Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Mar 2013 16:31 UTC
Windows Paul Thurrot: "Tipped off by a reader, I checked my System log in Event Viewer today and what did I find but a stack of pending updates for all of the core apps in Windows 8. I'm not 100 percent sure this is what I think it is. But if we're right, it looks like 18 of the core apps in Windows 8 are about to get updated. Or, almost all of them." Foley confirms it. By far Windows 8's weakest link, so I'm hoping this is true. Especially the Mail application is dreadful.
Thread beginning with comment 556501
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment
by ze_jerkface on Sun 24th Mar 2013 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment"
ze_jerkface
Member since:
2012-06-22

Whereas with Windows 7 you directly coded against Win32, with the Windows Runtime you are an additional step removed from Win32, which makes it easy to replace it from under developers noses in the future.


Hmmmmm building a cleaner API on Win32 sounds like a good idea. They should design this new layer to support multiple languages and platforms, even a mobile subset. They could call it .NET.

The Windows Runtime could just as easily do the things that Win32 does itself, but it'd be a massive duplication of effort, given that Win32 itself still ships with Windows.


Microsoft's API history could be summed as as massive duplication of effort.

So I'm not entirely sure what you find so funny.


What I find funny is that both you and Microsoft execs don't seem to know much about developing software for Microsoft platforms. I develop Windows software for a living so you might want to consult me before providing shoddy defenses.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment
by Nelson on Mon 25th Mar 2013 06:32 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Hmmmmm building a cleaner API on Win32 sounds like a good idea. They should design this new layer to support multiple languages and platforms, even a mobile subset. They could call it .NET.


And WinRT borrows a lot from .NET, including its metadata language and a lot of the design from the BCL.

If it wasn't for .NET, WinRT wouldn't exist. Furthermore, you bringing up .NET actually proves a great point.

.NET abstracted things like I/O away from Win32. When WinRT implemented those same APIs in native code instead of managed, .NET developers didn't even notice.

The APIs are the same, the concrete implementations differ. This is why its irrelevant what underpins *some* APIs that the Windows Runtime provides. Other APIs as I've said before are completely new to Windows.

I know oversimplifications are your thing, but to this extent, its misleading.


Microsoft's API history could be summed as as massive duplication of effort.


I agree, which is why its nice that the Windows Runtime reduces it by blurring the lines between native and managed code.

All APIs in Windows are not first party to .NET and even HTML5 apps on the platform. If that doesn't make you happy, then your criticism was in bad faith in the first place.


What I find funny is that both you and Microsoft execs don't seem to know much about developing software for Microsoft platforms. I develop Windows software for a living so you might want to consult me before providing shoddy defenses.


Look, it's great that you spend your day playing with DataGrids and WinForms, and its amusing that you're stuck in 2005, but overall, I don't really care and its not really relevant.

This is like the third or fourth time I've had to beat back your misinformation and frankly, extraordinary ignorance about .NET and Windows Development in general. How you keep your job with such a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is you do is beyond me.

This myopic obsession you have with legacy Windows is almost clinical, you need help.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment
by moondevil on Mon 25th Mar 2013 07:30 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

I think .NET vs WinRT is a bit a consequence of Vista's failure.

When .NET came out, the idea was to migrate everything to .NET, and C++ got a second class status.

There were two attempts to bring C++ developers to .NET world, first with Managed C++ and with .NET 2.0 C++/CLI.

Additionally, not all wannabe .NET developers, even today, are aware that you can compile to native code on installation time via NGEN.

Vista suffered a bit from the typical over engineering that is part of so many enterprise projects, which lead partly to its failure.

This allowed the Windows division, which isn't a big .NET fan, to make the Tools division go full circle back to native code.

This is why we have the C++ Renaissance, most of the new Windows APIs since Vista are COM based and not Win32, and finally WinRT offers a .NET like experience for native languages.

Even C++/CX is a set of C++ extensions, which although similar to C++/CLI, are used in native code.

While I don't like them, they are no different than C++ Builder's language extensions, or the ones almost every C or C++ compiler offers.

For those that are not aware, .NET applications are actually compiled to native code in Windows Phone 8, and according to some job offers on Microsoft, they might eventually integrate Visual C++ backend with native code backend for .NET.

Personally, I think the best way would be just to have a direct to native code compiler for .NET, or improve NGEN optimizations. But the political wars between Microsoft divisions have most likely lead to WinRT, which was in part the initial design for .NET, before they adopted the bytecode model.

This is nothing new, I have a few scars from political wars between software teams in Fortune 500 companies.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment
by ze_jerkface on Tue 26th Mar 2013 02:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

When WinRT implemented those same APIs in native code instead of managed, .NET developers didn't even notice.


.NET developers won't notice any changes in WinRT because they don't care about it. The economic case isn't there. Most .NET developers are not fanboys and will use what they are ordered to or what makes them the most money.

The APIs are the same, the concrete implementations differ.


That's bs, C# is supported but .NET is not directly accessible.

I agree, which is why its nice that the Windows Runtime reduces it by blurring the lines between native and managed code.


No one has asked for such lines to be blurred. Game developers have wanted a C++ layer but has more to do with compatibility than anything else. Microsoft could have provided that without killing Silverlight and creating yet another needless API for application development.


Look, it's great that you spend your day playing with DataGrids and WinForms, and its amusing that you're stuck in 2005, but overall, I don't really care and its not really relevant.


Again you reveal how distant you are from actual Windows development. Fortune 500 hundred companies 'play' with Winforms more than anything else. Microsoft has already FAILED to push WPF and partly due to ignoring criticisms. WinRT will fail even harder because it is another stupid plan from Sinofsky that isn't based in sound thinking. New corporate applications will be built on servers and not with another pointless API that Microsoft wants everyone to use. The corporate world was sick of this bullshit with WPF and we saw what happened to Silverlight, or perhaps you don't remember Microsoft pushing it as the next big thing?


This is like the third or fourth time I've had to beat back your misinformation and frankly, extraordinary ignorance about .NET and Windows Development in general.


I've been right about Windows 8 while you haven't and I'll be right about WinRT as well. I was also right about Sinofsky from day one while you defended his inane plans. I was also right about the stock dropping after the Windows 8 release. I was also right about holiday sales failing to boost Windows 8 sales. I was also right about Surface being a dud.

So go ahead and question my competence when I'm the one with the superior track record of predicting what happens to Microsoft's technologies. I beat all the top Wall St analysts who last year were bullish on MSFT since like you they bought into this stupid, stupid plan. Anyone who took my advice to short the stock at the peak is now sitting pretty.

Reply Parent Score: 2