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 518997
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: What will their use be?
by lucas_maximus on Tue 22nd May 2012 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: What will their use be?"
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

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I don't think we're ever going to agree on the HTML apps vs native Win PE debate, so I'm not even going to bother arguing further on that topic ;)


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).


Any nearly any DE can be rejigged to look like another OS (Windows included). We're talking default set up and GNOME's default set up is nothing like Windows. the fact that you've stumbled upon one Linux distro (and one that's nearly a decade old now) which ships a non-default install doesn't change my point. In fact SuSE has a long history of shipping non-vanilla desktop environments. But obviously you knew all this already ;)


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.

You can have GNOME rejigged not to have a global taskbar and instead have a dock. In fact that's a popular customisation. So by your earlier reckoning, GNOME is exactly like OS X. ;)

Seriously though - there's more to user interface similarity than a taskbar alone. In fact remove that from GNOME (as many users do) and you're left with something a lot more alien than the explorer.exe shell in Windows.

Edited 2012-05-22 14:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

However the setup for Gnome 2 was normally as follows.

http://library.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.6/figures/nautilus-sp...

* 1 Bar at the top with an "Applications Menu"
* 1 Bar at the bottom with a task bar.

Move the application menu and the clock down the bottom and you have Windows 2000/XP like interface. The Windows behave more or less the same and the task bar is the same layout.

I have done some googling because it has been literally years since I have used Gnome and opted to use XFCE instead, and I couldn't find any instruction to make Gnome work like a Mac without using third party plugins.

All I could find without digging through links was this

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-problems-making-ubuntu-like-mac-os-x-56...

This guy admits it requires a lot of hacks and using third party plugins.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, you are both right, IMHO.

Visual studio express is not for real work. ( The first version of it I used, would flash a " created with VS Starter Edition" pop up ever minute or two of using the compiled program).

But, yes, they do want to kill the desktop eventually, just not now. They haven't figured out how to do everything in the metro paradigm.

Calling winforms old is funny and reminds me of the old .Net architect magazine, where each issue had articles with Microsoft buzzwords and technologies no one every used,showing what MS technologies you should use today, and what you should use for tomorrow, because everyone always wants to redesign their internal networks and business apps every year to keep up with MS.

Reply Parent Score: 3