Linked by Kyuss on Mon 13th May 2013 01:31 UTC
Microsoft "Most people understand that Windows is used by a variety of people who have a variety of needs, ranging from corporate server to workstation to POS terminals to home PC and beyond. Most people accept that whenever Microsoft updates Windows, it has to balance the competing requirements to find some kind of workable compromise. There is however another set of competing requirements that many do not really register, even those that call themselves power users or are IT admins. It is a conflict between developers/programmers and Microsoft itself."
Thread beginning with comment 561459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: As much as I hate it
by hhas on Mon 13th May 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "As much as I hate it"
hhas
Member since:
2006-11-28

The first step to pushing dev to the other direction for Microsoft was to kill VB6 when .NET was clearly not a drop-in replacement.


What do you mean by 'kill'? As I understand it, VB6 apps still work under Windows; they just don't have access to all the shiny geegaws that the modern APIs allow.

Then inconsistencies in their support of either the venerable (senile ?) win32 API or even .NET.


My impression was that this was largely a product of political infighting between the Windows and Office teams (C++/Win32 orthodoxy) and the Business team (C#/.Net heretics) while the MS leadership sat back instead of cracking heads together for the greater good. WinRT seems to be a negotiated settlement, presumably born of a seeping realization that if they don't stop fighting each other and start battling the competition then they'll all be pulling social security before too long.

The VS Express edition was probably a step in the right direction, but the lack of native dev tool for windows RT plus the (artificial) lock-in to Metro and the store was the last straw.


Obviously MS were trying get their Express users to bootstrap Metro development, but they very quickly removed the Metro-only restriction in response to negative feedback. Users don't like the idea of losing something, even when they weren't paying for it in the first place. (Indeed, the non-paying users may even be the noisiest.)

I suspect MS'd have far much better by offering prizes, kickbacks and other positive incentives to encouraging Metro development; carrots rather than sticks. Any legitimate technical gripes over Windows 8 have long since been swamped by sheer volume of PR ineptitude and good old public love for simplistic black-vs-white narratives that, internet-enabled, now turns heros to villains (or back again) faster'n you can say "Google Android".

Reply Parent Score: 3