................

Anyway. Since you pointed me out on it ....

I don't doubt that Microsoft don't want people to learn things like WinForms and all the other gumpth. It is shit, it is old ... it is very 1990s way of developing.

I am a proper microsofty and I don't care.

But I really don't think a lot of people want to learn those tools either.

ASP.NET MVC is the cool kid in town (in the Microsoft World) and tbh most of the tools they are innovating on are for the ASP.NET web stack not the Windows stack.

The fact that most Metro applications can be HTML5 + JS ... seems to be obvious that they want new developers to use this.

This isn't the death knell of the classic desktop (well the part of it that is still there and I find perfectly functional as a VS11 Ultimate Beta Tester at my company, mainly to see if we can upgrade to 4.5 ... we can't).

The face is Thom that people don't want to use the older techs like WinForms, MFC and all the other crap ... it is just a bit shit tbh.

There are still plenty of .NET shops that are heavily invested in the older technologies such as WinForm, MFC etc and I don't think support for that will end until a good few years.

Anyway as you happen to know "more operating system in you little finger" than I do, I am sure you will be able to find one that has a Windowing tiling system to meet your needs.

Gnome 2 I have heard is very similar to Windows 95.

http://piestar.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lucid_vs_windows.png

Trolololo.

Edited 2012-05-21 23:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -8

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Before you start to accuse people of voting you down because "haters gonna hate", let me point out the rubbish you've posted:


I don't doubt that Microsoft don't want people to learn things like WinForms and all the other gumpth. It is shit, it is old ... it is very 1990s way of developing.

old != shit

The very fact that cascading windows has survived this long is because it make a lot of sense for desktops.

Redefining the desktop paradigm to suit tablets doesn't make any more sense than having a start menu and cascading windows on smart phones.


But I really don't think a lot of people want to learn [WinForms] either.

The face is Thom that people don't want to use the older techs like WinForms, MFC and all the other crap

You may be content writing websites, but most application developers are not.


... it is just a bit shit tbh.

That's your opinion. Personally I think HTML with embedded JS is more than just a bit shit for building modern interactive websites. The thought of having to build stand alone applications with this technology horrifies me.


There are still plenty of .NET shops that are heavily invested in the older technologies such as WinForm, MFC etc and I don't think support for that will end until a good few years.

Well obviously, otherwise MS would lose a lucrative gaming market as well as the creative professionals that prefer PCs to Macs.

I'm sure Sony and Apple wouldn't mind though ;)

Anyway as you happen to know "more operating system in you little finger" than I do, I am sure you will be able to find one that has a Windowing tiling system to meet your needs.

It's ironic you make such a condescending comment about Thom's lack of OS knowledge while making two fundamental faults in the same sentence:

1/ You can have a tiling window manager and still support WinForms (et al). It's not an either / or argument.

2/ For most people a tiling window manager is completely inappropriate for the desktop. So switching from Metro to xyz still wouldn't be an improvement on the existing explorer.exe shell.


Gnome 2 I have heard is very similar to Windows 95.

http://piestar.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/lucid_vs_windows.png

If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd realise how idiotic that statement is.

Most people bitch about GNOME 2.x being an Mac OS knock off and you're comparing it to Windows. Just lol.

Edited 2012-05-22 09:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

old != shit


When it comes to WinForms way of programming, it is very dated (very similar to Java Swing which is from the 90s).

There are better options now with .NET (such as XAML), we shouldn't be encouraging people to use older techniques when they are better ones.

The very fact that cascading windows has survived this long is because it make a lot of sense for desktops.


The classic desktop isn't going away, just maybe WinForms.

Redefining the desktop paradigm to suit tablets doesn't make any more sense than having a start menu and cascading windows on smart phones.


It isn't, I been running Windows 8 now for quite a while and I disagree totally. Also Microsoft are still making improvements to the "classic" desktop such as

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/21/enhancing-windows-8-f...

Dual Taskbar etc. They wouldn't be introducing these things if it was getting "killed".

You may be content writing websites, but most application developers are not.


That wasn't what I was talking about. People are comparing the Express Edition (which is cut down a little to much IMO) to the full Visual Studio Suite.

It is for learning the principles of the framework and the languages. The applications you are likely to create are small and won't have a lot of functionality ... similar to those that maybe used with Metro interface.

That's your opinion. Personally I think HTML with embedded JS is more than just a bit shit for building modern interactive websites. The thought of having to build stand alone applications with this technology horrifies me.


If you use JS libraries and use sensible design patterns like MV-VM (knockout.js) for JS/Ajax/Markup generation and use a Server side MVC framework such as RoR, ASP.NET MVC it isn't that painful ... in fact it is fun.

It is painful if you try to custom create everything or hack it which is what most people inexperienced with Development may do.

It depends what you like doing. But nevertheless Microsoft are pushing these platforms quite hard now.

Well obviously, otherwise MS would lose a lucrative gaming market as well as the creative professionals that prefer PCs to Macs.


The point is that the Express version of the product is not aimed at these developers. Express is for new developers to learn the "recommended" technologies.

The sort of application you would be making with Express would be metro (if downloading the desktop version) or it would be a blog or something using the Web Express edition.

You cannot make significantly complex applications (without it being a very painful experience) with Express because some of the more advanced features such as intellitrace just aren't included.

I would have thought this is obvious intent. That is why I didn't care for the analysis because it wasn't considering what sort of application one would make (as I alluded to earlier in this comment).

If you had even the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd realise how idiotic that statement is.

Most people bitch about GNOME 2.x being an Mac OS knock off and you're comparing it to Windows. Just lol.


Well most people are wrong, including you. Gnome 2 can be easily re-jigged to make it work like Window XP/2000 (in fact Suse 9.2 actually shipped with this setup because business clients were used to using Windows 2000/XP).

The full argument is posted here

http://piestar.net/2010/05/01/ubuntu-10-04-lipstick-lynx/

MacOSX doesn't have a global Taskbar (showing open windows) like Windows, Gnome2 and XFCE (can have). The task bar is application centric, i.e. it shows the menu bar for the application.

Fundamentally I think Gnome2 is more like the classic Windows 95-XP interface.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/01/dock-and-wind...

Edited 2012-05-22 13:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

Personally I think HTML with embedded JS is more than just a bit shit for building modern interactive websites. The thought of having to build stand alone applications with this technology horrifies me.


No kidding. Who would want to have to use HTML, JS, SVG, CSS, XML, etc to create a stand alone application.

Its like someone thought "Since web apps can't be as nice as native apps, lets force native apps to use the same tech so they'll be just as crappy"

Reply Parent Score: 4